Owning Words

There’s been a lot of excitement over the last week or so in the feminist blogosphere (which I spend a great deal of my time hanging about in, although can’t really claim to contribute to) generated by this piece in the New Statesman by Sadie Smith. In the interest of fairness I want to point out it was responded to eloquently in the same publication the next day by CN Lester and they addressed many of the points well so I’ll leave you that one to read, and I thoroughly recommend that you do.

But one of the most contentious points of Smith’s article was her discomfort with the word ‘cis’. This was answered in Lester’s piece (as well as by Stavvers and Cel West here), and that got me thinking. I’ve never really thought about the word before. I understood that it described me, as many words do, but I had never thought about it as being particularly problematic. I then came across this article (I have linked to it, but please be aware that some of it, especially the comments, is very transphobic. Seriously. This is pretty hurtful stuff) also arguing against the use of the word cis.

The main gist of it is that the word is being applied to a large swathe of women who had no say in it. I understand how this might tick someone of, but I honestly think there’s been a bit of wilful misunderstanding going on here. This wasn’t something that was just dropped on people with little or no basis in lived experience. The concept already existed. There are people who are trans and people who are not trans. It seems obvious there should be a simple, succinct word that means ‘not trans’. That word is cis. Stated like this I realised that cis actually benefits me because it means I don’t have to define myself in negative. I don’t like defining myself by what I’m not. There is a recognised word that describes me and that can only be a good thing.

The article also takes issue with cis by claiming it is reductionist and separates people into two discrete camps, reducing their identities down to a narrow definition. Again I think this is wilful misunderstanding. There is not one way to be a cis man or cis woman, or a trans man or trans woman, or anything in between. There’s not one universally understood way of being lesbian, British, Northern, White, socialist, feminist or agnostic but I use all these words to describe myself and understand what other people are getting at when they use them to refer to me. There’s nuances and differing definitions and a whole spectrum of identities encompassed in these words but I like to think they have space to allow these interpretations. I also like to think that people respect the way I chose to use these words and are prepared to allow me to explain myself. I see no reason why cis should be any different. Equally the claim made that it makes gender a concrete, immovable thing is also flawed. Having equivalent but different terms illustrates that there is a range of expressions of gender and all are equally valid. All words are somewhat blunt instruments that are open to interpretation. None of them are perfect in all situations but its how we communicate. Seeing people refusing to engage with language this way is just frustrating.

Smith’s article also highlights the use of terms such as ‘cissexist’ and ‘cisfascist’ that she claims are freely thrown at cis women in an attempt to silence them. I’m not sure about this. I’ve never come across the term cis being used as a direct insult, but that doesn’t mean that it’s never happened. The terms Smith quotes seem more likely to have come from someone being frustrated at how trans people are seen as ‘abnormal’ and how society is set up on the assumption that everyone is cis. This is something that needs to be challenged so I don’t really accept Smith’s argument in this place.

Ultimately I think the resistance to the word cis comes from people who previously assumed they were the norm, the default, and this position has now been challenged. There is no such thing as normal and if the term cis is used as freely and frequently as trans then it will help work towards a more equal, inclusive society.

My Personality Tests Keep Coming Back Negative

I have lost count of the number of jobs I have applied for since October. I could go back through the wee notebook I’ve been keeping and count them all (after the sheet the dole office gave me was filled up in about a week) but I’m not really inclined to. I have come across every way of applying for positions you can think of. I have emailed CVs, handed CVs in to actual people, done online and paper applications, even just chatted to a charming pub landlady by means of applying for a bar job. I could write a detailed analysis of the process of applying for jobs, and if anyone feels like employing me to do such a thing I will certainly oblige.

One things I have noticed is the increased use of ‘personality tests’ when applying for jobs online. So far I’ve only come across them when applying for jobs in the financial sector, but these things have a tendency of spreading like bird flu so it probably won’t be long before McDonalds want to know if you’re a fire type or a water type and family run solicitors are making you do those inkblot tests.

