This highly political and contentious issue can basically be boiled down to a deep personal desire to openly do the exact opposite of anything David Cameron thinks is a good idea. I seriously hope he never comes out in favour of the separation of church and state or a feminist ally or something because I would argue the contrary points just to spite him and his stupid smug face. However, this is an issue that I have been a following for a few years since a friend of mine came back from Palestine and told me about the horrific things being done to the Palestinian people by Zionist Israelis. (Not all Jewish people are Zionists just not all Muslim people are Islamists.) Prior to that I knew very little about it. There have been discussions on Question Time and a few articles written that I have been able to pick up bits of information so this is my collection of knowledge on the subject.
1. It is an apartheid state
I know this is a word that is specifically used to describe the situation as it was in South Africa, but when you consider the etymology of the word, there really is no other way to describe it. The Palestinian people have appalling living conditions, quite often having been physically forced out of their homes by Isreali soldiers. They have to use separate roads, are literally separated by a 26' concrete wall (compared to the Berlin Wall that stood at just 12') built in the West Bank and are unable to move freely as they are constantly stopped at check points and their belongings searched. There is limited access to power and water and the olive trees from which a lot of Palestinian farmers earning their living are uprooted and burned. This is not just apartheid, it is oppression. Human rights violations happen everyday and yet we hear nothing about it in the media.
2. Not doing so just highlights our racism
I'm not saying we in are all card carrying white supremicists, but let's reverse the situation. If a group of extreme Muslims entered a country and forced entire villages of people out of their homes, destroying buildings in an attempt to completely erase their existence, would the UN and the rest of the world ignore it!? It would be terrorism, they would be deplored by the international community and yet for some reason it is OK that this is exactly what Zionists have been doing in Palestine since 1948 but we can't call them out for it because heaven forbid we get accused of being anti-semitic. This could be considered as being intentionally inflammatory, but we should consider that as a predominately white culture, institutionalised racism is probably at the core of why we seem to care so little about this issue.
3. It's totally hypocritical not to
We did it with South Africa, what's the difference? Sports teams were not permitted to compete at major events, musicians could not perform, the UN enacted oil sanctions. In fact there was an entire UN 'Centre Against Apartheid' established. Full list anti apartheid measures taken by the UN in South Africa can be found here.
4. There are too many bloody asylum seekers in this country.
Not a sentiment I hold with myself but a view that I'm sure is held by some members of our society. Of course I am not saying that Israel is responsible for every refugee that comes to Britain (interesting stats here) but why do these small minded few think that people would uproot and leave their homeland? I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure they don't just wake up one day and think 'hey, I hear Britain has a welfare system and national health service. Let's cram ourselves into the back of a lorry with 40 other people/walk through warzones/desserts and risk our lives so we can take advantage of it'. No. Our government may be hell bent on grinding people into a Dickensian level of poverty and then demonising them for scrounging off the state, but at least they aren't dropping bombs on us. (Hey, look at that. I found something positive to say about them...) My point is that if we as an international community were doing more to stop these horrible things from happening then maybe people wouldn't feel the need to flee their homes and seek refuge in another country. Boycotting Isreal would send a very clear and definite message that what they are doing is wrong and will not be tolerated.
I am sure I could be accused of over simplifying a very complex and deep rooted problem. One thing I have discovered writing this is just how little I actually know about the situation. For example, I am sure it won't surprise many people to find out that Britain had it's imperialist oar in Palestine at one time. I am not about to go and knock on the UN's door with a half hashed solution, I am merely saying that we need to acknowledge that what is happening in Palestine is apartheid and we should be boycotting Isreal to show our support to the people of Palestine in the hope that a peaceful resolution can be reached.
Saturday, 15 March 2014
Friday, 11 October 2013
If you need Mothers/Fathers/Valentines day, you're doing it wrong
When I tell people that I have twins, they often ask how I manage. My immediate response is always 'my mum'. This week she has come over at 7.30am to help me get everyone up and my daughter off to school, taken me shopping whilst my car was in the garage and looked after the twins so I could get out the house and not have babies attached to me for a couple of hours. Even before the twins came along and she retired from a pretty full on job of being a nurse, she looked after my daughter one day a week. My daughter and I moved back in with her and my stepdad for a year, she was my birthing partner when my daughter was born, I see her at least once a week so I can get the food shopping done with as little fuss as possible. For all this, and so much more, I never stop appreciating all that she has done and continues to do for me. That's everyday of the year, not just the one designated by the card company and the people who make those God awful mix CD's containing no songs my mum would want to listen to.
