My heart goes out to the family of Lee Rigby who was brutally murdered last Wednesday. For a brief moment, before this story was hijacked by Islamaphobic rhetoric, the media spotlight shone on the “Angels of mercy”. Armed only with compassion and the ability to listen, these women managed to stem a murderous rampage, preventing further carnage during the excruciating 20 minutes it took the police to appear.
The traditional masculine model of leadership which emphasises, confrontation rather than conciliation, and telling rather than listening, accounts for much of the mess we find ourselves in. If Tony Bliar had listened to the British public over Iraq, the world, I believe, would be a safer place. Instead, testosterone charged men played (and continue to play) toy soldiers with our lives and it is ordinary women and men left to pick up the pieces once the havoc is unleashed.
In the wake of 9/11 and later 7/11, I was disturbed by the media’s propensity to conflate Islam with terrorism. I was running a training course shortly after 7/11 when a participant arrived late. He had been jumped on by a gang of “skin heads” who shouted Islamaphobic obscenities while beating the crap out of him, ending with “Go home Paki”? He was a cockney atheist but he was flaunting a deep tan at the time, which, under the circumstances (media whipping up hatred of any one “foreign looking”), was foolhardy. Tanning booths in Dale Winton’s neighbourhood were on the brink of bankruptcy for a fortnight.
I wrote about the disturbing discourse in the media as it unfolded and started working with news editors behind the scenes. Rendered almost catatonic with anxiety at the potential fallout from the media’s response to the alleged Forest Gate plot, I wrote the following letter to a reputable newspaper;
“Your handling of the alleged plot was gratuitously sensationalist, misinformed, grossly irresponsible and, like most of the other mainstream media, completely out of sync with the public's take on events.
Blair and Bush have lost the plot, pursuing their deluded "war on terror" that effectively equates to an indefensible war on Muslims. They act in defiance of public outrage and as a consequence they are systematically destabilising the world and putting our lives in danger. At a time like this, the public expect the media to be asking questions about: the timing of the alleged plot [deflecting the government’s procrastination over Lebanon] and Blair/Bush's tendency to play the politics of fear card to win back support when faced with the back lash of a morally corrupt foreign policy, before naming and shaming innocent (until proven guilty) civilians and stoking an already volatile climate of Islamaphobia.
Your main story lacked basic journalistic integrity, such as widespread dispensing with the use of the word "alleged", presenting the story as fact, naming the suspects and dissecting their lives, the disproportionately large image of the model sister. Do you seriously believe your readers would be more impressed by salacious scare mongering and pictures of a pretty model than by the desire to see our government's actions scrutinised?
Sensational coverage, which amounts to trial by media of British Muslims, leads to a direct increase in faith hate crimes on the street. Everything from torching of mosques, beatings and rape, to murder. All I ask is that you are cognisant of the above and that you ask more discerning questions before blindly acting as the establishment's propaganda machine”.
Shortly afterwards the two men arrested were completely cleared, though their lives were irreparably marred. Seven years on, the malestream media remains overwhelmingly homogeneous with the same Islamaphobic overtones, inciting yet more hate crimes against Muslims. In the absence of any real connection with various communities, the police, politicians and the media resort to hackneyed, dangerous stereotypes.
Foreign policy that sanctions torture abroad will always come back to bite. There is no greater recruiting sergeant for terrorism than torturing innocent civilians. We know from history that if we oppress and deny people their right to self determination, abuse them and deprive them recourse to justice, they will fight back. Whilst the killing of Lee Rigby was barbarous and his killers must be held to account, spare a thought for all the thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, for example, who have seen loved ones slain but will never receive justice. Last week The High Court ruled that the task force responsible for investigating hundreds of allegations of abuse and murder of Iraqis by British troops was failing to meet the UK’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate “suspicious deaths involving the state”.
An ex soldier told me that he felt he was brainwashed by the army to do things he never thought possible to another human being. He said “they fill your head full of horror stories, lies, about what they [Iraqis] do to their children so that you see them as animals and treat them accordingly”. This man suffers Post Traumatic Stress and struggles with what he did on a daily basis. He and others like him have been let down by the war mongerers and their successors. It was reported in the news today that incapacity benefit is being unceremoniously withdrawn from many disabled veterans.
Austerity measures (a euphemism for stealing from the poor to give to the rich) seemed to escape media scrutiny in all this. Even before the recession, minority ethnic young men, such as the alleged Woolwich attackers, were more likely to be excluded from school and be over represented in prison, social and psychiatric services, and twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts. A recent report showed that, although this has been known for decades, nothing has been done to stem the crisis.
It’s an affront to a long suffering British public that the political elite defend bankers’ right to obscene bonuses (funded in part by shutting down youth centres and taking away incapacity benefit from the disabled soldiers) on the grounds that they take enormous risk. The fact that the risks are with other people’s money and the consequences are negligible to them is ignored. When you compare the risk those women who stepped into the breach in Woolwich took, it holds a mirror up to society. The image I see is twisted and ugly. They risked their lives for the greater good. In contrast, the reckless risk taking of the bankers has had crippling societal, as opposed to personal, consequences. They have left a trail of broken hearts and minds in their wake.
A generation of young people are faced with the prospect of long term unemployment, alienation and anger. Inequality and injustice on this scale is a recipe for social unrest. Terrorists are filling a position made vacant in the minds of some of our most disaffected young men by a society that will bail out miscreants in suits but starve our youth of investment, care and any hope for the future. If you have nothing, there’s nothing left to lose.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Friday, 17 May 2013
Child Sex Gangs Flourish in a Society That Sexualises Girls
In the wake of the Oxford child slavery scandal there has been lots of soul searching. We owe it to the victims to do more than that. We need to address the institutional and societal rot that allowed vulnerable children to be sexually exploited for eight years before anyone heard their cries for help.
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both white doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
With a background in child psychology I got a temporary job in a children’s home in Westminster. I was Cathy’s key worker. Whenever she failed to come back at night I would call the police. I was frequently accused of wasting their time. One officer berated that he could be stopping a real crime, like a burglary, instead of taking down details of a “delinquent girl”. They knew about the grooming, and the history of abuse, yet they didn’t see that as a crime. It was as if the abuse of a girl, especially one in a children’s home, was inevitable and acceptable even.
Last year, Ryan Coleman-Farrow, former Met detective Constable was jailed for sabotaging numerous rape cases. Given the constant failings of the police to take rape and violence against girls and women seriously, I would argue the case for a McPherson type enquiry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm) into institutional misogyny. In the same way that it was found that an overwhelmingly white police service contributed to institutional racism, it’s clear that the male dominated macho police culture is failing women and girls.
It’s not like this is new. The police have got form ignoring vulnerable girls in Rochdale, Derby and Telford, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, had nine allegations of sexual assault made against him, including underage sex with girls. Had the police listened to any of these girls the murders of Holly and Jessica could have been prevented. One of the Rochdale victims told the BBC that after reporting her abuse to social services and police, they effectively told her parents she was a prostitute and that her sexual exploitation was a “lifestyle choice”. She was 15.
A few years ago judge Julian Hall accused a 10 year old rape victim of “dressing provocatively” and “looking 16”, implying she was asking for it. He previously allowed a paedophile to walk free after sexually assaulting a 7 year old suggesting he buy her a bike “to cheer her up”. Early this year judge Niclas Parry, whilst sentencing a man for rape, scolded his teenage victim for “letting herself down” because she had been drinking that evening. Blaming the victim it seems is preferable to confronting societal attitudes to women, masculinity, abuse and power.
The police, social services and the judiciary involved in dealing with abused girls operate within a culture where the sexualisation of females is so pervasive, we take it for granted. Yet, it propagates unconscious stereotypes and influences policy and decisions. Be it playboy duvets, “porn star” shorts, lap dancing kits, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting underage sex as normal. One of the Oxford victims said she thought what was happening to her must be normal. Portraying women and girls as sex objects perpetuates degradation. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. Increasingly women, and girls, are perceived as commodities. To be bought and sold. It’s within this cultural context that vulnerable girls were sold as sex slaves in Oxford.
There is a known link between sexual imagery and violence towards women. The emergence of the Lad mags has contributed to the desensitisation of men to the dehumanisation of women. Nuts ran a competition wherein “girlfriends” were asked to send in pictures of their breasts, which were then published with their heads cut off. The student website Unilad was reported as having the following posting: “85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems fairly good odds”. No doubt paedophiles and sexual predators throughout Britain will be thinking the same. The message is clear. Sexual assault against women and children is acceptable in our society. Do your worst, we don’t really care.
What about social services? Most of the staff at the home that I worked in were not qualified. Yet, we trust them with one of society’s most precious resources, our children. The social worker I dealt with, like so many, was overworked and under resourced. Burnout rate is high and the first thing to go is compassion. Thus, contact with “clients” is infrequent and brief so as to minimise empathy. Yet, without empathy, what use can any of us be to vulnerable children? Children’s services have always been under resourced but if the sex gang scandals teach us anything, it is that we need to invest in our children and, as a bare minimum, keep them safe. We need people who have the time to listen and to care. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties where adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both white doctors and “respectable” people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised.
With a background in child psychology I got a temporary job in a children’s home in Westminster. I was Cathy’s key worker. Whenever she failed to come back at night I would call the police. I was frequently accused of wasting their time. One officer berated that he could be stopping a real crime, like a burglary, instead of taking down details of a “delinquent girl”. They knew about the grooming, and the history of abuse, yet they didn’t see that as a crime. It was as if the abuse of a girl, especially one in a children’s home, was inevitable and acceptable even.
