International Women's Day, So let's hear from a man

 It’s International Women’s Day and that means it’s time for a man to share his opinion. You would think actually, this day, should be a day of respectful silence for men. A day for once where our opinion can stay purely a thought with no requirement for it to be shared verbally or in writing with a woman.

I can hear the voice of every woman in the country collectively chiming… I can live with that. So by rights that should be the end of this blog whilst I take my silence.

Nah, not going to happen.

In lieu of my silence I would like to use to this blog to wonder why men struggle with such silence around women.

First let’s deal with the male voice choir requesting an International Men’s Day. In fact, there is one. It’s in November but nobody cared. Not even men. And that’s kind of the point. Most men don’t feel the need to campaign for recognition because we can’t claim history bypassed us or denied us. Men were ahead of the queue before queues were invented. This front of queue phenomenon has been sold as either natural male supremacy and that women should appreciate being an important second or alternately as a heroic need for us to queue on behalf of women to provide and share resources.   

Men are crying foul as we are bumped from the queue and women are asking for a share of the front spot. Sadly men colleagues, we have to recognise we’ve had the front seat since the beginning of humanity so we can gracefully sit this one out a little longer. It’s terrible I know.

This victim sentiment is powerful and moving. Having had all the patronage through thousands of years it is quite tragic to realise that we might not be as important as we like to think. Tiny violins are being played by women as they try not to collapse in hysterics. Also men complaining about women playing victim card in their campaigns, now claiming to be victims ourselves, is acute level irony.

Men do better please.

Seriously nothing bad ever happened because a woman got a job. Whilst a woman having a valid point of view might feel like some act of castration, it really isn’t. Men, here’s an experiment.  Close our eyes and mouth for a few moments and listen to said point of view. It’s scary I know but when we open our eyes once more, the world will still be there. The house will not have fallen down and all our bits will still be intact. We might even like it. After all, men, our egos have to do a lot of work so giving them a day off might do wonders for our longevity.

So why do us men fail at this so abysmally? It’s simple. Everything politically and socially is sold as a zero sum game. If we give women one of our chips then we will have less chips. Also if we give her one chip then she’s want more of them until we will have none left. It’s so unfair until we realise that we had far too many chips and keeping them all for our self is what’s being making us fat and ill. So share. But the world has an infinite number of chips. Giving women more chips doesn’t mean we have less because if we’re clever we just make more chips. Most of our resources, jobs and even queues, have more than enough spaces for men and women. It is simply a convenient perception that by sharing something, we automatically have less.

Observe the way politicians always talk of financial constraints where it is suggested if we give a nurse a pay rise, we have to drown a migrant. Why can’t we give nurses a pay rise and stop migrants drowning at the same time. Answer is. We can. We can do both and do lots of other things. That is what life is about, picking how we prioritise. You can have 1000 things on a list and order them in priority but still do all of them. Repeatedly we are told it’s the opposite of that. Men are being given the wrong message and education about this sharing business. I wonder who it is that keeps telling men that they are being deprived of something.

Oh that’s right…. Men.

So for the women of the world, I apologise for men. We are macho, tough, heroes, your natural superiors at the same time as being victims and fearful that you might do something better than we do. It’s not your fault we are complicated, contradictory beings that barely understand ourselves.

Enjoy your day Women. You deserve it today and every day because men have got a heavy debt to pay before we get to even.

Meanwhile, perhaps we can have a new day in the calendar for men. A ‘Get Over Yourself’ day. Men can spend the day in a vacuum or in the middle of a forest and told to shout out 100 opinions an hour. At the end of the day we can ask ourselves if nobody heard us speak, did anyone give a shit.

Nothing is more boring than our own opinions. My characters have far more of value to say

 

Writing has taught me something that I might otherwise have failed to learn. It perhaps makes me who I am, still flawed in the usual ways but having worked out some of what matters to me.