They’re clearly based on some pseudo-scientific bullshit. They ask you to describe yourself in ways which are just, frankly, odd. You have to click on statements on a computer screen and, usually, rank them in some sort of order. The statements used are usually sweeping and either complete common sense (I am a good worker) or make no sense at all (I would rather write a letter with crayon than eat soup with a fork). This is clearly to stop people sussing them out and just lying to try and get the job. Usually they group qualities together in such a way that it’s impossible to work out which one they value the most highly. Are you organised or motivated? Er, can’t I be both? There’s some algorithm at work there that I just can’t crack.

It also must be a pretty flimsy way of getting to know someone. Selecting from a pre-thought up list of qualities must be extremely limiting. It also offers no opportunity for explanation, but you have to get through this crap to be able to properly talk about yourself. You don’t even get to fill out an online application before you go through this lot. Some computer sits there and appears to randomly allocate you a personality and, if you are deemed worthy, you can talk to an actual person and this actual person can see if you’re actually going to be any good at the actual job.

They also don’t work. By that I mean they can’t tell who is going to be good at a job and who isn’t. I know this for a fact because I used to work for a building society. I applied through their website and failed their personality test. A few months later I was offered an interview through an agency and, because once I was looking at a real person and could explain my skills and relevant previous experience they decided I might be able to do the job, I was offered it. I then went on not just to work in the customer service role I’d applied online for but to specialise in ISAs and Bonds which are considerably more complicated. The digital personality test didn’t know anything about me, let alone how shit hot I was when it came to advising people on tax free savings.

So they’re demoralising, confusing, infuriating and they don’t work, so why keep using them? Simple, despite what IDS says about there being thousands of jobs vacancies there just aren’t. There are, however, thousands of job seekers so putting some daft cyber roadblock to eliminate most of them in the early stages probably saves a lot of time for companies. It’s a pretty shitty way to treat people though. Yes, if there are eight thousand people applying for twenty vacancies you’re works cut out for you but at least have the common decency for it to be a person who turns you down, not some low-rate psychobabble squit of software. This is why everyone I know is emigrating to Australia*.

I would absolutely love it if these things disappeared. I'd love it even more if the irritating ones people keep putting up on Facebook disappeared as well. No, I don't care which Scrubs cast member I am (it's always Dr Cox, by the way) and if you need to build up a picture of yourself using a test someone else wrote to kill time you have bigger problems than I can fix.

I can haz job now plz? Kthnxbai

*True story.

Workfare and the Loss of Self

Workfare is a terrible, inhumane policy thought up by a government that specialises in terrible, inhumane policies. As I’ve said before it is a truly awful time to be unfortunate and vulnerable enough to rely on the state. Not only are the benefits that allow you to survive being seriously eroded but you are treated like lying, cheating scum. Workfare is one such manifestation of this. And then there’s the ridiculous (I’d laugh if I could stop gnashing my teeth in anger) situation the government now finds itself in of Workfare having been declared illegal, but they’re going to retro-actively change the law.

Let’s have a quick re-cap of the case against Workfare.

If you are on the dole for nine months they can pack you off to a work programme. This may or may not involve you working for a company for free. They will tell you that you are doing it in exchange for benefits, but the companies are getting free (or slave) labour. Often you will be doing a job for free next to someone who gets paid for it. Imagine how that much feel for both of you. The unemployed person is being told they’re not worth the same as someone else doing exactly the same thing, and the employed person is being told their job is so worthless they can get someone else to do it for free. You may be told its work experience. It won’t be. They won’t listen to you and place you somewhere worthwhile or that may help you with your long time career aspirations and goals. They will place you with someone who has a cosy little partnership with the DWP. It also is taking jobs away from your fellow job seekers. Why would a company hire someone and pay them when the dole bunnies will do it for free? Many promises of permanent, paid employment at the end of the placement are just guff.