Last year, Ryan Coleman-Farrow, former Met detective Constable was jailed for sabotaging numerous rape cases. Given the constant failings of the police to take rape and violence against girls and women seriously, I would argue the case for a McPherson type enquiry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm) into institutional misogyny. In the same way that it was found that an overwhelmingly white police service contributed to institutional racism, it’s clear that the male dominated macho police culture is failing women and girls.
It’s not like this is new. The police have got form ignoring vulnerable girls in Rochdale, Derby and Telford, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, had nine allegations of sexual assault made against him, including underage sex with girls. Had the police listened to any of these girls the murders of Holly and Jessica could have been prevented. One of the Rochdale victims told the BBC that after reporting her abuse to social services and police, they effectively told her parents she was a prostitute and that her sexual exploitation was a “lifestyle choice”. She was 15.
A few years ago judge Julian Hall accused a 10 year old rape victim of “dressing provocatively” and “looking 16”, implying she was asking for it. He previously allowed a paedophile to walk free after sexually assaulting a 7 year old suggesting he buy her a bike “to cheer her up”. Early this year judge Niclas Parry, whilst sentencing a man for rape, scolded his teenage victim for “letting herself down” because she had been drinking that evening. Blaming the victim it seems is preferable to confronting societal attitudes to women, masculinity, abuse and power.
The police, social services and the judiciary involved in dealing with abused girls operate within a culture where the sexualisation of females is so pervasive, we take it for granted. Yet, it propagates unconscious stereotypes and influences policy and decisions. Be it playboy duvets, “porn star” shorts, lap dancing kits, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting underage sex as normal. One of the Oxford victims said she thought what was happening to her must be normal. Portraying women and girls as sex objects perpetuates degradation. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. Increasingly women, and girls, are perceived as commodities. To be bought and sold. It’s within this cultural context that vulnerable girls were sold as sex slaves in Oxford.
There is a known link between sexual imagery and violence towards women. The emergence of the Lad mags has contributed to the desensitisation of men to the dehumanisation of women. Nuts ran a competition wherein “girlfriends” were asked to send in pictures of their breasts, which were then published with their heads cut off. The student website Unilad was reported as having the following posting: “85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems fairly good odds”. No doubt paedophiles and sexual predators throughout Britain will be thinking the same. The message is clear. Sexual assault against women and children is acceptable in our society. Do your worst, we don’t really care.
What about social services? Most of the staff at the home that I worked in were not qualified. Yet, we trust them with one of society’s most precious resources, our children. The social worker I dealt with, like so many, was overworked and under resourced. Burnout rate is high and the first thing to go is compassion. Thus, contact with “clients” is infrequent and brief so as to minimise empathy. Yet, without empathy, what use can any of us be to vulnerable children? Children’s services have always been under resourced but if the sex gang scandals teach us anything, it is that we need to invest in our children and, as a bare minimum, keep them safe. We need people who have the time to listen and to care. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
Friday, 10 May 2013
Mary McCarthy, R.I.P
“The lengths some people will go to, to flog a book”. Those were my parting words to Mary McCarthy, the accomplished author, mother and teacher, who was buried on Tuesday. When Mary was in the early stages of writing her last book, "After the Rain", she said it was difficult motivating herself to write a novel that might never get published. “Let’s face it Tess, there’s never going to be a bidding war over a book about terminal cancer”.
In the throes of grief at the loss of a parent to cancer myself at the time, I was indignant. Self help books pontificating about how to “navigate” your way through the stages of grief, without harming yourself or others, weren’t working for me. Admittedly, I had been stuck in the anger stage for longer than was strictly healthy. My wrath manifested itself primarily, though not exclusively, in pram rage. The local A&E was inundated with Bugaboo related injuries (severed limbs and such like) until I finally moved onto the next stage which, in my case, involved revisiting denial. Injuries continued to rise exponentially in my neighbourhood, the difference being I was unaware that it was me inflicting them. I yearned for someone, like Emer in "After the Rain", to hold my hand through the ravages of loss. I wanted to be cajoled by fiction not confronted by facts.
That Mary would finish her book was never in doubt. She was driven by truth, not market forces. Its publication, coinciding with her diagnosis of terminal cancer was a cruel twist of fate. One of Mary’s gifts as a writer was her ability to take the reader with her. Her style is unpretentious, her language accessible. Like Mary herself, there’s nothing show offy about her writing. It’s always about the story, rather than the storyteller. When I read Mary’s books, I can hear her voice. Her humility, honesty and warmth. A woman comfortable in her own skin, with nothing to prove to anyone.
Before becoming a successful author, Mary McCarthy was my English teacher. For five years of my life, her laconic, anarchic, dark humour illuminated my days. The drudgery of going to a convent school, where conformity and deference were the order of the day, was made tolerable by Miss McCarthy’s English class. Although I was never a star pupil (I used to think syntax was something to be purchased in the toiletries section of Superquinn), Mary McCarthy made me believe I could do something special with words (the fact that I haven’t as yet is no reflection on Mary).
I remember being terrified one day, waiting for essays to be returned. I found the title Mary set uninspiring so, out of sheer boredom, I turned it into an acronym and based my essay on the words created from that instead. I hoped the fact that it was funny might save me from the rolled eyes treatment but resigned myself to being failed. I broke the rules, I knew the score. When she made me stand up and read my essay out to the class, my knees were shaking. Afterwards she furrowed her brows and berated, "Your grammar is shocking, the spelling's shoddy. Otherwise, it's absolutely brilliant!" Those words formed an indelible shield behind which I gradually grew as a writer. No-one had ever told me I was brilliant at anything before. It was a defining, life changing moment for a girl from the "wrong" side of The Liffey.
I bumped into Mary in one of Dublin’s oldest watering holes, Doheny & Nesbitts about 10 years after leaving school. She looked straight at me (well as straight as you can when you’re half cut) and said my name, followed by the adjective she filed next to it: “Cheeky!” When we met again eight years ago, we hit it off and stayed in touch ever since. It’s during that time I realised how many lives Mary had touched. Thousands of her ex pupils have sought her out over the years. She talked about them as if they were her children. She was immensely proud of us all. Mary McCarthy was a gifted teacher. She instilled confidence and inspired rebelliousness in thought and spirit. In the words of her idol, George Harrison, “Everything you think is possible, if you believe”. R.I.P Mary, that is, Remember In Pride, the legacy you left behind.
Friday, 3 May 2013
Sweatshops Exist Because We Allow Them to
The collapse of the Dhaka building last week, killing at over 1,000 people, was a catastrophe waiting to happen. Public fury was directed at Primark, and rightly so, but few of our high street brands can claim the moral high ground. In fact, none of us can.
How many of us know where the products we use on a daily basis come from, or whether they’re ethically produced? Do we know if the corporation that produces them is a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which, in theory, provides protection for overseas workers? (I say, “in theory”, because Primark is an ETI member, which counted for nothing in Dhaka). This highlights the need, not just for the policies, but to ensure they’re being implemented and monitored.
The existence of sweatshops and the proclivity of corporations to put profits before the interests of people and the planet is not new. Last month, the retailer Zara was accused of using sweatshops to produce their garments in Argentina. An investigation by The Argentinian Heath and Safety Association allegedly found evidence of child exploitation and holding children against their will.
A few years ago Top Shop was accused of producing garments made in sweat shops and of failing to protect vulnerable overseas employees. Yet, Sir Philip Green continues to resist calls to sign up to the ETI (unless he’s done so without my knowledge, in which case I would of course proffer a full apology). There’s also that nasty business of Sir Green’s alleged tax avoidance shenanigans. The more said about that the better, but that’s a whole other posting.
Despite PepsiCo producing, what has been described as misogynistic and, “arguably the most racist commercial in history” this week, profits are unlikely to take much of a hit. Ad agencies commonly employ foetuses (mostly male) in order to stay “on trend” and be down with the yoof. Yet, this ad is a throw back to the 50’s. An era wherein glorifying violence against women and employing cringeworthy racist stereotyping was deemed a competitive sport. That’s the problem with people who aren’t even born yet making ad campaigns. They inhabit an impenetrable bubble and think Mad Men is aspirational.
Ford’s recent ad in India, depicting scantily clad women gagged and tied in the boot of a car, is another example of male foetal disconnect with a world where women actually exist. Sometimes even fully clothed and driving a car, but not a Ford obviously. If Ford wanted women to buy their cars, they’d hardly portray them in such a demeaning, abusive manner now would they?
The pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (producers of Lucozade, Ribena, Macleans and, according to the BBC’s Panorama, dodgy trial data), has been accused of using black orphans in New York as guinea pigs for testing Aids drugs. The aforementioned Panorama Programme also raised concerns about the drug Seroxat (used in the treatment of depression in children) being linked to aggression, suicide and dependency. GSK was allegedly aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes.
Workers in third world countries, where their rights are non existent and regulation negligible, are easy targets for unscrupulous multinationals. British American Tobacco and others are being sued in Nigeria over allegations that they targeted underage minors to increase smoking rates in the country. It’s alleged the companies sponsored pop concerts, sporting events and even gave away free cigarettes to entice minors into the habit. Smoking is said to be responsible for more deaths worldwide than HIV/Aids. With depleting sales in The West, children in third world countries make easy prey for global predators.
Another serial offender is Nestle, a company that courts bad publicity in the way Pete Doherty approaches personal hygiene – with reckless abandon. Unlike Doherty, Nestle has proven quite impervious to even the most scathing of criticism. It’s accused of persistently flouting international regulations by marketing baby formula in countries, such as Africa where, due to poor sanitation, bottle feeding is unsafe due to water quality. Nestle is also part of a cohort of chocolate producers who source much of their cocoa from the unregulated market of West Africa. Last year it was reported that an independent investigation by The Fair Labour Association found Nestle in breach of numerous child labour regulations.