The core challenge of writing is farming knowledge from people around me to develop stories and characters. If we only ever wrote from a single point of view, that is, our own, then all writing would be one dimensional, predictable and boring. Like some other writers, when I began, I wrote in order to express an opinion or tell the world what I think. Quickly I learnt that politically motivated rants offer little nuance without a character to support. Writing therefore is not about imposing my opinion on other people but listening and understanding other points of view. Giving life to them. Their opinions might actually be more important than mine. This is extraordinarily powerful when exploring the experience of women and other minority groups. The downtrodden or victims of abuse.

That is a lesson in life. Ask myself, why do people think or do what they do? The conclusion is rarely vastly different from our own motivations. So learning about ourselves helps us to understand others.

As an exercise this starts with self-exploration, gathering my own motivations, darker desires, framing my opinions and getting a sense of my own imperfections. This self-examination is by no means a perfect exercise. The results can be inconsistent and frequently affected by mood. Some people are self-critical, others struggle to admit failings so easily and will see history in rose tinted ways. It is hard to be honest with ourselves but the exercise remains useful. Others will attempt similar learning through spirituality and I have complete respect for the centuries old traditions of self-exploration through religion or meditation as long as it is not some kind of self-harm or sacrificial ritual. That kind of activity is the opposite of learning. The creation of pain or harm seems wholly unnecessary when so many other methods exist.

I am keen to understand spiritual rituals more. In my complete minimalist superficial exploration of these methods so far, they have been useful for clearing my mind, but have taught me little more about myself.

My self-learning has been through the creation of story characters. I started this piece by talking about listening and learning from others. This allows me to create the story characters and see life through their eyes. Using the first person in writing empowers those characters to be bolder and share with the reader elaborate versions of me. The reader can take a view that some of what is described is the writer’s personal point of view but clearly if my character is a woman or someone distinctly different e.g. age, ethnicity then the ability of the reader to attach meaning to the writer is challenged. For the writer in me, it allows me to braver with content. Things I don’t feel able to talk about or say myself are given voice and power. Without this self-expression I couldn’t be as brave. I guess actors would say something similar. By becoming a character they can give more of themselves.

In my characters, I know the bits that belong to me and those I stole from others. The extent to which I do that is unimportant to the reader as long as the story is worth it. But for me it is invaluable. It has given me the discipline to avoid judgement and understand more about why people are the way they are. As stated above it’s not a perfect process. I still slip into opinion and lazy judgement at times. I simply try to do it less.

The times I am more likely to slip into such lazy judgement is when faced with those who don’t have this self-examination. Those who deny others their experience and lack empathy. Those who tell rather than listen, impose rather than encourage, create difference rather than seek union.

Modern social exchanges lack much about what we learned from each other in the past. As convenience creates apathy and empathy collapses when we need it most.

Sharing has never taken anything away from me. I still have my preferences and choices, I still see myself as individual. The worry is that many still struggle with this and the more we challenge the harder the point of view becomes. I found my way but can’t see why others don’t do the same. Apathy and convenience might be the answer. The result is extremes grow stronger. As they encourage more hardening of views, we will all be less for it.

The Great Deflection: Gaslighting for Beginners

Gaslighting is an overused phrase in modern social media parlance largely because it is actually  the most successful form of getting away with it and has been for years.

The first of lesson in gaslighting is that it's never your fault. Especially if you are a man. Great examples of the ancient form, she's a witch who some how used her magic spells to make you want to have sex with her. Temptress, harlot, progressing neatly to the modern day golddigger or perhaps, if she hadn't worn that short skirt and flashed her eyes like that, you would never have noticed her. Her constant complaining made you want to have an affair. .