It's scary really. I am only 5 years into a job that I have for life. Even now, after moving out and starting my own family, I am calling the dad's taxi/diy/haulage company. He's seen me through 2 house moves, shed and playhouse assembly, odd jobs, 4 am airport runs and various furniture collections. Ok, so maybe I didn't buy him a card in June, but that doesn't mean I don't think I have the best dad in the world.
Valentine's day is the one I have the biggest issue with. First of all, it's creepy. Going out on a prescribed night to prove your love for someone whilst a restaurant full of people do the same...that just seems a bit weird to me. Secondly, the sheer expense of the crap that Clintons will convince you that you need to buy is staggering. Give a week and it is all 25p. Lastly - the pressure! Whether you've been dating a week or year, just the idea that you have to do something (not just anything, it's got to be epic, unique, romantic) is ridiculous.
So here's my world changing manifesto. Buy/make someone you love a gift and give it to them because you love them. Write a poem, make them a cup of tea, turn the phone/tv off and give them 10 minutes of attention without any distractions. Don't wait for a special occasion - being alive is a special occasion and life is too fucking short.
Saturday, 23 March 2013
Children Should Rule The World
I had a really interesting conversation on Twitter a while ago over the 'NoMorePage3' petition and the difficulty in explaining to children why there are bare boobs in a 'family' newspaper. This expanded into how we dealt with some of the wonderful questions kids come out with. How do you make babies? Why is that man wearing a dress? What's wrong with that person in a wheelchair? (Usually all asked high volume in a crowded place just to make it more fun!) We concluded that telling our respective children about issues that come up in the news etc can sometimes be complicated because of having to avoid jargon/confusing language but ultimately worth it for two reasons. 1) Kids will ask questions. They have a thirst for knowledge and want to understand the world around them. It is our duty to make that easier and less scary for them to deal with. 2) Children have such a wonderful unblinkered view of the world. They are like little sponges that soak up information and experiences without the prejudices that we as adults carry with us.
I was planning this post for a few days before the news broke about the death of teacher Lucy Meadows. Reading the shocking media coverage of her transition, and how a few parents reacted, affirmed my belief that a world government of under 10's would ultimately make the world a much happier place.
One parent complained that rather than Mr Upton returning to school as Miss Meadows after the Christmas break, she should have slunk off, had her gender reassignment and returned to work at a different school because it was too difficult to explain to children of that age. Apparently one child was worried he would wake up with 'girls brains' as that is how Ms Meadows had explained she felt as though she had been born, they had just been put inside a male body. So far, I see nothing complicated to explain. Just because some people become aware at some point in their lives that they were born in the wrong body doesn't mean everyone will. Lucy Meadows was only guilty of trying to correct a cruel trick by nature - or God, seeing as it was a CofE school. Explain it in simple terms like that and chances are a child will accept it as the way it is. No drama. It's us that adds the drama. The real complications come about because of adults own prejudices and/or ignorance of the situation and this affecting their inability to explain as they try to incorporate reasons for those prejudices. Suddenly 2+2=4 becomes 2+5x3.14-10 etc etc = 5 (if you're lucky).
Whilst watching news coverage of the Marriage Equality debate, my daughter asked 'why are those men shouting at each other'. I explained that these were the people in charge of running the country and they were talking about whether men/men and women/women should be allowed to get married. This did confuse her. Purely because she couldn't understand why they weren't already allowed! Ok, she's still at an age where she wants to marry her dad and we have talked about why that won't ever be allowed, but the reason she wants to marry her dad is because she loves him. As far as she is concerned, that is what it is all about at the end of the day. Two grown ups who love each other. A tweet recently by a mum of a young child said that her daughter had commented that if she were in charge she would make rich people pay more money to help look after the poor people. Are you listening government? Kids get it. Everything is so black and white for them. It either is or it isn't. This is usually a stand point I hate in adults (usually because they will benefit in some way from ignoring the grey area) but from children, you know that it is coming from a place of innocence and a want for the world to work and people to get along and be happy.