Yet, we continue to line the pockets of morally bankrupt companies. It’s our insatiable, unquestioning hunger, be it for chocolate or being seen sporting the “right” brands, that fuels exploitation. In order to break the pervasive cycle of abuse we cannot remain oblivious, and/or indifferent, to the hidden human cost of our brands. If we want the blight of modern day slavery to stop, we have to pay a price.
Fairtrade products can provide an ethical alternative but they too have come in for legitimate criticism. For not doing more for the poorest of the poor, for example. Small farmers who don’t have the numbers required to form a co-operative (a condition of Fairtrade accreditation) lose out. It’s also alleged that only 5% of revenue made from Fairtrade products in the West comes back to the farmers. A fair question then is, why pay over the odds for a Fairtrade product when so little makes its way back to the producers?
Fairtrade is a noble principle but we must hold the brand accountable for its practice, in the same way we would the corporations. Whether it’s Make Poverty History (accused of sourcing wrist bands from sweatshops) or Fairtrade, we can’t be complacent. As long as we fill our baskets with tainted wares, corporations have no reason to change the way they operate.
How many of us know where the products we use on a daily basis come from, or whether they’re ethically produced? Do we know if the corporation that produces them is a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which, in theory, provides protection for overseas workers? (I say, “in theory”, because Primark is an ETI member, which counted for nothing in Dhaka). This highlights the need, not just for the policies, but to ensure they’re being implemented and monitored.
The existence of sweatshops and the proclivity of corporations to put profits before the interests of people and the planet is not new. Last month, the retailer Zara was accused of using sweatshops to produce their garments in Argentina. An investigation by The Argentinian Heath and Safety Association allegedly found evidence of child exploitation and holding children against their will.
A few years ago Top Shop was accused of producing garments made in sweat shops and of failing to protect vulnerable overseas employees. Yet, Sir Philip Green continues to resist calls to sign up to the ETI (unless he’s done so without my knowledge, in which case I would of course proffer a full apology). There’s also that nasty business of Sir Green’s alleged tax avoidance shenanigans. The more said about that the better, but that’s a whole other posting.
Despite PepsiCo producing, what has been described as misogynistic and, “arguably the most racist commercial in history” this week, profits are unlikely to take much of a hit. Ad agencies commonly employ foetuses (mostly male) in order to stay “on trend” and be down with the yoof. Yet, this ad is a throw back to the 50’s. An era wherein glorifying violence against women and employing cringeworthy racist stereotyping was deemed a competitive sport. That’s the problem with people who aren’t even born yet making ad campaigns. They inhabit an impenetrable bubble and think Mad Men is aspirational.
Ford’s recent ad in India, depicting scantily clad women gagged and tied in the boot of a car, is another example of male foetal disconnect with a world where women actually exist. Sometimes even fully clothed and driving a car, but not a Ford obviously. If Ford wanted women to buy their cars, they’d hardly portray them in such a demeaning, abusive manner now would they?
The pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (producers of Lucozade, Ribena, Macleans and, according to the BBC’s Panorama, dodgy trial data), has been accused of using black orphans in New York as guinea pigs for testing Aids drugs. The aforementioned Panorama Programme also raised concerns about the drug Seroxat (used in the treatment of depression in children) being linked to aggression, suicide and dependency. GSK was allegedly aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes.
Workers in third world countries, where their rights are non existent and regulation negligible, are easy targets for unscrupulous multinationals. British American Tobacco and others are being sued in Nigeria over allegations that they targeted underage minors to increase smoking rates in the country. It’s alleged the companies sponsored pop concerts, sporting events and even gave away free cigarettes to entice minors into the habit. Smoking is said to be responsible for more deaths worldwide than HIV/Aids. With depleting sales in The West, children in third world countries make easy prey for global predators.
Another serial offender is Nestle, a company that courts bad publicity in the way Pete Doherty approaches personal hygiene – with reckless abandon. Unlike Doherty, Nestle has proven quite impervious to even the most scathing of criticism. It’s accused of persistently flouting international regulations by marketing baby formula in countries, such as Africa where, due to poor sanitation, bottle feeding is unsafe due to water quality. Nestle is also part of a cohort of chocolate producers who source much of their cocoa from the unregulated market of West Africa. Last year it was reported that an independent investigation by The Fair Labour Association found Nestle in breach of numerous child labour regulations.
Yet, we continue to line the pockets of morally bankrupt companies. It’s our insatiable, unquestioning hunger, be it for chocolate or being seen sporting the “right” brands, that fuels exploitation. In order to break the pervasive cycle of abuse we cannot remain oblivious, and/or indifferent, to the hidden human cost of our brands. If we want the blight of modern day slavery to stop, we have to pay a price.
Fairtrade products can provide an ethical alternative but they too have come in for legitimate criticism. For not doing more for the poorest of the poor, for example. Small farmers who don’t have the numbers required to form a co-operative (a condition of Fairtrade accreditation) lose out. It’s also alleged that only 5% of revenue made from Fairtrade products in the West comes back to the farmers. A fair question then is, why pay over the odds for a Fairtrade product when so little makes its way back to the producers?
Fairtrade is a noble principle but we must hold the brand accountable for its practice, in the same way we would the corporations. Whether it’s Make Poverty History (accused of sourcing wrist bands from sweatshops) or Fairtrade, we can’t be complacent. As long as we fill our baskets with tainted wares, corporations have no reason to change the way they operate.
Friday, 5 April 2013
Boris Johnson, Midsomer Murders and Big Pants
In the run up to Boris Johnson’s first bid for London Mayor in 2007, I got a call. A menacing male voice told me to stay away from the town centre (part of Johnson’s Oxfordshire constituency) the next day, or else. At first I thought it was Brian True-May, (then producer of Midsomer Murders who was later sacked amid claims of alleged racism) who often cordoned off large swathes of the town when filming in the area. It struck me as wholly inefficient to make house to house phone calls when the town’s newsletter would have sufficed. Everyone reads that. How else would we keep abreast of the WI’s forthcoming events.
For anyone who’s interested, the next one is a "Make do & Mend" talk by lady Clamidia Bottomley de Nuit, who graduated from the prestigious, Blessed Heart of Lost Souls and Causes, Girls School (only up the road) in 1942, before going on to court and later marry Lord Bottomley de Nuit of Bognor, who, some years later was convicted for fraudulent misconduct, but claimed it was part of his job description (he was a banker). This proved to be an unwise defence as it landed him in the slammer, where he will remain at her majesty’s leisure or until he pops his clogs, which is thought to be imminent (he’s 101), thus assuaging his burden on the taxpayer. At the age of 90, the now bankrupt Mrs Bottomley, is having to revert to skills acquired during the war, i.e. making do and mending. A lot. Having invested her last £100 in a 5 minute consultation with a life coach, she decided to turn her USP into an income generator, which takes us back to the next WI talk. See Newsletter for details. I digress.
Back to my mystery caller. My suspicions were further alerted when the man [with the menacing voice] indicated that he knew where I lived, but not in a good way. At that point I thought I was actually in an episode of Midsomer Murders, and was about to become yet another unsuspecting victim in a flammable crimplene nightie.
As the chat/salvo of intimidation continued, it became apparent that a piece I wrote for The Independent, as well as local Press, had caused a bit of a stir. A local Tory councillor refused to remove golliwogs from his upholstery shop window in the town centre, despite receiving numerous complaints from locals who found the display offensive. In fairness, there was a BOGOF at the time: buy a golliwog and get your sofa reupholstered free, but they still didn’t shift. So, there they languished in the window, sticking 2 (metaphorical) fingers up at anyone foreign/foreign looking, lest they harbour any notions of being welcome in this town. He did eventually concede to pressure. Either that, or Brian True-May had a lot of sofas reupholstered that week.
The mystery caller didn’t say which, if any, organisation he represented and wouldn’t be pressed to divulge his name. I was pregnant at the time and, although my radius was limited to the availability of public toilets (bladder control was a challenge), I was determined to go into town as an act of defiance. If only to stock up on big pants. However, having had a miscarriage a year earlier, after receiving a death threat (in person) at a human rights demonstration I had organised, I knew I couldn’t go. My first duty was to protect my unborn child. Who knew pregnancy could be so career limiting…
Although there is no evidence to suggest Boris Johnson had any knowledge of the threatening call, nor am I suggesting any connection, the fact that he had a conversation (with Darius Guppy), about roughing up a journalist renders him unfit, in my view, for public office. Eddie Mair did a sterling job exposing Johnson for “the nasty piece of work” that I also think he is. But why has the media protected him for so long?
Deference has no place in good journalism (unless you’re interviewing Tony Benn, Nelson Mandela or Paloma Faith). Integrity and pursuit of truth should be at the heart of what we do. It involves forensic research and the ability, and willingness, to ask the tough questions. People in power should never be given a free ride. They should always be sitting on the edge of their seats. Buttocks shifting from one to the other, knowing a journalist worth their salt will hold them to account. It wasn’t just the Financial Services Authority that was asleep at the wheel in the lead up to the greatest economic crash of our time, it was also the media. If Leveson bequeaths any legacy, it should be that anyone with a penchant for sycophancy is better suited to a career in sales, or as PA to Simon Cowell. Journalists should not have to contend with death threats, but at least you know you’re doing your job right when they outweigh dinner invitations to Chequers.
For anyone who’s interested, the next one is a "Make do & Mend" talk by lady Clamidia Bottomley de Nuit, who graduated from the prestigious, Blessed Heart of Lost Souls and Causes, Girls School (only up the road) in 1942, before going on to court and later marry Lord Bottomley de Nuit of Bognor, who, some years later was convicted for fraudulent misconduct, but claimed it was part of his job description (he was a banker). This proved to be an unwise defence as it landed him in the slammer, where he will remain at her majesty’s leisure or until he pops his clogs, which is thought to be imminent (he’s 101), thus assuaging his burden on the taxpayer. At the age of 90, the now bankrupt Mrs Bottomley, is having to revert to skills acquired during the war, i.e. making do and mending. A lot. Having invested her last £100 in a 5 minute consultation with a life coach, she decided to turn her USP into an income generator, which takes us back to the next WI talk. See Newsletter for details. I digress.