Second lesson of gaslighting is do not under any circumstances admit guilt. This is actually the hardest part. The whole point of gaslighting is exposing the weakness in other people. The worst think you can therefore do is let your own weakness come to the fore. Denial even in the face of absolute truth is very powerful. Because your accuser has to accuse you of lying or question her own evidence. The accusation of lying against a partner is almost the nuclear option. Partners are less likely to throw a bomb into a relationship because the consequence of such a truth is that the relationship has to end. By denying this truth, the accuser has to work backwards to explain away evidence. The self-doubt generated is extraordinary. Done once, a crack is opened in the door, it's easy to force the window wider and gaslighting is in full swing. Examples of this including, you being seen kissing a girl only to be explained as a quick peck on the cheek with a friend, persuading the accuser that they didn't see the kiss at all.

The third lesson is deflection. If the rules of blame and denial are failing, it's now better to create a diversion. Classic in this genre is to declare illness. Your partner will immediately be obliged to show sympathy and if they area already semi-gaslighted they will be happy to accept the excuse not to face the truth. The gaslit partner is the most caring ever. The other form of deflection is that common in the legal form. Blame the process, make them question procedure because whilst all your accusers are discussing which is the correct process, the rules of the game, you're still getting away with it.

It's an artform and can be taken to any extreme. Practice is the key. Once you experience and see how powerful it is to reduce your accuser to doubting their own self-worth, the game is won. Once you see it, it can't be unseen. it's everywhere in life, in the workplace, in politics, especially in the government. 

Government are the masters of  gaslighting, persuading a nation that the countries problems they created are somehow the fault of foreigners, bureaucracy, looney left councils, single mothers or anyone who gives a shit. 

Practice makes perfect. The gaslighter has nothing to fear from the truth because the truth is whatever you say it is.

People who love the flag too much

 

I’ve never been a flag worshipper of any type. As someone growing up with the National Front and the British National Party hoarding the flag like a political accessory, I found it represented everything I wasn’t. Plus on the streets where I grew up I didn’t find the flag much of visible presence. The St George’s Cross I honestly would not have recognised until well into the eighties. Most flags I saw were football ones and even those I avoided because being openly partisan at school or in the street usually resulted in a punch on the nose.

That’s stuck with me despite being an England fan in sports and enjoying football. I never felt the need to wear the kit or the flag.

In 2003 when I went to work in The Hague national flags suddenly became of interest and I had to think about the flag that was supposed to represent me. The Dutch national flag which was visible quite often on people’s houses and they seemed far prouder of their flag than I was off my own. In a multinational office many people had their desk adorned with a neat national flag. Malaysia, Germany, France, Singapore, South Africa, USA. Flags abundant. But I was reluctant to get a Union Jack flag. Why was that? Here was all my colleagues quite proud of their country and here is me reticent of the same.

Eventually I brought out the flag as part of the frequent sports banter that adorns any office and became easier to showcase my colours. Plus it is fact that I cannot change. I am British and this flag is the most recognisable form to other people. England flag the same. I am as English, British as it comes and I cannot claim any other heritage of meaning. Such a claim would have been mighty hand come the Brexit years.

The striking thing I learnt in those years was not only people’s love of Britishness, Englishness and much of our traditions and habits, it was quite clear they often appreciated things I never did. The tourist sights, our habits, our ultra-long winded way of saying something simple. They seemed to delight in these quirks so I should too. It taught me to be own my heritage a little more. It wasn’t something to deny but actually celebrate.

It’s not easy to shake off those who feel patriotism only belongs to right wing politics. Especially in recent years as this theme has returned with a vengeance as identity politics grows. So I still have to fight the assumption that someone waving a British flag isn’t also a nationalist, a racist, someone full of hate for other nationalities. The thing I learnt more than anything in The Hague was, whilst we had some banter and fun poking about national traits it was never negative or competitive. No malice came with it. Loving your own country doesn’t mean hating another.

The union jack wavers I too often see at home and tattooed on arms frequently are not so altruistic. It’s a zero sum game.

I remember in the 80’s Norman Tebbit, one of Thatcher’s right wing ideologists talked about his cricket test. This meant if you didn’t support England at the cricket then you were not a patriot, directly and deliberately challenging those of South Asian or Caribbean origins for being proud of their heritage. This divisiveness is still prevalent today though the EU flag being the recent enemy of choice is all about saying you can’t be both British and European. You can’t be both Indian and British.