Just think about your aspirations as a 10 year old. You want to play with your friends, feel safe and happy. Nothing feels impossible. Wouldn't it be nice if we could carry that on into adulthood and in turn provide a nurturing, safe environment for everyone?
I was planning this post for a few days before the news broke about the death of teacher Lucy Meadows. Reading the shocking media coverage of her transition, and how a few parents reacted, affirmed my belief that a world government of under 10's would ultimately make the world a much happier place.
One parent complained that rather than Mr Upton returning to school as Miss Meadows after the Christmas break, she should have slunk off, had her gender reassignment and returned to work at a different school because it was too difficult to explain to children of that age. Apparently one child was worried he would wake up with 'girls brains' as that is how Ms Meadows had explained she felt as though she had been born, they had just been put inside a male body. So far, I see nothing complicated to explain. Just because some people become aware at some point in their lives that they were born in the wrong body doesn't mean everyone will. Lucy Meadows was only guilty of trying to correct a cruel trick by nature - or God, seeing as it was a CofE school. Explain it in simple terms like that and chances are a child will accept it as the way it is. No drama. It's us that adds the drama. The real complications come about because of adults own prejudices and/or ignorance of the situation and this affecting their inability to explain as they try to incorporate reasons for those prejudices. Suddenly 2+2=4 becomes 2+5x3.14-10 etc etc = 5 (if you're lucky).
Whilst watching news coverage of the Marriage Equality debate, my daughter asked 'why are those men shouting at each other'. I explained that these were the people in charge of running the country and they were talking about whether men/men and women/women should be allowed to get married. This did confuse her. Purely because she couldn't understand why they weren't already allowed! Ok, she's still at an age where she wants to marry her dad and we have talked about why that won't ever be allowed, but the reason she wants to marry her dad is because she loves him. As far as she is concerned, that is what it is all about at the end of the day. Two grown ups who love each other. A tweet recently by a mum of a young child said that her daughter had commented that if she were in charge she would make rich people pay more money to help look after the poor people. Are you listening government? Kids get it. Everything is so black and white for them. It either is or it isn't. This is usually a stand point I hate in adults (usually because they will benefit in some way from ignoring the grey area) but from children, you know that it is coming from a place of innocence and a want for the world to work and people to get along and be happy.
Just think about your aspirations as a 10 year old. You want to play with your friends, feel safe and happy. Nothing feels impossible. Wouldn't it be nice if we could carry that on into adulthood and in turn provide a nurturing, safe environment for everyone?
Monday, 4 February 2013
The really offensive 'F' word
My name is Sophie. I'm 27 and I am a feminist.
It has taken me some time to come to terms with this but as they say, the first step is acceptance... Until fairly recently, I had feminists pegged as angry, hairy legged, man haters that over analysed things to find some sort of sexist agenda. Which is why I was shocked at being bought The Women's Room and Opting In: Having A Child Without Losing Yourself as birthday presents a few years ago. I questioned my friends on why they had bought me feminist books as presents. I had never identified as been a feminist and was confused. I believed in that over arching term of 'Institutionalised Sexism' and naively assumed that everybody knew about it and disagreed with it, obviously. I am aware that what follows is going to make me sound like an egocentric maniac, but I guess I always thought of myself/my beliefs as the benchmark. 'This is what normal, civilised humans think and anything else is lefty airy, fairy, hippy nonsense/conservative, privileged crap'. I'd never thought of myself as having 'liberal' views on parenting, gender equality, abortion/euthanasia etc they were just my views and it was up to everyone else to be pigeonholed.