Back to my mystery caller. My suspicions were further alerted when the man [with the menacing voice] indicated that he knew where I lived, but not in a good way. At that point I thought I was actually in an episode of Midsomer Murders, and was about to become yet another unsuspecting victim in a flammable crimplene nightie.
As the chat/salvo of intimidation continued, it became apparent that a piece I wrote for The Independent, as well as local Press, had caused a bit of a stir. A local Tory councillor refused to remove golliwogs from his upholstery shop window in the town centre, despite receiving numerous complaints from locals who found the display offensive. In fairness, there was a BOGOF at the time: buy a golliwog and get your sofa reupholstered free, but they still didn’t shift. So, there they languished in the window, sticking 2 (metaphorical) fingers up at anyone foreign/foreign looking, lest they harbour any notions of being welcome in this town. He did eventually concede to pressure. Either that, or Brian True-May had a lot of sofas reupholstered that week.
The mystery caller didn’t say which, if any, organisation he represented and wouldn’t be pressed to divulge his name. I was pregnant at the time and, although my radius was limited to the availability of public toilets (bladder control was a challenge), I was determined to go into town as an act of defiance. If only to stock up on big pants. However, having had a miscarriage a year earlier, after receiving a death threat (in person) at a human rights demonstration I had organised, I knew I couldn’t go. My first duty was to protect my unborn child. Who knew pregnancy could be so career limiting…
Although there is no evidence to suggest Boris Johnson had any knowledge of the threatening call, nor am I suggesting any connection, the fact that he had a conversation (with Darius Guppy), about roughing up a journalist renders him unfit, in my view, for public office. Eddie Mair did a sterling job exposing Johnson for “the nasty piece of work” that I also think he is. But why has the media protected him for so long?
Deference has no place in good journalism (unless you’re interviewing Tony Benn, Nelson Mandela or Paloma Faith). Integrity and pursuit of truth should be at the heart of what we do. It involves forensic research and the ability, and willingness, to ask the tough questions. People in power should never be given a free ride. They should always be sitting on the edge of their seats. Buttocks shifting from one to the other, knowing a journalist worth their salt will hold them to account. It wasn’t just the Financial Services Authority that was asleep at the wheel in the lead up to the greatest economic crash of our time, it was also the media. If Leveson bequeaths any legacy, it should be that anyone with a penchant for sycophancy is better suited to a career in sales, or as PA to Simon Cowell. Journalists should not have to contend with death threats, but at least you know you’re doing your job right when they outweigh dinner invitations to Chequers.
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
I'm sure Andrew Mitchell has some redeeming features but they're not obvious
What astonishes me about Andrew Mitchell, is not whether he said what he allegedly said, but that he has managed to fly under the radar until now. My first impressions of Mitchell, when he was Shadow International Development Secretary, were not good. He kept me waiting for ten minutes then when I was admitted to his inner chamber he proceeded to sign documents, gesturing with his hand impatiently for me to speak. Apart from his incredible rudeness, I was struck by how grey he looked. His hair, his pin striped suit, his pallor. All that was missing was the bowler hat. When I didn’t speak, he finally looked up and acknowledged me, albeit to say he could sign documents and listen at the same time. I mustered up my best Ann Widdecombe voice (difficult with an Irish accent) and said I had cancelled two client appointments and trekked half way across London for a ten minute audience with him. In return, I insisted on his undivided attention.
I did get his attention and went on to work constructively with him to raise the profile of the Darfur genocide. There were occasions early on when I had to remind him of his place, that is, as a public servant. There was an initial scrutiny of my credentials, the membership numbers for the organisation I represented, a general, “What’s in this for me”. I told him that his job description required him to hold the government to account on Darfur, irrespective of whether it put him in line for a Nobel peace prize, though I did flag that as a distinct possibility.
It was precisely because there was something in it for him, I believe, that Mitchell engaged with me. I offered to write an article on his behalf, as long as he promised not to water it down. I wanted to raise the profile of Darfur, he wanted to raise his own. It was a quid pro quo. I sent a piece to him for his approval. He returned a sanitized version, with anodyne language and dodgy grammar. I said something along the lines of “It’s a genocide. You either come out, all guns blazing, or move to the Department for Rural Affairs, where fence hogging is actively encouraged”.
Shortly afterwards, the campaign for Darfur took on a huge momentum. There were marches in cities around the world, with celebrities such as Thandie Newton fronting the campaign. The media was seduced. I got a call from a TV news editor wanting one of the celebs to do a live interview. They were unavailable on the grounds that they didn’t actually know enough about the subject beyond the initial sound bite. I said I could get Andrew Mitchell at short notice but no-one was interested.
Andrew Mitchell personifies all that is wrong, in my view, with the Tory party and politics generally. Career, rather than conviction politicians, whose primary goal it seems, is self aggrandizement. Power is deemed a birth right, a commodity to be bought by the highest bidder, rather than earned. The real scandal is that a man so apparently bereft of interpersonal skills, passion (tantrums don't count) and talent could make it into the cabinet, never mind getting promoted to chief whip.
He’s not alone. I fear that David Cameron’s entire government is founded, not on meritocracy, but mediocrity. It’s an elite club, criteria for membership involves being the right gender, class and colour. Homogeneity on this scale leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. As long as this government is dominated by the bowler hat brigade, it is destined to be plagued by indecision and paralyzed by lack of vision.
I did get his attention and went on to work constructively with him to raise the profile of the Darfur genocide. There were occasions early on when I had to remind him of his place, that is, as a public servant. There was an initial scrutiny of my credentials, the membership numbers for the organisation I represented, a general, “What’s in this for me”. I told him that his job description required him to hold the government to account on Darfur, irrespective of whether it put him in line for a Nobel peace prize, though I did flag that as a distinct possibility.
It was precisely because there was something in it for him, I believe, that Mitchell engaged with me. I offered to write an article on his behalf, as long as he promised not to water it down. I wanted to raise the profile of Darfur, he wanted to raise his own. It was a quid pro quo. I sent a piece to him for his approval. He returned a sanitized version, with anodyne language and dodgy grammar. I said something along the lines of “It’s a genocide. You either come out, all guns blazing, or move to the Department for Rural Affairs, where fence hogging is actively encouraged”.
Shortly afterwards, the campaign for Darfur took on a huge momentum. There were marches in cities around the world, with celebrities such as Thandie Newton fronting the campaign. The media was seduced. I got a call from a TV news editor wanting one of the celebs to do a live interview. They were unavailable on the grounds that they didn’t actually know enough about the subject beyond the initial sound bite. I said I could get Andrew Mitchell at short notice but no-one was interested.
Andrew Mitchell personifies all that is wrong, in my view, with the Tory party and politics generally. Career, rather than conviction politicians, whose primary goal it seems, is self aggrandizement. Power is deemed a birth right, a commodity to be bought by the highest bidder, rather than earned. The real scandal is that a man so apparently bereft of interpersonal skills, passion (tantrums don't count) and talent could make it into the cabinet, never mind getting promoted to chief whip.
He’s not alone. I fear that David Cameron’s entire government is founded, not on meritocracy, but mediocrity. It’s an elite club, criteria for membership involves being the right gender, class and colour. Homogeneity on this scale leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. As long as this government is dominated by the bowler hat brigade, it is destined to be plagued by indecision and paralyzed by lack of vision.
Discrimination is at the Heart of Dale farm Evictions (October 2011)
I got an email this week from a builder blaming travellers for a late quote. The BT lines in his village were down, “Probably gypsies stealing the copper (ha ha!)”. When I saw him I asked if he knew any travellers. He didn’t. I asked if he’d ever met one, he hadn’t, but he was angry about the Dale Farm “squatters”. His reaction is not untypical. Most of us are struggling to know how to relate to a community for whom we have no frame of reference. In the absence of any real knowledge of travellers there’s a tendency to descend into stereotypes.
What’s particularly disturbing is the belief that it’s socially acceptable to overtly demean travellers. Vitriolic reader’s rants betray an underbelly of prejudice that is deemed appropriate to voice. In response to an article expressing fears that the eviction (scheduled for today) could have serious health implications for some travellers a reader opined, “If it was fatal it would solve the problem. Might save some money too”. Another proposed to “send them all back to Ireland”. Such unadulterated hatred would not be tolerated if targeted at any other ethnic group in Britain.
I was confronted with my own prejudices when I embarked on my career as a do-gooder at the age of 15. The nuns recruited me as a volunteer to teach literacy to some travelling children after school. They lived in a campsite on the north side of Dublin. Josephine was the same age as me and I was assigned to teach her on a one to one. She had a face more animated than a Disney cartoon. I wasn’t told beforehand but learned later that she had “broken” my predecessors. She refused to sit still for five minutes (sister Concepta diagnosed it as attention deficit disorder) and took pleasure goading me about my green uniform. Such was the abuse that travellers suffered (and still do) at the hands of settled people, that her life was necessarily insular. The taunting and bullying made mainstream schooling impossible for travelling children.
It was only when I relinquished the notion that Josephine was the only one with something to learn that we became friends. She taught me to approach people with an open mind. That because most of us live our life a certain way, doesn’t make that the only, or indeed the right way. When Josephine first invited me for tea I was terrified. I couldn’t tell my parents. Announcing my imminent elopement with Ian Paisley would have been more preferable than, “I’m just off to a traveller’s campsite. I’ll be back in time for mass”. My head was full of stories about “thieving drunken tinkers”. What I found couldn’t have been further from the myth. Josephine lived in a caravan with her parents and four siblings. Although her grandmother was staying at the time, she moved between her children’s families. They took turns looking after her and in return she imparted knowledge and love of her travelling heritage through story telling. When I arrived she had just started a story about her childhood. It lasted thirty minutes and all five children were gripped for the duration, as was I.