So, Workfare is damaging and dehumanising. Companies and the DWP are exploiting vulnerable people. What could make this worse? How about if charities were doing it? Yes, charities are using people on Workfare placements. The very organisations that claim to be helping the vulnerable in society are taking advantage of those same people, and, just because someone is a volunteer, don’t think they can’t be undermined. The message is clear; why would you want to do this because you think it is right? These fools are being forced into it. They could also, once again, be taking away hours that people rely on for social contact or to keep themselves busy in retirement or work towards a career in a specific field. I expect private companies to be prepared to do anything to make a buck, but charities? I honestly expected better.

There’s been calls for boycotts of companies using Workfare, and charities have been no exception. Frankly I think any organisation that takes advantage of people in such a way should be stripped of their charitable status. But much of this I already thought before. Then I came across this piece by Sarah Ditum expressing her regret that the Salvation Army, a charity close to her heart, were using Workfare.

I was disappointed as well. The Salvation Army are a charity that work with the poorest and most desperate people in society. I can imagine few poorer or more desperate than those on the dole, especially those who have been on the dole for so long they’ve been shipped off to a Workfare programme. It sounds like a sick joke. Ditum notes that the YMCA have similarly let the side down.

Then she made a very interesting point, and one I hadn’t considered before. The Salvation Army are an overtly religious charity. What happens when someone who, for example, is a hard line atheist and disagrees with any kind of organised religion, is asked to work for them for free? This could go for a number of charities. Suspicious of Oxfam’s practices in the UK and abroad? Tough. Can’t stand Help for Heroes rhetoric or over-simplification of complex issues? Don’t care. Disagree with the NSPCC’s  emotional blackmail in their adverts? None of our concern.

Of course, this could go for private companies as well. Someone who holds deep anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation beliefs would be loathed to be forced to work for Walmart partner, ASDA. Would an anti-sweathshop campaigner feel comfortable working in Primark? The examples can go into the thousands. No company is perfect and no charity has a cause that everyone can get behind.

Resistance, however, is pointless. Refuse and they will stop your benefits. Not only have they taken your freedom and dignity by forcing you to work for free but they’ve taken away your right as a human being to express your thoughts and views. The DWP is successfully dehumanising the unemployed, and this, although an issue burning for a long time, is just another reason to boycott Workfare.

Dying for a Biscuit; The Tragic Story of James Best

During the riots that broke out in August 2011 a man named James Best walked past an already looted bakery in Croydon, went in and took a gingerbread man. His actions were probably illegal but, given other events happening that day, seem somewhat small fry. This, however, was not the view taken by Croydon magistrates court. They remanded him in custody to await sentence as part of the ‘fast track justice’ that kicked in after the riots subsided and the fires were put out. Once held in prison he died of a heart attack believed to have been brought on by over exercising.

Best was ill, both mentally and physically. He suffered from Crohn’s disease, arthritis and asthma. He had also recently been sectioned under the Mental Health Act as it was felt he was a danger to himself. He was a vulnerable man who made a daft decision, but one that no decent thinking human being could think was dangerous, or even morally objectionable. He was not cared for as someone with his health concerns should have been. He was overlooked at a time when prisons and police stations were full to bursting with people who had committed only minor offences. They were being kept there as an examples. The government could not address the resentment and sense of disenfranchisement that was at the heart of the riots, but they could try and look hard and order lots of people locked up.

An inquest into James Best’s death had now been called.

During the riots everyone panicked. For those caught in it I can only imagine the terror. I do count myself lucky that there were no riots in the city I was living in at the time. However, no amount of fear, no amount of uncertainty can excuse the death of a vulnerable man in the care of the state. During that restless August cases were rushed through and sentences handed down quickly. The government was adamant that they would show the disobedient population who was boss. As a result a man died. No one cared that he was ill, they just wanted to illustrate what happens when you get caught up in a publicity stunt such as the handling of the rioters.