It works as well. It plays wonderfully to those who believe that immigration has taken something from them. Also a complete insult to those who found love for the complex and fascinating idea of wanting to be both things at once. And why can’t we? We are none of us one thing so why does our nationality have to enforce a rigid and xenophobic approach to those not born to that flag. The deeper I think about it the more farcical and ridiculous it becomes. The fact that we test people’s patriotism or love of a country by a flag just becomes silly.

It’s not to say other countries don’t have similar problems with flags and what they represent. I remember being caught up in very brutal argument about Dutch racism. It was about Zwarte Pete and the representation of slave labour. The white Dutch telling the black Dutch how he should feel about it. Always an interesting lesson in point of view when I watch someone being denied their own experience.

I don’t believe I will ever have a love for the union jack or any single flag because I don’t want the flag to define me. If I had all the flags that represent me now it would be about 10 different ones from India to the EU. All of them represent a part of me and that is something I am proud of.   

Priti Patel: Hero or Traitor to the liberal cause

 Clearly Priti Patel is no hero to liberalism so the question is easily answered. And in truth I don't want to waste this blog discussing her as an individual. I don't know her as a person and frankly care less about her. I am more interested in what she represents.

As a woman of South Asian ethnic origin in one of the three great positions of state she should be a role model, hero of women of similar origin. This is an Asian woman alongside other Asian male colleagues who are at senior levels of government. On all levels of achievement it is remarkable and refreshing to see in the seats of power. It should demonstrate the power of meritocracy in a multi-cultural society. All of us should be applauding and acknowledging the benefits of multi-culturism. 

And there lies the problem.

These people didn't land their jobs in government on the back of such values. They did not enter the government flying the flag of inclusive representation. In fact each one of them signed up to the opposite. 

Individually each of the progressions is remarkable in itself. That they have navigated the political environment and found a way to the top is some ways a lesson to us all .You can do it. But the point is, whatever route they took, it was opportune to them and probably fortuitous. One of the key eligibility criteria particularly for this government is to sign up to the message that the system works for them and therefore by default for everyone else.

Where other people falter, where statistics back up the absolute fundamental fact that women and Asians are so poorly represented at highest levels of organisations, it's obvious the system doesn't work. By denying that truth to their peers, they gaslight the nation into believing there is no problem.

This is the worst message for the country. It is the worse messages for the women and people of colour who are more than qualified for leadership but  they are denied opportunities. That their failure is their own fault for not working hard enough, not playing the game, not making the moral compromises they did. 

I remember Thatcher's attitude to other women in her party. She herself was totally dismissive of the female experience. She promoted a message  that not only were females generally flawed in leadership roles despite her position, she showed you had to be more ruthless and tough than men. What a poor legacy to leave behind?

All of this denial of the experience makes it much harder for anyone else. It gives power to the white establishment base to point to Priti or Rishi and say, they can do it, so anyone can. Therefore there is no problem. Discussion over.

There was a debate last year over racism experience in public life. Priti Patel spoke eloquently of her experience of racist abuse in her life.  Stark and horrific abuse. Empathy for that experience was all around except that she chose to weaponise that experience and deny the same voice to other black or Asian women. Her point was, I experienced it and survived, so it's alright then. Saying to every other dark skinned woman, get over it. As home Secretary this is astonishing. We almost expect it from an accused male to blame a raped woman for  his act because she was asking for it due to some clothing she wore. How often do we hear women as well as men, joining in the debate to side with the abuser and not the victim. Too often.  This just shows how those shielded from such experiences or having got over them, deny empathy to those who are suffering victims, making excuses for the abusers. 

Here we have a home secretary saying that women of colour, people of colour have to get over it rather than make the debate about the abusers. 

This is why she betrays her origins. With power comes responsibility and also opportunity. People such as the home secretary as a woman of colour could be a major cheer leader for her peers. But instead, to win favour with her government colleagues, she does the opposite. 