I carried on with my life not really giving it any thought. Got a bit miffed at people almost exclusively buying dolls and fairy stuff for my daughter when I wanted her to have Lego and a few cars. Being aware of the continued use semi naked women to advertise everything from bingo sites to spark plugs. Maybe I have a slight bias having a daughter. I don't want her to ever believe she has to act in a certain way just because she is a girl. She is very susceptible to the way that TV, magazines, toys etc are aimed at girls or boys depending on the content even at the tender age of 4. This targeting will continue. As a girl who grew up with sleek, skinny, pert models spread across every magazine I bought when I was slightly pudgey, curvy, frizzy haired mess (imagine a teenage 'Ugly Betty' minus glasses for visual reference). She has recently had a bit of trouble at pre school with a boy who has been pinching her. I did the usual parent thing of explaining that this is the way that boys sometimes act when they like someone. Then immediately checked myself and told her that if he ever did it again she was to scream really loud and tell him not to do it/tell a teacher. Telling her to stay away from that particular boy smacked too much of taking the blame away from his unacceptable behaviour. I guess I could be accused of over analysing the situation. Could this small incident of bullying really set her up for a life of being a victim? I doubt it, but it is the kind of thing I worry about as a parent.
It wasn't until I started to really use Twitter that I realised that there were other people out there that think like me. The 'Slut Walks', in particular this photo, was a real turning point for me. Surely people don't blame victims of rape for the crime committed against them anymore? That is as archaic as wearing a girdle. Everyone knows that rape is about power and dominance and nothing to do with lust. Another naive assumption. I then came across @nomorepage3 - an agenda I had long since agreed with and a petition I happily signed immediately after finding out about it. This lead me to @EverydaySexism a wonderfully tragic account of women's daily encounters with misogyny and sexual harassment. It was here that I really learnt that there is absolutely no over analysis needed to find examples of sexism. It's just one of those things, once you become aware of it, you see it everywhere. Which I do now - everywhere. Supermarket Christmas ads were rich pickings, every single one showing a women slaving over wrapping presents, cleaning, cooking the dinner with a triumphant male carving the turkey and then slumping on the sofa whilst said woman was washing up. Instructions to buy power tools and computer games, hairdryers and make up for men and women respectively. The New Year ones, if it is possible, are worse. I sat through 5 adverts in a row one night telling me lose weight, buy this brand of low calorie food, start this diet plan, be gorgeous enough to have Aunty Gok wanting to grope me...
Twitter, that social media wonder, has opened my eyes and I now have a brilliant collection of inspiring like minded feminists to follow. (That really helps with my sanity. Regular 'phew, I'm not the only one' moments) I don't know, nor am I interested, whether they shave their legs, armpits or even bikini lines (particularly the men). If they hate men, then that's their prerogative (I'm fairly sure they hate a few narrow minded women as well). It doesn't stop them from being intelligent, insightful, funny and warm human beings who are striving for their belief that women deserve the same respect and opportunities as men. And we do. We've fucking earned it.
It has taken me some time to come to terms with this but as they say, the first step is acceptance... Until fairly recently, I had feminists pegged as angry, hairy legged, man haters that over analysed things to find some sort of sexist agenda. Which is why I was shocked at being bought The Women's Room and Opting In: Having A Child Without Losing Yourself as birthday presents a few years ago. I questioned my friends on why they had bought me feminist books as presents. I had never identified as been a feminist and was confused. I believed in that over arching term of 'Institutionalised Sexism' and naively assumed that everybody knew about it and disagreed with it, obviously. I am aware that what follows is going to make me sound like an egocentric maniac, but I guess I always thought of myself/my beliefs as the benchmark. 'This is what normal, civilised humans think and anything else is lefty airy, fairy, hippy nonsense/conservative, privileged crap'. I'd never thought of myself as having 'liberal' views on parenting, gender equality, abortion/euthanasia etc they were just my views and it was up to everyone else to be pigeonholed.