Had Best stolen a gingerbread man during any other week of the year it is unlikely he would even have been taken to court, especially in light of his health issues. This is a truly tragic example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No explanation about how busy the police were at that time will suffice. If they were that busy they should have been focussing on those individuals who were actually posing a danger to people, not just those who felt a bit peckish. I don’t want to think of the British justice system as one that would not give an individual a proper, fair consideration, in any circumstance.

How can the system that let James Best die pass judgment on the rest of us? He should not have been in that prison, and even if he should have, he should not have been treated as he was. This is the worst outcome of the riots, the disregard for the freedoms, rights and lives of individuals. This is a system trying to prove a point as to how righteous it is by coming down too hard on people who haven’t done anything wrong. A man died for no good reason and that has destroyed their moral authority and undermined the entire justice system.

Review*: In The Flesh

*Yeah, I do these now.

I was quite looking forward to In The Flesh. I love me a bit of zombie. Also, since Being Human became unrecognisable from the first series that I loved with all my heart (no programme can survive an entire cast change and still be the same) I was looking for some Sunday night supernatural BBC Three action.
 
I wasn’t disappointed. I would have been quite content with the usual zombie apocalypse fare, but In The Flesh offered something interesting and different. Set a few years after the dead became reanimated it focuses on those who’d been ‘infected’ (exactly how the undead became the undead wasn’t gone into. Hopefully that’s a treat for later in the series). The zombies were taking medication to help them live again amongst their friends and families. It also showed those who thought there was no place for them back in society.

If focuses on the story of Kieran (Luke Newberry) who relies on daily shots to stop him reverting to a flesh eating monster when he moves back in with his family. He's described, rather brilliantly, as having Partially Deceased Syndrome. His sister, Jem (Harriet Cains), is part of the HVF, the Human Volunteer Force who are anxious to stop the undead coming back into the community and prepared to use violent means to stop them if necessary.

I think it’s fantastic to set a zombie drama after the chaos and bloodshed and it not be just another ‘they’re all dead, Dave’ post-apocalyptic scenario. I can’t think of another film or TV series that has given the zombies back their humanity and tried to imagine how they would be received. It’s pretty interesting stuff.

Last night’s episode touched on a lot of quite complex, often moral, themes. Horror and fantasy (also sci fi, but to a lesser extent) often skirt round anything contentious or political and instead. It’s implicitly understood that supernatural dramas don’t need to do that. All the more reason why In The Flesh is so new and exciting.

Firstly it addresses the idea of redemption. Can someone who has done such evil things ever truly be sorry and be forgiven? Also, should acceptance be forced on those who don’t want it, and what might the consequences be if it is? Parallels can be drawn with every violent criminal you can think of.

There’s also the question of medication. Is someone truly ‘cured’ if they still rely on medication, and can they truly be sorry if it’s a chemical that makes them appear so? Also, these people were dead (the programme was very clear that they all died and then were brought back as zombies rather than become zombies from being healthy, living human beings) and once someone is gone is it perhaps better to accept that they are gone rather than try and bring them back? This is quite a well explored theme already. We’ve had mummies trying to bring back their dead girlfriends and vampires killing people they love to make them immortal. In a majority of cases this does not end well, but it’s still an area ripe for exploration.

The plight of the undead can also be read as a metaphor for intolerance. Many people living in Kieran’s village, particularly members of the HVF, will not accept the return of the PDS sufferers regardless of what evidence is put in front of them. But it’s because they’re scared. They’ve seen friends and family be killed and don’t want to see it happen again. It’s quite a mature representation. These people have a genuine reason to be nervous and its fear that fuels their hatred.
 
It’s set in ‘the North’. I know this because there was a poignant shot of Kieran being driven by his parents over the Humber Bridge. Also, the cast all have Manchester/Lancashire accents. This adds to a sense of isolation. The focus put on ‘the cities’ during the initial trouble is brought up several times, indicating a community that feel abandoned. Anyone who is not from London will know this feeling well. Roarton, the village its set in, is described as being ‘radical’ in its anti-zombie attitudes. This could easily be seen as a nod to the northern towns who are caricatured as backwards and resistant to new ideas. You know, the racist ones.  