Fundamentally this is a double whammy of disappointment for her potential successors.  Not only to succeed do you have to make moral compromises to deny your own heritage, you have to deny the opportunity to others. It's sick, frightening and immensely frustrating. 

That those who should be role models are the worst advocates for their own peers could be a door closing hard on them.

Not only does that make her a traitor to her peers but the greatest ally of racists. The exception that proves the rule 

Anti-Woke: Ignorance in a better suit

Confession: I'm a man and also astonishingly white as a boy from Manchester gets. My apparent Red Wall upbringing of hard core anti-liberalism, a vital dose of sexism and an education steeped in religious puritanism (or lets' call it what it is.. Racism) should be all that I am. At the age of 50 something I should be angry at statues, angry at foreigners, the EU and especially women. They've all apparently stole something from me. 

Only I've no idea what. I find that meeting new people and learning about their experience is good for me and good for them. 

As a white man I've always been a bit careful of commenting on affairs of race and sex. The temptation to preach and patronise is waiting for an invitation.  So I've stuck to a more individual approach avoiding being the smart ass.

But a friend spoke to me about being a stronger voice for minority groups. When victims of injustices speak out the response is to treat them as victims, at arms length and allow their individual stories to deny that their experience is common place.  In recent decades this victim blaming reduced and inequality campaigns found not only people listening but actually being inclusive was quite good for business. I thought my advocation was unnecessary.

But racists and sexists are not done yet. Realising that being called a racist was a bit 1970's they've come up with a new word. Woke. This allowed them to deny any progressive discussion on inequality. The trick is for them to be able to insult the good guys. Like remainer made the protection of the status quo a radical position, woke uses the same tactic to undermine those who like to be polite and tell positive stories of culture. 

Being anti-woke is a reversal of polarity giving favour to racists and sexists and anyone who wants to deny other human elements. It works. The word has grown in power and regularly appears in newspapers and tv media. Woke equals bad, establishment, token culture. Anti-woke is somehow enlightened position of the real world experience where bad behaviour has a get out of jail free card... something about free speech or natural order or the real money spinner, that somehow they are being denied something. Woke is theft of experience or freedom. Giving something to minority groups is taking away from white men. Utter bollocks but paranoid positions attract anyone looking to blame someone else for their failures. 

So being an advocate for minority positions, being an active supporter of victims and challenging those who chose hate instead of fairness is a good thing. I will endeavour not to hide my light under a bushel and use my privilege to do better.

Returning to the fray

 I took a few years off from writing seriously and blogging.

Part of that was circumstances with a busy job but also lacking confidence in my own place as a writer, my level of skill and whether I was playing at it or not.

Plus following my last dig into politics in Death of a Kingdom, the political debate around these topic lines went toxic and difficult to navigate. I commented on much of the matters in the books I wrote with an anti-nationalist verve and anti-hate. But following Brexit...the consensus I felt existed around this anti-nationalist sentiment was blown apart. I couldn't understand how much hate there was around, particularly for foreigners unleashed in open conversation. I confess to not being able to answer that question and probably never will. People call it 'woke' like it is kind of insult to look for good in people and try to be honest around our historical/national flaws. Nothing is ever perfect but the chance to learn from mistakes is what makes us intelligent beings. Plus the assumption that our neighbours only exist to rob us or possess us... where does that kind of paranoia leave us? See I'm doing it again.

But I have learnt to moderate my thinking, to accept that a different view of the world is prevalent. 

In writing, I have always found my heroes at the back of queue for greatness and used my words to give them a status they would never have found. I've broadened the net now and will try to talk more about that in this blog and try to avoid the bonfire of debate in the toxic hell of divisive politics.

I've also travelled a fair bit in last five years and my outlook is broader and more inspired. If that doesn't get me writing, what would.

Lots more to come in new blogs but for the moment will reinstate myself on the landscape and say hello once more