I carried on with my life not really giving it any thought. Got a bit miffed at people almost exclusively buying dolls and fairy stuff for my daughter when I wanted her to have Lego and a few cars. Being aware of the continued use semi naked women to advertise everything from bingo sites to spark plugs. Maybe I have a slight bias having a daughter. I don't want her to ever believe she has to act in a certain way just because she is a girl. She is very susceptible to the way that TV, magazines, toys etc are aimed at girls or boys depending on the content even at the tender age of 4. This targeting will continue. As a girl who grew up with sleek, skinny, pert models spread across every magazine I bought when I was slightly pudgey, curvy, frizzy haired mess (imagine a teenage 'Ugly Betty' minus glasses for visual reference). She has recently had a bit of trouble at pre school with a boy who has been pinching her. I did the usual parent thing of explaining that this is the way that boys sometimes act when they like someone. Then immediately checked myself and told her that if he ever did it again she was to scream really loud and tell him not to do it/tell a teacher. Telling her to stay away from that particular boy smacked too much of taking the blame away from his unacceptable behaviour. I guess I could be accused of over analysing the situation. Could this small incident of bullying really set her up for a life of being a victim? I doubt it, but it is the kind of thing I worry about as a parent.
It wasn't until I started to really use Twitter that I realised that there were other people out there that think like me. The 'Slut Walks', in particular this photo, was a real turning point for me. Surely people don't blame victims of rape for the crime committed against them anymore? That is as archaic as wearing a girdle. Everyone knows that rape is about power and dominance and nothing to do with lust. Another naive assumption. I then came across @nomorepage3 - an agenda I had long since agreed with and a petition I happily signed immediately after finding out about it. This lead me to @EverydaySexism a wonderfully tragic account of women's daily encounters with misogyny and sexual harassment. It was here that I really learnt that there is absolutely no over analysis needed to find examples of sexism. It's just one of those things, once you become aware of it, you see it everywhere. Which I do now - everywhere. Supermarket Christmas ads were rich pickings, every single one showing a women slaving over wrapping presents, cleaning, cooking the dinner with a triumphant male carving the turkey and then slumping on the sofa whilst said woman was washing up. Instructions to buy power tools and computer games, hairdryers and make up for men and women respectively. The New Year ones, if it is possible, are worse. I sat through 5 adverts in a row one night telling me lose weight, buy this brand of low calorie food, start this diet plan, be gorgeous enough to have Aunty Gok wanting to grope me...
Twitter, that social media wonder, has opened my eyes and I now have a brilliant collection of inspiring like minded feminists to follow. (That really helps with my sanity. Regular 'phew, I'm not the only one' moments) I don't know, nor am I interested, whether they shave their legs, armpits or even bikini lines (particularly the men). If they hate men, then that's their prerogative (I'm fairly sure they hate a few narrow minded women as well). It doesn't stop them from being intelligent, insightful, funny and warm human beings who are striving for their belief that women deserve the same respect and opportunities as men. And we do. We've fucking earned it.
Thursday, 7 June 2012
Religion ≠ Morality
For me, consulting a 2000 year old book for tips on what is right is like feeling ill and expecting your doctor to diagnose you with an imbalance in your humours.
Before I get lynched by a bunch of religious zealots, let me make my point perfectly clear. I am not trying to discredit anyones beliefs here. Everybody has different opinions about why their god/scripture/religious culture is the right one and so long as you are not hurting anyone, that's fine by me. What I am talking about is the notion that atheists are amoral because they have no such belief.
I am writing this post out of confusion of this idea more than anything. I was always led to believe that your conscience is what informs your behaviour when you think nobody is looking. Now, if you believe in an omnipotent god who is keeping tabs on you, you are never not being watched and so every good thing you do is done in a bid to gain Brownie points. Trying to impress the big man upstairs in order to get you into heaven/paradise/valhalla. Surely your 'conscience' is redundant if you only do something to be rewarded in your next life...
The other thing which I just don't get is why certain people get so offended by people who do not believe in a god (especially if it is not their particular god) Whatever happened to 'live and let live'. What's it to them if we go to hell for being a non believer. I would rather burn in hell for not believing in god than go to church every Sunday and get into heaven having been a total bitch in the process. (By the way, I find the idea of heaven highly disturbing. What kind of pyschopath would enjoy an eternity of marshmallow clouded bliss knowing that there were people having red hot pokers shoved up their arses for all eternity because they didn't say 'sorry')
As far as I am concerned, if humanity lived by one simple rule we would all be a lot happier: Treat others as you would want to be treated. I am not saying this is total fail safe, but for the big moral issues I think it works. Do you want to be stolen from? No. Well don't steal then. Simple. Ironically, this is the constant in the major religions. (You know, the ones who having been fighting wars with each other since their inception). Peel away the layers of misogyny, slavery, murder and violence of religious scriptures and you will find that very simple message. And actually it has nothing to do with god. Be good to your fellow humans because that it the nice thing to do. What's so wrong with that?