In The Flesh made me think of these questions, but it didn’t give me any answers. In a way I’m glad. I’m not really one for heavy and clumsy moralising. Perhaps some of these themes will be addressed more closely in the rest of the series. But I’m still delighted that the programme goes into such unconventional territory. This is the kind of thing we need to see more of. Something genuinely imaginative and innovative that isn’t afraid to engage with the difficult questions that often come up when life and death are explored. 

In The Flesh on iPlayer and IMDB.

GUU and the Sense of Entitlement at Uni

Over the last week there has been a lot of excitement and comment generated by the misogynist abuse directed at two female debaters who were attending an event at Glasgow University Union. The university paper has been covering it, and so have national news outlets including the Huffington Post and the Guardian. The behaviour of a few individual members of GUU is absolutely appalling, but, sadly, not all that shocking. As has been seen recently women who speak out in the public realm are subjected to abuse not for their opinions but because they are women. It is, quite frankly, pathetic that we are still in this state in 2013.

However, the problem of misogyny seems to be endemic in the GUU, as detailed in this blog post by a former Glasgow uni student. Reading her words (which I encourage you to do, although I know I have already been quite link happy in this post) really made me feel sorry that she and other students like her had suffered in this way. I’m not going to discuss what happened at the GUU debate, that has already been done extremely well (see links above, and Google) but I have been thinking about the mindset that seems to have been betrayed by these men.

The things shouted at the women (‘get that woman out of my union!') are very telling. These appear to be privileged young men from wealthy backgrounds who feel able to dismiss anyone who isn’t exactly like them out of hand. This got me thinking about the greater environment of universities and how they are can very easily become places where a specific elite call the shots. Anyone who doesn’t fit the mould can be made to feel very uncomfortable.

I’ve been to three unis in two countries (Oooooooo! Get me!) and I have to say that I, thankfully, was never made to feel uncomfortable because I was a woman. I was never even made to feel uncomfortable for being British when I was studying abroad. I was, however, in England, made to feel uncomfortable about my accent.

I don’t have that strong an accent, but it is there. I did my first degree at Manchester (a place where Northern accents I assumed would be commonplace) but I still was once told in a seminar that I was ‘a chav’ because of how I talked. I was also aware that some societies were closed off from me because of either disproportionate joining fees or astronomical equipment costs. Those people who’d taken a proper ‘gap year’ (rather than a year out to work in a call centre, which was what my ‘gap year’ was) and gone travelling exuded a self-belief that came from the experiences they’d got. Then, when it came to my final year, there were those who could be set up with jobs or internships through existing family connections. They were the ones least concerned (particularly about revising. It makes sense. If you don’t need a 2:1 why bust your gut?) about the future.

There was a clear class of people far more comfortable than the rest of us. I’m not saying by any means that those from wealthy backgrounds were all dicks (you can be a tool regardless of where you’re from) but I can see how those young men in Glasgow, brought up believing that they were entitled to be there, came to the conclusion that they were above others. They were the best, the privileged, the elite and they could talk down to anyone they wanted. This sense of entitlement is there in British universities and anyone who doesn’t fit in with the clique is open to abuse. It’s not right, but it’s a world view held by people like this.

And it’s only going to get worse. With the increase in fees certain universities will become more and more homogenised as only a small section of society can afford to go. The original idea of university (to open your mind and expose yourself to new thinking, people and ideas) will suffer if everyone who goes there is from a similar background. The ideas held by misogynistic spoilt brats will be more likely to go unchallenged if they rarely come across someone whose lived experience is different from their own. Of course, I don’t think for a moment that everyone who is lucky enough to come from a comfortable background will think like this, but the evidence is that there is a portion that does.

We are on the verge of further segregating universities. Incidents like what happened at GUU will increase, and it won’t just be women who suffer. It will be everyone who doesn’t already enjoy the comfortable life of the elite.