It occurred to me that it wasn’t these children’s attention spans that were lacking but the humanity of a society that made no attempt to understand them. A few years ago, whilst working with the police on stereotyping, I challenged an officer who referred to travellers as “pikeys”. He defended his prejudice as being acceptable on the grounds that they are “all thieving”. Fortunately, one of his colleagues pointed out that there was no evidence to support his claim. In fact the opposite was true. Our ability to dehumanise those that are different to us is one of the uglier aspects of human nature.
Almost every article I’ve read refers to Dale Farm as an illegal settlement. What is rarely explained is that the travellers legally bought the land, which was nothing more than a scrap yard at the time. They argue that it was only after they bought it that the council altered the status to greenbelt as justification for refusing subsequent planning permission. This would account for why some of the earlier settlers did get planning permission. If land had already been designated greenbelt at the time, as Basildon Council maintains, why did they sell it to travellers? What did they think they were going to do with it. Play croquet?
Having refused the travellers planning permission, the pragmatic solution would have been for the council to find a culturally appropriate alternative. One that does not involve separating the families. This is not peripheral but central to the travelling community’s continued existence. A fact that was recognised by the UN when it said the eviction should be halted until such an alternative was found. Dispersing and dismantling the travelling community is like severing limbs and arteries. One part cannot function without the whole. But Basildon Council has refused to budge, despite allegations that it intends to allow developers to build on greenbelt land elsewhere. Demanding that travellers (the clue is in the name) live in council housing is to deny their culture and their dignity. It’s asking them to become one of “us” and that’s unacceptable.
I’m not quite sure what David Cameron means by “the big society” (answers on a postcard please) but if it’s about getting involved in the community and shifting dependence away from the state then there’s a living example of it in Dale Farm. The travelling community don’t look to the state to provide child care or to care for their elderly. They don’t (currently) place a burden on council housing. No-one in Josephine’s family claimed benefits and they would rather wear rags than accept charity. They didn’t want anything from anyone, except to be accepted for who they were.
Apart from the moral case, evicting travellers from their homes makes no business sense. The cost of the proposed eviction alone is estimated at £18 million. When the costs of re housing each of these families are considered, the bill to the taxpayer will be astronomical. For the travellers this fight is more about survival than land. It’s a test case. If they go the travellers believe the 3,600 other “illegal” sites across the country will also be wiped out and with them their race. So when they say they’ll fight to the death today, they probably mean it. The politics of pragmatism may yet prevail over that of prejudice but time is running out for the good people of Dale Farm.
What’s particularly disturbing is the belief that it’s socially acceptable to overtly demean travellers. Vitriolic reader’s rants betray an underbelly of prejudice that is deemed appropriate to voice. In response to an article expressing fears that the eviction (scheduled for today) could have serious health implications for some travellers a reader opined, “If it was fatal it would solve the problem. Might save some money too”. Another proposed to “send them all back to Ireland”. Such unadulterated hatred would not be tolerated if targeted at any other ethnic group in Britain.
I was confronted with my own prejudices when I embarked on my career as a do-gooder at the age of 15. The nuns recruited me as a volunteer to teach literacy to some travelling children after school. They lived in a campsite on the north side of Dublin. Josephine was the same age as me and I was assigned to teach her on a one to one. She had a face more animated than a Disney cartoon. I wasn’t told beforehand but learned later that she had “broken” my predecessors. She refused to sit still for five minutes (sister Concepta diagnosed it as attention deficit disorder) and took pleasure goading me about my green uniform. Such was the abuse that travellers suffered (and still do) at the hands of settled people, that her life was necessarily insular. The taunting and bullying made mainstream schooling impossible for travelling children.
It was only when I relinquished the notion that Josephine was the only one with something to learn that we became friends. She taught me to approach people with an open mind. That because most of us live our life a certain way, doesn’t make that the only, or indeed the right way. When Josephine first invited me for tea I was terrified. I couldn’t tell my parents. Announcing my imminent elopement with Ian Paisley would have been more preferable than, “I’m just off to a traveller’s campsite. I’ll be back in time for mass”. My head was full of stories about “thieving drunken tinkers”. What I found couldn’t have been further from the myth. Josephine lived in a caravan with her parents and four siblings. Although her grandmother was staying at the time, she moved between her children’s families. They took turns looking after her and in return she imparted knowledge and love of her travelling heritage through story telling. When I arrived she had just started a story about her childhood. It lasted thirty minutes and all five children were gripped for the duration, as was I.
It occurred to me that it wasn’t these children’s attention spans that were lacking but the humanity of a society that made no attempt to understand them. A few years ago, whilst working with the police on stereotyping, I challenged an officer who referred to travellers as “pikeys”. He defended his prejudice as being acceptable on the grounds that they are “all thieving”. Fortunately, one of his colleagues pointed out that there was no evidence to support his claim. In fact the opposite was true. Our ability to dehumanise those that are different to us is one of the uglier aspects of human nature.
Almost every article I’ve read refers to Dale Farm as an illegal settlement. What is rarely explained is that the travellers legally bought the land, which was nothing more than a scrap yard at the time. They argue that it was only after they bought it that the council altered the status to greenbelt as justification for refusing subsequent planning permission. This would account for why some of the earlier settlers did get planning permission. If land had already been designated greenbelt at the time, as Basildon Council maintains, why did they sell it to travellers? What did they think they were going to do with it. Play croquet?
Having refused the travellers planning permission, the pragmatic solution would have been for the council to find a culturally appropriate alternative. One that does not involve separating the families. This is not peripheral but central to the travelling community’s continued existence. A fact that was recognised by the UN when it said the eviction should be halted until such an alternative was found. Dispersing and dismantling the travelling community is like severing limbs and arteries. One part cannot function without the whole. But Basildon Council has refused to budge, despite allegations that it intends to allow developers to build on greenbelt land elsewhere. Demanding that travellers (the clue is in the name) live in council housing is to deny their culture and their dignity. It’s asking them to become one of “us” and that’s unacceptable.
I’m not quite sure what David Cameron means by “the big society” (answers on a postcard please) but if it’s about getting involved in the community and shifting dependence away from the state then there’s a living example of it in Dale Farm. The travelling community don’t look to the state to provide child care or to care for their elderly. They don’t (currently) place a burden on council housing. No-one in Josephine’s family claimed benefits and they would rather wear rags than accept charity. They didn’t want anything from anyone, except to be accepted for who they were.
Apart from the moral case, evicting travellers from their homes makes no business sense. The cost of the proposed eviction alone is estimated at £18 million. When the costs of re housing each of these families are considered, the bill to the taxpayer will be astronomical. For the travellers this fight is more about survival than land. It’s a test case. If they go the travellers believe the 3,600 other “illegal” sites across the country will also be wiped out and with them their race. So when they say they’ll fight to the death today, they probably mean it. The politics of pragmatism may yet prevail over that of prejudice but time is running out for the good people of Dale Farm.
When Different Rules Apply (November 2011)
When David Cameron talks about a culture of greed and the need to take individual responsibility he’s not referring to the miscreants in suits. The ones who stole our savings, pillaged our pension and left us on the brink of financial and moral bankruptcy. He’s referring to the hooded variety.
If different rules apply for the privileged, the principles of fairness and justice that underpin a democracy are severely undermined. A fair leader will be just as tough dealing with criminality in the police (none of whom were prosecuted for the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson), corporations and politics, as she is when dealing with youth rioters. It wasn’t hoodies or women that brought RBS to its knees, yet they’re the ones paying the highest price. Meanwhile, Fred Goodwin, who was amongst those irrefutably responsible, languishes in the Costa del Tax Haven at the taxpayers’ expense. Cameron promised to regulate bankers and stop obscene bonuses. Yet, despite being 83% owned by taxpayers, the new CEO of RBS awarded himself and his top staff a collective bonus of £950m in January. What merited that amount? Making a loss of £1.1bn. Those lucky enough to still have jobs are suffering pay freezes, irrespective of their performance. Different rules apply.
Criminality is wrong, whether you’re rich or poor and the punishment should fit the crime. David Cameron undermines his credibility as a bastion of morality when he issues a get out jail (or avoidance of consequences) card to those with power and wealth. At the same time that the Tories are talking about seizing the rioters’ benefits (why not just put them in orange jump suits and chains) George Osborne has alluded to scrapping the 50p tax rate. Cameron’s cowardice in dealing with the haves is matched only by his callous disregard for the have nots. He describes the rioters, many of whom were children, as sick. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
When I worked with disturbed children, often in care, it was crucial to understand the whole family dynamic. Children don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re products of their environment and as such often become symptomatic of a broader dysfunction. Most of the families were in the poverty trap (generational unemployment, poor education, mental illness) and were struggling to cope. With early intervention many of these families could have been salvaged. If we invested a fraction as much in failing families as we do in failing banks, society as a whole would benefit.
My best friend refused to feign Catholicism (despite having red hair) in order to get her child into a “good” neighbouring school. Instead, she took responsibility to try to improve her child’s not so good school in Tottenham. She became a governor with the intention of attracting better teachers but they didn’t want to work in a “problem” school. There are certain things parents can do to take responsibility but some things are out of their control. David Cameron needs to recognize the government’s responsibility in removing structural barriers that serve to undermine individual responsibility and perpetuate inequality.