Before I get lynched by a bunch of religious zealots, let me make my point perfectly clear. I am not trying to discredit anyones beliefs here. Everybody has different opinions about why their god/scripture/religious culture is the right one and so long as you are not hurting anyone, that's fine by me. What I am talking about is the notion that atheists are amoral because they have no such belief.
I am writing this post out of confusion of this idea more than anything. I was always led to believe that your conscience is what informs your behaviour when you think nobody is looking. Now, if you believe in an omnipotent god who is keeping tabs on you, you are never not being watched and so every good thing you do is done in a bid to gain Brownie points. Trying to impress the big man upstairs in order to get you into heaven/paradise/valhalla. Surely your 'conscience' is redundant if you only do something to be rewarded in your next life...
 |
| 'God loves you so much that he created hell so you would love him back' |
The other thing which I just don't get is why certain people get so offended by people who do not believe in a god (especially if it is not their particular god) Whatever happened to 'live and let live'. What's it to them if we go to hell for being a non believer. I would rather burn in hell for not believing in god than go to church every Sunday and get into heaven having been a total bitch in the process. (By the way, I find the idea of heaven highly disturbing. What kind of pyschopath would enjoy an eternity of marshmallow clouded bliss knowing that there were people having red hot pokers shoved up their arses for all eternity because they didn't say 'sorry')
As far as I am concerned, if humanity lived by one simple rule we would all be a lot happier: Treat others as you would want to be treated. I am not saying this is total fail safe, but for the big moral issues I think it works. Do you want to be stolen from? No. Well don't steal then. Simple. Ironically, this is the constant in the major religions. (You know, the ones who having been fighting wars with each other since their inception). Peel away the layers of misogyny, slavery, murder and violence of religious scriptures and you will find that very simple message. And actually it has nothing to do with god. Be good to your fellow humans because that it the nice thing to do. What's so wrong with that?
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Domestic Abuse is wrong - whatever form it takes
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month so I thought it might be a good opportunity to dispel a few myths.
Lets start with what the government defines as domestic abuse:
Already we’ve ruled out that it is only working class, white men who are the perpetrators. The last few years has seen a significant rise in men reporting incidents of domestic abuse. Also, most people have the presumptions that the abuse occurs in a relationship with a partner, but often it can be a parent or sibling who is the abuser. I guess what I am trying to get at is that domestic abuse is an issue for anybody and everybody who has been, is currently or ever likely to be in a relationship of any kind…with anyone!
Now we’ve got that out of the way, let’s turn our attentions to the reasons behind why the abuse occurs. Again, there is a tendency to believe the old cliché about abuse occurring due to alcohol or drugs. Some other favourites are mental health issues or learning disabilities. I am not going to deny that these factors can lead to violent and abusive behaviour but I would ask one question to anybody believing these excuses: Why is that person not indiscriminately abusive to whoever they come into contact with? If a man goes to the pub, has a few pints, walks home and then beats up his wife how can that be alcohol induced? Presumably there were plenty of people at the pub and/or on the way home to take out their ‘aggression’ on?! If somebody has a mental health issue which means that they occasionally become violent, why would they save that abuse for the person they were living with? Another popular excuse is ‘anger’. Many people who have perpetrated domestic abuse have claimed to have anger management issues and consequentially been sent on courses only to complete them and continue the abuse. The reason I bring up anger as a myth is because I think it is actually the furthest from the truth. Angry, violent outbursts are just that; outbursts. How can somebody become angry in a supermarket because their partner bought the wrong bread then save it until 2 hours later when they get home and are alone? It doesn’t make sense and reason that it doesn’t make sense is because it simply is not true. The reason that people perpetrate domestic abuse is to have power and control.