Upgrade

I’ve made some changes to the blog. I’ve changed the name because the ‘Fluffy Little Ball of Hate’ is not all I am. I mean I am always fluffy, but I’m not always filled with hate. As I’ve got older I’ve found that hate isn’t what I’m usually filled with anymore. I’m often filled with a kind of exhausted exasperation or blustery indignation. Either way ‘hate’ doesn’t seem right. FLBOH was also the name of the blog I attempted at uni which is still floating out there somewhere. Onwards and upwards I say, or at least sideways.

I’ve also changed the background so it looks less dark and, well, claustrophobic. Also, and I am going to admit this, it looks a bit more (dare I say it?) GROWN UP. And I’m quite partial to that shade of red.

The font size is also going up. It was a bit hard to read so I’ve fixed it. I had a look at changing the posts I’ve already put up but I couldn’t find out how. If anyone knows please let me know. But from now on all new posts will be in eye friendly text.

There’s also added links in the recommended blogs and sites to waste your life on sections, although they change a lot anyway. I only put that on here as this post on changes already existed.

Er…that’s about it.

What's Worse than Being Called a Bigot?

Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps being told that your relationship is worth less than a heterosexual one? Maybe being told that just by wanting to show a commitment to the person you love you are undermining the marriage if millions of people, your friends, family, parents, co-workers etc. Or being told that just wanting your relationship to be given the same name and recognition as others is destroying our culture might be considered by some over sensitive souls to be a little perturbing.

Yesterday the House of Commons passed a bill allowing same sex couples to get married, enjoy all the same rights as a heterosexual couple and call it a marriage. I wrote that I was in support of this motion and explained why. I was therefore happy and relieved last night when I heard that MPs had voted in favour of the bill with a sizeable majority. I thought that this was a step in the right direction. This was a public acknowledgment that a same sex relationship has the same worth as a heterosexual one.

But then today started and I woke up to a backlash. I understand people who opposed the bill voicing their disappointment. Had things gone the other way I would do the same, but this was different. This was displaying a horrific double standard coupled with a juvenile sense of entitlement. These are the people who were complaining that they had been called ‘bigotted’, ‘prejudiced’ and ‘homophobic’ over their opposition to the bill.

To start I would like to state that I think opposing the bill was categorically homophobic. I saw it as denying people rights just because they weren’t straight. It seemed like a fairly clear cut example of homophobia to me. However, I understand that this is an emotive word and people don’t like to be called it. My response to that is simple; if you don’t want to be called homophobic stop saying homophobic things, and if someone says you are being homophobic and you think you’re not ask them why. You might get a bit of an education.

But what I found truly mind boggling was the victimised mindset of these people. They felt so offended that they were called these things. They were nervous of speaking their opinions in case someone did something awful like ask them if they thought that sounded a bit prejudiced. Somehow the thought has never occurred to them that what they were saying was causing offense. It really never penetrated their victim complexes that the person you’re just told shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they happened to fall in love with the ‘wrong’ gender might be a bit upset. Oh no, we couldn’t possibly offend their precious sensibilities. Their right to hold opinions that see some people as having less worth than others trumps the right of the person whose just been told their an abomination for being gay.

If you want to be homophobic I can’t stop you. You have every right to think that, but, for fucks sake, learn to take it when someone tries to engage you as to why they find your views insulting and offensive. You are not the only injured party here. How about a little bit of mutual respect in this? The hypocrisy and double standard of this viewpoint is staggering.

Then there were the ones who decided they were part of the ‘silent majority’. This is, according to this opinion poll (and the ones discussed in this polling report), quite clearly bollocks. And even if they are part of some oppressed 51% this isn’t something to really be that concerned with if you’re not in a same sex relationship, because it doesn’t really affect you. Alright, so a few more people will be legally described as ‘married’ but, honestly, how does this impact upon existing marriages? Really? 