Mr. Cameron promised to form a family friendly government but, in practice, he has cut child benefit, tax credits, maternity support and child trust funds. It’s tantamount to robbing our children’s piggy banks to pay the debts of the bankers. Youth unemployment has soared and job centres, like the one in Tottenham where there has been a 75% cut to youth services, have been closed. Still, there’s all that traffic to play with. Meanwhile, in London 20% of the people own 60% of the income. Economic inequality leads to a sense of alienation, injustice and social instability.
The mantra “greed is good” has pervaded and damaged society. Rabid consumerism has forced families into debt so parents work ever longer hours to pay it off. Joel Bakan, the author of “Childhood Under Siege” describes the hostile takeover of childhood by corporations, resulting in narcissistic mini consumers and media addicts He accuses society of betrayal and failing to protect our children.
Also in the news last week, though blink and you’d miss it, there were predictions of a double dip recession. World leaders were accused of lacking in vision and purpose as stock markets plummeted. The governor of the bank of England predicted this in January. He warned that lessons had not been learned by the banks leaving us exposed to another recession. Einstein argued that problems cannot be solved by the people and thinking that created them.
Six years ago, I challenged an academic luminary at a leading business school for declaring that ethics had no place in business. He dismissed any suggestion that employees should be protected from discrimination by asserting “Capitalism is about survival of the fittest. The weak will fall by the way side and that’s how it should be”. He didn’t get that women and minorities sometimes fail, not because of inherent weaknesses on their part but because of a system that is skewed in favour of an elite few (positive discrimination in favour of men is not illegal).
Despite capitalism, in its current form, having failed spectacularly we continue to prop it up. Rather than look at new and more efficient paradigms to correct the system, we have left intact the culture (short termism, rewarding failure, excessive pay, tax havens), inept regulation and "talent" that facilitated its demise.
Fortunately, there is a solution. There’s a profusion of talented women out there with plenty of practice cleaning up after other people’s mess. They can’t do any worse. Unfortunately, precisely when we need women’s contribution the most, they’re being driven out of the workforce by prohibitive child care costs. Policies that undermine the family and discriminate against women go to the heart of the social unrest that led to the riots. Excluding women from positions of power is harmful to the economy and society. In the wake of Enron, the Higgs report found that a few men held multiple boardships and that they were being appointed by a tap on the shoulder rather than competing in a fair process. Isn’t that positive discrimination? Yes, but as long as the beneficiary is not female or black it’s perfectly acceptable. Different rules apply.
Homogeneity leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. The status quo cannot be an option if we are to prevent further crises. Now is the time to radically rethink how we structure our institutions, such as the family, work and politics. Let’s start by reframing the gender debate. It’s not about men versus women. It’s about balance of power and opportunity. Children, such as those seen rioting, need fathers as well as mothers and UK plc needs women as well as men at the helm.
If different rules apply for the privileged, the principles of fairness and justice that underpin a democracy are severely undermined. A fair leader will be just as tough dealing with criminality in the police (none of whom were prosecuted for the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson), corporations and politics, as she is when dealing with youth rioters. It wasn’t hoodies or women that brought RBS to its knees, yet they’re the ones paying the highest price. Meanwhile, Fred Goodwin, who was amongst those irrefutably responsible, languishes in the Costa del Tax Haven at the taxpayers’ expense. Cameron promised to regulate bankers and stop obscene bonuses. Yet, despite being 83% owned by taxpayers, the new CEO of RBS awarded himself and his top staff a collective bonus of £950m in January. What merited that amount? Making a loss of £1.1bn. Those lucky enough to still have jobs are suffering pay freezes, irrespective of their performance. Different rules apply.
Criminality is wrong, whether you’re rich or poor and the punishment should fit the crime. David Cameron undermines his credibility as a bastion of morality when he issues a get out jail (or avoidance of consequences) card to those with power and wealth. At the same time that the Tories are talking about seizing the rioters’ benefits (why not just put them in orange jump suits and chains) George Osborne has alluded to scrapping the 50p tax rate. Cameron’s cowardice in dealing with the haves is matched only by his callous disregard for the have nots. He describes the rioters, many of whom were children, as sick. In the words of Nelson Mandela, “There can be no keener revelation of society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
When I worked with disturbed children, often in care, it was crucial to understand the whole family dynamic. Children don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re products of their environment and as such often become symptomatic of a broader dysfunction. Most of the families were in the poverty trap (generational unemployment, poor education, mental illness) and were struggling to cope. With early intervention many of these families could have been salvaged. If we invested a fraction as much in failing families as we do in failing banks, society as a whole would benefit.
My best friend refused to feign Catholicism (despite having red hair) in order to get her child into a “good” neighbouring school. Instead, she took responsibility to try to improve her child’s not so good school in Tottenham. She became a governor with the intention of attracting better teachers but they didn’t want to work in a “problem” school. There are certain things parents can do to take responsibility but some things are out of their control. David Cameron needs to recognize the government’s responsibility in removing structural barriers that serve to undermine individual responsibility and perpetuate inequality.
Mr. Cameron promised to form a family friendly government but, in practice, he has cut child benefit, tax credits, maternity support and child trust funds. It’s tantamount to robbing our children’s piggy banks to pay the debts of the bankers. Youth unemployment has soared and job centres, like the one in Tottenham where there has been a 75% cut to youth services, have been closed. Still, there’s all that traffic to play with. Meanwhile, in London 20% of the people own 60% of the income. Economic inequality leads to a sense of alienation, injustice and social instability.
The mantra “greed is good” has pervaded and damaged society. Rabid consumerism has forced families into debt so parents work ever longer hours to pay it off. Joel Bakan, the author of “Childhood Under Siege” describes the hostile takeover of childhood by corporations, resulting in narcissistic mini consumers and media addicts He accuses society of betrayal and failing to protect our children.
Also in the news last week, though blink and you’d miss it, there were predictions of a double dip recession. World leaders were accused of lacking in vision and purpose as stock markets plummeted. The governor of the bank of England predicted this in January. He warned that lessons had not been learned by the banks leaving us exposed to another recession. Einstein argued that problems cannot be solved by the people and thinking that created them.
Six years ago, I challenged an academic luminary at a leading business school for declaring that ethics had no place in business. He dismissed any suggestion that employees should be protected from discrimination by asserting “Capitalism is about survival of the fittest. The weak will fall by the way side and that’s how it should be”. He didn’t get that women and minorities sometimes fail, not because of inherent weaknesses on their part but because of a system that is skewed in favour of an elite few (positive discrimination in favour of men is not illegal).
Despite capitalism, in its current form, having failed spectacularly we continue to prop it up. Rather than look at new and more efficient paradigms to correct the system, we have left intact the culture (short termism, rewarding failure, excessive pay, tax havens), inept regulation and "talent" that facilitated its demise.
Fortunately, there is a solution. There’s a profusion of talented women out there with plenty of practice cleaning up after other people’s mess. They can’t do any worse. Unfortunately, precisely when we need women’s contribution the most, they’re being driven out of the workforce by prohibitive child care costs. Policies that undermine the family and discriminate against women go to the heart of the social unrest that led to the riots. Excluding women from positions of power is harmful to the economy and society. In the wake of Enron, the Higgs report found that a few men held multiple boardships and that they were being appointed by a tap on the shoulder rather than competing in a fair process. Isn’t that positive discrimination? Yes, but as long as the beneficiary is not female or black it’s perfectly acceptable. Different rules apply.
Homogeneity leads to group think, which in turn leads to poor problem solving and bad decisions. The status quo cannot be an option if we are to prevent further crises. Now is the time to radically rethink how we structure our institutions, such as the family, work and politics. Let’s start by reframing the gender debate. It’s not about men versus women. It’s about balance of power and opportunity. Children, such as those seen rioting, need fathers as well as mothers and UK plc needs women as well as men at the helm.
Belle de Jour/Brooke Magnanti is a Turn Off. Fact (2010)
Spare me the hackneyed, hollow, "There’s still work to be done", headlines that surround International Women’s day. What about the other 364 days of relentless media stereotyping? There’s the nag (frigid feminists banging on about women’s rights), the hag (women too old to be on tele, i.e. over 40), the WaG (Coleen “the handbag” Rooney) and the reality show must have -"glamour models".
Dr Brooke Magnanti's life is currently being serialised in “Secret diary of a call girl”. Magnanti’s account of the happy, well adjusted hooker, as portrayed in the series, is as flawed as it is misogynistic. But, like Twiggy’s wrinkles and Kate Winslet’s curves, inconvenient truths are airbrushed out.
Recent research highlighted the “pornification” of society and that 60% of teenage girls aspire to be “glamour” (AKA soft porn) models, like Jordan, the woman who thinks Silicone Valley is the place to go for breast implants. The woman whose two year old daughter recently appeared “tarted up” on face book. Glamour models are ubiquitous. Women who dare to make a bid for power, using their minds rather than their bodies, however, are either invisible or pilloried by the press. The media’s handling of Brooke Magnanti “coming out” as Belle de Jour is just one example of how disconnected it is from women and feminism. From my own cursory research I encountered a lonely, insecure woman who saw prostitution as a kind of dating agency. A way to meet men and have an excuse to get dressed up on a Saturday night. “Belle de Jour” is an alter ego created, in my view, to escape the demons that possess Magnanti. Her marketing campaign hangs on us buying into a series of unconvincing myths, which have been perpetuated, not exposed, by the press.
Myth 1: Honesty: In her blog Magnanti recounts scenes of a waltonesque family life. She claimed, “My parents stayed married and I’m close to them both”. They’re not and she isn’t. When she “came out” as Belle she said of her father, “He’s a bit of a do gooder, he helps women”. It has since emerged in the press that he's actually a drug addict who has used over 150 prostitutes, some of whom he introduced to his daughter (as you do). A female relative is also a prostitute. Not quite the wholesome family scenario Magnanti invented.