I would advise anybody who is considering having any contact with another human being to read Pat Craven’s book ‘Living With The Dominator‘. In it she draws on her extensive experience of working with violent men during her time as a probation officer to split the ‘Dominator’ into having 8 personas. These personas describe the varying types of abuse - financial, sexual, emotional, physical, isolation - and what tactics the dominator will use to break people down so that they have control over them. This could be anything from isolating people from their friends by monopolising their time to physically locking them in the house or hiding their shoes. It could be agreeing to give a person money for housekeeping or clothes for the children in exchange for sexual favours. It could be beating a person senseless and then cuddling them and tending to their injuries in such a sweet and sensitive way that the vicitm not only believes that the abuser has returned to their 'real self' but now has a totally warped perception of what 'love' is. This results in a victim devoid of self esteem, confidence, friends, family, self belief, money and freedom thus giving all power to the perpetrator. The very opposite of this being an emotional and spontaneous action, such as anger, the dominator is calculating and plans every move like a sick game of chess.
Given all this, it might seem easier to understand why people stay with abusive partners. Often, people who do try to leave have to return due to lack of planning and that gives the perpetrator even more dominance. Quite often, victims don''t even realise they are being abused. Emotional abuse is very subtle but can leave the most lasting scars. After all 'sticks and stones'... You may think that I am being unfair to the friends and family of the victim - surely they could go to them for support? Chances are is that our abuser is a bit of a charmer. Got time for everyone and generous to a fault. Who would believe that kind of behaviour from such a lovely person….
I don't know quite how to end this. Hopefully I have enlightened a few people. All I know is (as cheesy as it sounds) is that domestic abuse won't end with ignorance of it.
Lets start with what the government defines as domestic abuse:
“Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”
Now we’ve got that out of the way, let’s turn our attentions to the reasons behind why the abuse occurs. Again, there is a tendency to believe the old cliché about abuse occurring due to alcohol or drugs. Some other favourites are mental health issues or learning disabilities. I am not going to deny that these factors can lead to violent and abusive behaviour but I would ask one question to anybody believing these excuses: Why is that person not indiscriminately abusive to whoever they come into contact with? If a man goes to the pub, has a few pints, walks home and then beats up his wife how can that be alcohol induced? Presumably there were plenty of people at the pub and/or on the way home to take out their ‘aggression’ on?! If somebody has a mental health issue which means that they occasionally become violent, why would they save that abuse for the person they were living with? Another popular excuse is ‘anger’. Many people who have perpetrated domestic abuse have claimed to have anger management issues and consequentially been sent on courses only to complete them and continue the abuse. The reason I bring up anger as a myth is because I think it is actually the furthest from the truth. Angry, violent outbursts are just that; outbursts. How can somebody become angry in a supermarket because their partner bought the wrong bread then save it until 2 hours later when they get home and are alone? It doesn’t make sense and reason that it doesn’t make sense is because it simply is not true. The reason that people perpetrate domestic abuse is to have power and control.
I would advise anybody who is considering having any contact with another human being to read Pat Craven’s book ‘Living With The Dominator‘. In it she draws on her extensive experience of working with violent men during her time as a probation officer to split the ‘Dominator’ into having 8 personas. These personas describe the varying types of abuse - financial, sexual, emotional, physical, isolation - and what tactics the dominator will use to break people down so that they have control over them. This could be anything from isolating people from their friends by monopolising their time to physically locking them in the house or hiding their shoes. It could be agreeing to give a person money for housekeeping or clothes for the children in exchange for sexual favours. It could be beating a person senseless and then cuddling them and tending to their injuries in such a sweet and sensitive way that the vicitm not only believes that the abuser has returned to their 'real self' but now has a totally warped perception of what 'love' is. This results in a victim devoid of self esteem, confidence, friends, family, self belief, money and freedom thus giving all power to the perpetrator. The very opposite of this being an emotional and spontaneous action, such as anger, the dominator is calculating and plans every move like a sick game of chess.
Given all this, it might seem easier to understand why people stay with abusive partners. Often, people who do try to leave have to return due to lack of planning and that gives the perpetrator even more dominance. Quite often, victims don''t even realise they are being abused. Emotional abuse is very subtle but can leave the most lasting scars. After all 'sticks and stones'... You may think that I am being unfair to the friends and family of the victim - surely they could go to them for support? Chances are is that our abuser is a bit of a charmer. Got time for everyone and generous to a fault. Who would believe that kind of behaviour from such a lovely person….