This comes back to a theme we’ve seen a lot recently in different contexts. Being called a racist is ‘the worst thing possible’ (what about being beaten up for being black?). Being called a rapist ‘destroys lives’ (what about people who are abused, sexually assaulted and raped?). Having your views challenged isn’t really that bad in the grand scheme of things, so get some fucking perspective. Your right to speak goes hand in hand with my right to challenge. That is freedom of speech. Many people who complain about this seem to really like that concept and bang on about it a lot.

Keep saying homophobic things and I will call you homophobic. Simple as.

Thoughts on Same Sex Marriage

Today MPs are debating whether or not to allow same sex couples to register their relationship as a marriage. There’s also a section of the bill that proposes trans people can remain married to their spouse despite their change in legally recognised gender. To say this bill has been controversial would be understating things slightly. Google it and you will get an avalanche of views and arguments. People have claimed it will undermine marriage, others that it will strengthen it. Both religious groups and LGBT rights organisations have claimed it doesn’t go far enough and that it goes too far or is deeply unhelpful. Then there are those who claim this is not the issue to be focussing on at the moment when we have so many bigger things to worry about. This is mainly the economy, which appears to still be SNAFUed, and no amount of smiling gay people is going to change that.

I personally agree with the bill and that view is the result of some quite soul searching conversations with myself and others. I think that same sex couples should be allowed to call their legally recognised partnership a marriage. The fact that all the people I know currently in same sex civil partnerships refer to their partner as husband or wife and their relationship as a marriage seems to me to support a change in law.

A lot of problems seem to stem from the use of the word ‘marriage’. Some opponents of the bill feel that a marriage is between a man and a woman and, although many have no problem with a legally protected, legally binding relationship such as a civil partnership between gay people they would rather the word ‘marriage’ were not used. I cannot agree with this. Although ‘equal’ does not always mean ‘identical’ I think in this case having different words for different kinds of relationships signifies that they are not equal, and in a society where, despite great gains in recent decades, LGB (I’ll come back to the T later) face prejudice and discrimination it is not helpful.

Equally those who argue that this is going to create a second category of marriage I disagree with. As far as I can see a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be the same. I see no difference why relationships would differ just because the genders of the people in it do. To assume otherwise reinforces gender roles and stereotypes that I also don’t agree with. This is where trans people under the law as it stands can find it difficult. If they wish to undergo a transition or present themselves as a different gender to when they got married they currently have to divorce their partner. Allowing them to remain married to the same person also means that, if the relationship is now a same sex one, it is the same marriage as it always was.

Similarly the argument put forward that marriage needs to stay heterosexual and separate for ‘the sake of the children’ I find deeply insulting both to same sex couples who have children and straight couples who do not. There is nothing that I would consider essential to a healthy relationship that cannot be found with a partner of either sex.

The point I have the most respect for is that changing the name is unnecessary because not every couple wants or needs to be married. And that’s fine. I agree whole heartedly with that sentiment, but I think that everyone should have the same choices open to them. All relationships should be supported, but if someone wants to get married and have it called a marriage with all the romance and permanency that word invokes then they should be allowed to. As I said above many same sex couples already do, it’s just not legally recognised.

I understand that some people have a deep, often religious objection to same sex relationships in all their forms. Although when I come across this viewpoint it breaks my heart that’s not really what I’m discussing here. People are entitled to their views as long as those views are not interfering in the lives of other people. I think there are ways that religious leaders and groups who support same sex marriage can perform the ceremonies and support the couples without enforcing every member of that organisation to. I’ve heard the ‘slippery slope’ argument in relation to this one a lot, and I frankly think religious groups are quite capable of remaining vigilant and ensuring no one is forced to do something they don’t want to do. Individual churches can refuse to take a female priest, but that doesn’t meant there are no female priests in the church. Surely a similar system could be worked out?

I understand a lot of the arguments, but ultimately I support the changing of the law. I don’t think it will cause any social or personal harm and I think it would send a message, if nothing else, that LGBT people really are equal in Britain today.

I’ll leave you with a word from my favourite angry, animated squirrel, Foamy.