Myth 2: Healthy sexuality: Magnanti said she watched porn as a teenager and had anal sex with a man twice her age at 16. The same time that she was grappling with the “disfigurement” of acne (ahead of a recent TV interview with Billie Piper Magnanti grudgingly divulged that teenage acne left her with facial scars). Far from being sexually empowered, it seems more plausible that a troubled, insecure Magnanti sought comfort and approval from an older man by offering him what she knew (from porn) would please him. Sex.
Her first “job” as a prostitute (according to her blog) involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay, having sex, sleeping there, then having had such a lovely time, she gives the client her direct number. Other incidents include a client urinating on her neck and having a chewed finger nail stuck up her vagina (you won’t find these unsavoury scenes in the secret diary series). Anyone who describes this as healthy sexuality or worse, empowerment, is deluded. It’s disturbing that the BBC’s This Week didn’t spot the tragic irony when they recently invited Magnanti to lecture teenagers on sex and self respect. In the Piper interview Magnanti gaily described being made to wear a pair of glasses so a client could come on her face. She was then ordered to wipe the sperm on the carpet and lick it up. Magnanti said she does what she’s told because it’s inappropriate “etiquette” to question clients. It was like listening to someone tell a story of excruciating abuse in a manner that made Lady Macbeth look like Morrissey on Prozac. The dissonance and psychotic disconnect between her light hearted banter and the actual humiliation she described made for cringe worthy viewing. Has she become so desensitised (from growing up on porn), so accustomed to being abused by men, that she can no longer recognise when she is being demeaned and humiliated? Or does she think being treated like a dog (literally) is OK as long as you get paid for it?
Magnanti suggests that women bereft of skills should be allowed to sell their bodies. The fact that 70% of prostitutes start as children and have suffered abuse seems insignificant to her. Dr Magnanti is currently working on child health. She might be interested in one of my previous cases. Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties. The adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors. Respectable people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised. She was bright, and beautiful. But she wasn’t “qualified,” or rather psychologically or physically capable, of doing anything (according to her pimp) except prostitution. It fed her habit, which numbed the pain.
There was no fairytale ending for Cathy. The best Dr Magnanti, a child health specialist, can do is tell Cathy, and girls like her, that the only thing they’re good for now is prostitution. Magnanti will know that Cathy’s scenario is more typical than Belle’s fictitious one. It’s not in her interests to dwell on the unpleasant reality of the sex industry. It would sully her brand. Magnanti is sanctimonious when talking about street walkers like Cathy. She places herself in a higher league. As if charging £200 makes the urine running down her neck Chanel instead of the £60 version of Eau de toilette. Women of her class should be allowed to dip in and out of prostitution, depending on the need for shoes, but street walkers should stick with it. It’s all they’re good at, or for.
Myth 3: Feminism: Setting aside the aforementioned acts of degradation, Magnanti claims she’s a feminist. Her lack of female friends makes that declaration tenuous at best. “The surest way to tell the prostitute walking into a hotel at Heathrow is to look for the lady in the designer suit. Fact”. On behalf of all the women harassed by sleazy men in flammable shirts, we thank you Dr Magnanti. Boob tube or business suit, unaccompanied women are always fair game. She does have concerns about rape though. We should stop banging on about it. Yes, women get raped but… “If being a man was easy, hookers wouldn’t exist. Fact”.
Myth 4: Passion: Magnanti claims to like sex and boasts about being good at it. If she likes it so much why fake orgasms? and if faking orgasms is criteria for being good at sex then we can all do that (women obviously). If not enjoying being urinated on and other acts of degradation means I’m frigid (as Magnanti implies), I’m guilty as charged. Sex without intimacy is like Glastonbury without mud, an anticlimax. Prostitution has nothing to do with passion. See Magnanti’s blog. The only passion I discerned was in response to her critics. Reacting to protests against her winning a Guardian blog competition she wrote, “Reckon your life is more interesting, your insight more relevant, your wit more sparkling? The Guardian hath spoken and laid a garland at this doorstep”. There was something menacing about her tone. Magnanti offered to donate her winnings to charity but reneged after all the to do. In order to teach her dissenters a lesson, she decided to keep the money because, “Mama needs a new pair of Jimmy Choos” (so there).
Myth 5: “There’s no comeuppance”: Only people without a conscience can sever the link between their actions and consequences. They’re called psychopaths.
The consequences I’m concerned with are socio-cultural. The sexualisation of girls has become so endemic we don’t even notice it. Playboy duvets, “tart in training” shorts, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting sex at 14 as normal. Half of school girls are considering plastic surgery to make themselves thinner and prettier and 90% of eating disorders are amongst females, with a disturbing trend in five and six year old girls presenting with the illness. Girls have never been under so much pressure to conform. But to what? An airbrushed, pumped up, sexualised fantasy of perfection.
Portraying women as sex objects perpetuates gender inequalities. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse (or discriminate against) a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. The sex industry, of which Dr Magnanti is a part, has vested interests in normalising the objectification of women. To them women, and girls, are just commodities. To be bought and sold. Magnanti is still a prostitute, albeit with a more lucrative remit. Publicity. Along with her cohort of pimps (step forward ITV and the BBC), she’s selling women and children down the river without a paddle. Magnanti reckons “everyone has their price”. I say to her what I said to the man who assumed I was a prostitute (I was in a hotel lobby, alone and wearing a suit. It was reckless). “I’m not for sale. Not at any price. Fact.”
Dr Brooke Magnanti's life is currently being serialised in “Secret diary of a call girl”. Magnanti’s account of the happy, well adjusted hooker, as portrayed in the series, is as flawed as it is misogynistic. But, like Twiggy’s wrinkles and Kate Winslet’s curves, inconvenient truths are airbrushed out.
Recent research highlighted the “pornification” of society and that 60% of teenage girls aspire to be “glamour” (AKA soft porn) models, like Jordan, the woman who thinks Silicone Valley is the place to go for breast implants. The woman whose two year old daughter recently appeared “tarted up” on face book. Glamour models are ubiquitous. Women who dare to make a bid for power, using their minds rather than their bodies, however, are either invisible or pilloried by the press. The media’s handling of Brooke Magnanti “coming out” as Belle de Jour is just one example of how disconnected it is from women and feminism. From my own cursory research I encountered a lonely, insecure woman who saw prostitution as a kind of dating agency. A way to meet men and have an excuse to get dressed up on a Saturday night. “Belle de Jour” is an alter ego created, in my view, to escape the demons that possess Magnanti. Her marketing campaign hangs on us buying into a series of unconvincing myths, which have been perpetuated, not exposed, by the press.
Myth 1: Honesty: In her blog Magnanti recounts scenes of a waltonesque family life. She claimed, “My parents stayed married and I’m close to them both”. They’re not and she isn’t. When she “came out” as Belle she said of her father, “He’s a bit of a do gooder, he helps women”. It has since emerged in the press that he's actually a drug addict who has used over 150 prostitutes, some of whom he introduced to his daughter (as you do). A female relative is also a prostitute. Not quite the wholesome family scenario Magnanti invented.
Myth 2: Healthy sexuality: Magnanti said she watched porn as a teenager and had anal sex with a man twice her age at 16. The same time that she was grappling with the “disfigurement” of acne (ahead of a recent TV interview with Billie Piper Magnanti grudgingly divulged that teenage acne left her with facial scars). Far from being sexually empowered, it seems more plausible that a troubled, insecure Magnanti sought comfort and approval from an older man by offering him what she knew (from porn) would please him. Sex.
Her first “job” as a prostitute (according to her blog) involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay, having sex, sleeping there, then having had such a lovely time, she gives the client her direct number. Other incidents include a client urinating on her neck and having a chewed finger nail stuck up her vagina (you won’t find these unsavoury scenes in the secret diary series). Anyone who describes this as healthy sexuality or worse, empowerment, is deluded. It’s disturbing that the BBC’s This Week didn’t spot the tragic irony when they recently invited Magnanti to lecture teenagers on sex and self respect. In the Piper interview Magnanti gaily described being made to wear a pair of glasses so a client could come on her face. She was then ordered to wipe the sperm on the carpet and lick it up. Magnanti said she does what she’s told because it’s inappropriate “etiquette” to question clients. It was like listening to someone tell a story of excruciating abuse in a manner that made Lady Macbeth look like Morrissey on Prozac. The dissonance and psychotic disconnect between her light hearted banter and the actual humiliation she described made for cringe worthy viewing. Has she become so desensitised (from growing up on porn), so accustomed to being abused by men, that she can no longer recognise when she is being demeaned and humiliated? Or does she think being treated like a dog (literally) is OK as long as you get paid for it?
Magnanti suggests that women bereft of skills should be allowed to sell their bodies. The fact that 70% of prostitutes start as children and have suffered abuse seems insignificant to her. Dr Magnanti is currently working on child health. She might be interested in one of my previous cases. Cathy was a child and a prostitute. From the age of four her parents had sex parties. The adults would abuse each others children. On the few occasions that Cathy found the courage to tell trusted adults, no-one believed her. Her parents were both doctors. Respectable people don’t behave like that. She was living on the streets at 12, a drug addict at 13 and by the time I met her, at 14, she was “owned” by a pimp in central London. I spent Christmas with her in casualty. She had been raped with a broken bottle and was severely traumatised. She was bright, and beautiful. But she wasn’t “qualified,” or rather psychologically or physically capable, of doing anything (according to her pimp) except prostitution. It fed her habit, which numbed the pain.