I don't know quite how to end this. Hopefully I have enlightened a few people. All I know is (as cheesy as it sounds) is that domestic abuse won't end with ignorance of it.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
I am Spa*ticus
What is it about a song that makes it so offensive it is banned by a major broadcasting company such as the BBC! In 1977 the lyrics and artwork of the Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ was enough to do it, and yet it reached number 1 in the UK chart; a song which, now, would not be out of place on Steve Wright’s ‘Non-Stop Oldies’. Fast forward 4 years to 1981 ‘International Year of Disabled Persons’ and Ian Dury’s, now infamous, song ‘Spasticus Autisticus’. The BBC deemed it offensive to polite sensibilities and denied it airplay. Why? Can we assume the use of the ‘spastic’ may have something to do with it? A medical term used to describe a sufferer of Cerebal Palsy which, thanks to a Blue Peter appeal, became a playground taunt and soon seeped into mainstream use. Despite attempts in the mid 80’s to reclaim the term, The Spastics Society had to change its name to Scope in 1994. In 2003 a national survey found that it was the 2nd most offensive term in the UK
Anyway, I digress. Why, at a time when the word was still in common usage as a legitimate medical term and only just establishing itself as derogatory, was a song which used a deviated form of it banned? The cynical part of me is inclined to believe that the sensitive middle classes had their egos severely bashed by such a battle cry of a song. Anyone familiar with Ian Dury’s work will know what a wordsmith he was, and this song is years ahead of it’s time asking not for the charity and pity of people in ‘Normal Land’ but for equality and understanding.
By 1981, the western world had seen massive movements for equal rights for women and black people. Perhaps the United Nations felt that some emphasis should be put on promoting equality for disabled people. I can’t really argue with that, but the major downfall of this is that the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Rights movement were both instigated and lead, passionately and credibly, by the very people for whom it was imperative that positive change was made. That is the reason for their success. I am not saying complete success, but a marked improvement on a pretty diabolical situation in both cases. And that brings me neatly back to the song that imbued me to write this. The song’s refrain ‘I’m Spasticus Autistus’ was inspired by the response of the rebellious Roman gladiators in the film Spartacus who, when instructed to identify their leader, all answered ‘I am Spartacus’ to protect him. Now, maybe I am reading too much into this, but it would seem that on this basis Mr Dury shared my view. Spartacus may be little more than a folk hero, but the fact that his legacy is that of a struggle to lead an oppressed people to freedom, to me, shows an intellectual undertone to the blunt and graphic lyrics. I don’t know why I was surprised by this. The man was a genius and gained legions of fans because of his very clever use of language and turns of phrase.
Perhaps another reason for the corporate knee jerk reaction was that Dury could well have been a poster boy for the campaign if he had only played ball. Biography time: Ian Dury was born on 12th May 1942 in North West London. He contracted Polio as a child during the 1949 epidemic and was physically disabled as a result. After attending both a school for disabled children which taught trades and self reliance and a main stream grammar school, he went on to study at the Royal College of Art under Peter Blake and then went on to teach. A self made success story like that could have catapulted the cause into mainstream consciousness and given it the publicity needed to make effective change. However, the particular song under discussion was written as a direct attack of the IYDP which he felt was patronising and counter productive. Retrospectively, I think he was right.
It seems to me that the reason that this particular song sticks in our collective throats is that disability is one of the last taboos. In a society that can now talk openly about Sex & Drugs & Rock’n’Roll, we struggle with the barriers that separate ‘us’ and ‘them’
So what does all this boil down to? Maybe that the general public seem unphased by the constant barrage of sexist language and imagery used in the music and media industry for the sake of entertainment but are quite willing to forget about a well crafted and frank song by one of Britain’s most talented artists. Perhaps that 20 years after the IYDP we don’t seem that much closer to achieving equality through empowerment for people with disabilities. Apart from a few more easily accessible buildings and constantly worrying about the politically correct terminology what has really been achieved? We live in an incredibly diverse society and yet when was the last time a disabled person was given, or felt they could take, the spotlight?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)