There was no fairytale ending for Cathy. The best Dr Magnanti, a child health specialist, can do is tell Cathy, and girls like her, that the only thing they’re good for now is prostitution. Magnanti will know that Cathy’s scenario is more typical than Belle’s fictitious one. It’s not in her interests to dwell on the unpleasant reality of the sex industry. It would sully her brand. Magnanti is sanctimonious when talking about street walkers like Cathy. She places herself in a higher league. As if charging £200 makes the urine running down her neck Chanel instead of the £60 version of Eau de toilette. Women of her class should be allowed to dip in and out of prostitution, depending on the need for shoes, but street walkers should stick with it. It’s all they’re good at, or for.
Myth 3: Feminism: Setting aside the aforementioned acts of degradation, Magnanti claims she’s a feminist. Her lack of female friends makes that declaration tenuous at best. “The surest way to tell the prostitute walking into a hotel at Heathrow is to look for the lady in the designer suit. Fact”. On behalf of all the women harassed by sleazy men in flammable shirts, we thank you Dr Magnanti. Boob tube or business suit, unaccompanied women are always fair game. She does have concerns about rape though. We should stop banging on about it. Yes, women get raped but… “If being a man was easy, hookers wouldn’t exist. Fact”.
Myth 4: Passion: Magnanti claims to like sex and boasts about being good at it. If she likes it so much why fake orgasms? and if faking orgasms is criteria for being good at sex then we can all do that (women obviously). If not enjoying being urinated on and other acts of degradation means I’m frigid (as Magnanti implies), I’m guilty as charged. Sex without intimacy is like Glastonbury without mud, an anticlimax. Prostitution has nothing to do with passion. See Magnanti’s blog. The only passion I discerned was in response to her critics. Reacting to protests against her winning a Guardian blog competition she wrote, “Reckon your life is more interesting, your insight more relevant, your wit more sparkling? The Guardian hath spoken and laid a garland at this doorstep”. There was something menacing about her tone. Magnanti offered to donate her winnings to charity but reneged after all the to do. In order to teach her dissenters a lesson, she decided to keep the money because, “Mama needs a new pair of Jimmy Choos” (so there).
Myth 5: “There’s no comeuppance”: Only people without a conscience can sever the link between their actions and consequences. They’re called psychopaths.
The consequences I’m concerned with are socio-cultural. The sexualisation of girls has become so endemic we don’t even notice it. Playboy duvets, “tart in training” shorts, padded bras for prepubescent girls and TV soaps depicting sex at 14 as normal. Half of school girls are considering plastic surgery to make themselves thinner and prettier and 90% of eating disorders are amongst females, with a disturbing trend in five and six year old girls presenting with the illness. Girls have never been under so much pressure to conform. But to what? An airbrushed, pumped up, sexualised fantasy of perfection.
Portraying women as sex objects perpetuates gender inequalities. Objectification is dehumanising. That’s the point. It’s much easier to abuse (or discriminate against) a non person reduced to mere body parts. Tits and ass usually. The sex industry, of which Dr Magnanti is a part, has vested interests in normalising the objectification of women. To them women, and girls, are just commodities. To be bought and sold. Magnanti is still a prostitute, albeit with a more lucrative remit. Publicity. Along with her cohort of pimps (step forward ITV and the BBC), she’s selling women and children down the river without a paddle. Magnanti reckons “everyone has their price”. I say to her what I said to the man who assumed I was a prostitute (I was in a hotel lobby, alone and wearing a suit. It was reckless). “I’m not for sale. Not at any price. Fact.”
Women Only Question Time Panel. Big Deal. 2010
A few years ago, a then executive at the BBC and I went head to head in Sydney, debating the motion that the BBC is an ethical broadcaster. He argued for. I against. Despite the audience being initially almost militantly pro BBC, out of a packed auditorium, he only managed to secure two votes. There were no abstentions. It was his arrogance, rather than my perspicacity, that was his nemesis. I asked him why only 18.7% of participants on panel programmes (where there’s ample opportunity for balance) were female and why 89.2% of them were chaired by men. I asked if he thought it was ethical to exclude women from the Question Time panel that had previously been broadcast from Belfast. The home of two female winners of the Nobel Peace prize. The defining moment in the debate came when said executive dismissed my questions saying, “Ethics have nothing to do with editorial decision making”.
Despite a decade long campaign to persuade Question Time to give women an equal voice on the panel, the BBC has doggedly resisted. When I asked an executive at Mentorn, who produce QT for the BBC, why women aren’t more equally represented, her acerbic response was “you can’t blame us if there are hardly any women in parliament”. I challenged the logic that their criteria for inclusion of women, and minorities, should be based on parliamentary representation. I suggested that their obligation was to license fee payers, over 50% of whom are women. Besides, once the three main political parties are represented, there are two further places, usually filled by male commentators, or Monty Don. Last Thursdays ladies night just added insult to injury. Hackneyed hollow gestures just won’t do.
The issue of female representation pervades the BBC. Week-end TV is a veritable lads fest. Here’s a snapshot: Top gear, Have I got news for you (an occasional token woman on the panel), QI (ditto), Match of the day, A Question of sport (box ticked with female chair) and Mock the week (AKA Mock the Women). Either there are no funny women or they are even more threatening than intellectual ones. The BBC’s contempt for female licence payers was at its most blatant when it defended Frankie Boyle’s vicious attack on Rebecca Adlington (for the audacity of not conforming to his stereotype of what a woman should look like). He was eventually given time out on the naughty step but never apologised. Some reward for bringing back two Olympic gold medals.
Elsewhere, the BBC’s This Week recently invited Brooke Magnanti, or Belle de Jour (famous for being a “happy hooker”), to talk about the rise in teenage pregnancies. The fact that she knew little of the subject didn’t get in the way of an opportunity to promote her book, which glorifies female degradation. Magnanti’s first “job” as a prostitute involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay (classy), having sex, sleeping there, then giving the client her direct number. This is the person the BBC thought appropriate to lecture teenagers on safe sex? Sadly the BBC didn’t spot the disturbing irony.
Thursdays Question Time stopped short of an all female panel. The idea of replacing a Dimbleby, even for one show, would be a step too far. What if a woman could do the job just as well, or even better? The very idea. If QT wants to appeal to female viewers it’s not rocket science. Regularly put more women on the panel (maybe even outnumber men occasionally) and take more questions from female members of the audience (men are generally invited to speak more frequently than women) If you’re really keen, appoint a female chair, such as Janet Street-Porter.
In 2003 the BBC published research indicating that where women have a less than 20% representation in any group they are reduced to stereotypes. Its response to this shocking finding? Drop more women (Moira Stewart, Arlene Phillips, the pregnant Denise Van Outen, Martha Kearney moved from Newsnight to radio 4, the list goes on).
The women who survive, particularly at decision making level, are unlikely to have done so by challenging the status quo. The print media in particular is awash with women willing to demonstrate their masculine credentials. Rebecca Wade didn’t get where she is by tackling sexism (see p.3) in the Sun. Until there are sufficient numbers of women in top jobs to break free of the dreaded stereotype, the malestream media culture will prevail.
Despite a decade long campaign to persuade Question Time to give women an equal voice on the panel, the BBC has doggedly resisted. When I asked an executive at Mentorn, who produce QT for the BBC, why women aren’t more equally represented, her acerbic response was “you can’t blame us if there are hardly any women in parliament”. I challenged the logic that their criteria for inclusion of women, and minorities, should be based on parliamentary representation. I suggested that their obligation was to license fee payers, over 50% of whom are women. Besides, once the three main political parties are represented, there are two further places, usually filled by male commentators, or Monty Don. Last Thursdays ladies night just added insult to injury. Hackneyed hollow gestures just won’t do.
The issue of female representation pervades the BBC. Week-end TV is a veritable lads fest. Here’s a snapshot: Top gear, Have I got news for you (an occasional token woman on the panel), QI (ditto), Match of the day, A Question of sport (box ticked with female chair) and Mock the week (AKA Mock the Women). Either there are no funny women or they are even more threatening than intellectual ones. The BBC’s contempt for female licence payers was at its most blatant when it defended Frankie Boyle’s vicious attack on Rebecca Adlington (for the audacity of not conforming to his stereotype of what a woman should look like). He was eventually given time out on the naughty step but never apologised. Some reward for bringing back two Olympic gold medals.
Elsewhere, the BBC’s This Week recently invited Brooke Magnanti, or Belle de Jour (famous for being a “happy hooker”), to talk about the rise in teenage pregnancies. The fact that she knew little of the subject didn’t get in the way of an opportunity to promote her book, which glorifies female degradation. Magnanti’s first “job” as a prostitute involved going to the house of a man she’d never met before, getting drunk on two bottles of Chardonnay (classy), having sex, sleeping there, then giving the client her direct number. This is the person the BBC thought appropriate to lecture teenagers on safe sex? Sadly the BBC didn’t spot the disturbing irony.
Thursdays Question Time stopped short of an all female panel. The idea of replacing a Dimbleby, even for one show, would be a step too far. What if a woman could do the job just as well, or even better? The very idea. If QT wants to appeal to female viewers it’s not rocket science. Regularly put more women on the panel (maybe even outnumber men occasionally) and take more questions from female members of the audience (men are generally invited to speak more frequently than women) If you’re really keen, appoint a female chair, such as Janet Street-Porter.
In 2003 the BBC published research indicating that where women have a less than 20% representation in any group they are reduced to stereotypes. Its response to this shocking finding? Drop more women (Moira Stewart, Arlene Phillips, the pregnant Denise Van Outen, Martha Kearney moved from Newsnight to radio 4, the list goes on).
The women who survive, particularly at decision making level, are unlikely to have done so by challenging the status quo. The print media in particular is awash with women willing to demonstrate their masculine credentials. Rebecca Wade didn’t get where she is by tackling sexism (see p.3) in the Sun. Until there are sufficient numbers of women in top jobs to break free of the dreaded stereotype, the malestream media culture will prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)