‘Gay folks should get married. If anyone is going to appreciate the concept and institution of these unions, it will be them. They fought for the right to be married, they’ve taken media back-lash for it, they’ve been beaten, spat upon, ridiculed, but still, they persevere and want to marry their significant other. They’re not standing at the alter with a shot gun to their head. They’re fighting through crowds of angry protestors and backward thinking religious fanatics in order to marry someone they love.’

Attack of the 50 Stone Benefit Claimant

Yesterday a particularly nasty suggestion from Westminster Council emerged into the public realm. Obese and ‘other unhealthy people’ will have their benefits docked if they don’t do as they’re told and get some exercise. There was also the suggestion of using ‘smart cards’ to track to progess of these fatties, a la Alec Shelbrooke’s insulting suggestions just before Christmas.

There are so many levels of wrong to this at first I thought it was a joke. Using cards to track people’s movements is a very, very suspicious move and an extremely slippery slope. As is telling people how to behave or no money to live on for you. Then there’s the issue of gyms. Gyms (and making chubby benefit claimants join them) are expensive. I Googled gyms in my area (not the wealthiest part of the UK by any means) and the cheapest private ones were about £24 a month. The council ones were between £19 and £23 a month. That is a lot of money for someone on the lowest rate of JSA (£52 a week). It’s unfeasible.

The astute among you will note that gyms aren’t the only form of exercise, and I agree with you. In fact I’d far rather go for a walk or a swim than run on a treadmill for thirty minutes. Except that gyms are very easy to track people in (I assume you just swipe your smart card at the entrance) so obviously if you’re main goal is keeping an eye on those disobedient chubsters gyms are the way to go. Otherwise we're just left with the option of trusting that people who say they walk the dog for twenty minutes every day are actually doing it. Trusting people on benefits to be in charge of their own lives? We can’t have that.

And it’s just rude. Singling someone out because of their size is unacceptable. I don’t care if ‘fat people cost the NHS money’. So to athletes, but I would never tell someone they had to stop playing football in case they got injured and spent my precious taxes on nurses and bandages. And as for those selfish fuckers who require care in hospitals for their offspring…words cannot express how angry I am at them. Don’t get me started on that dumbfuck who crashed his car and now needs a pot on his leg. No. The NHS cannot work like that, otherwise it’ll just turn into one arbitrary list of people who are banned from their GPs for various pointless reasons. I assume that the rather ominous 'other unhealthy people' phrase from the report I linked too means they will soon come for anyone who doesn't conduct themselves in the meticulously described manner laid down by their all powerful masters at the Job Centre.

Also, I fail to see what it is to do with the council or the government how wide someone’s arse is. With the exception of about 0.00000001% of cases a person being obese will not affect their ability to work in most jobs. I used to work in a warehouse. Three of the four of us on my Saturday shift were classed as overweight and yet we still managed a physically demanding job just fine. So why allow it to cut into employment benefits like JSA or tax credits?

So, having established that this is an unworkable idea, deeply insulting and just plain impolite, why have they been allowed to suggest it? Simple. Fat people aren’t people and people on benefits aren’t people so fat people on benefits are some kind of horrific, sub-human scum. At least that’s the image this proposal gives out. Like those ridiculous limits on what people on benefits can buy this is infantilising and patronising. It denies people control over their finances, their homes and, the absolute worst, their own bodies.

It’s very telling that this latest assault is aimed only at those outrageous enough to claim benefits. Fat people are attacked every day of the week but this proposal is particularly interesting. If being fat is unhealthy (as these proposals state) then why aren’t they putting in measures for people who are working and carting around a few extra pounds? I’m honestly surprised no one has suggested docking wages for overweight people in employment.    

I thought we were meant to be moving beyond the ‘Nanny State’? It doesn’t get much more Nanny state than punishing us for eating too many sweets. This proposal is utterly ridiculous and I hope to God, for the sake of the rights we should hold over our own bodies and the right to maintain dignity while relying on the welfare state, it gets dissolved in acid. If I ever meet the people who drafted it they will feel all of my fat bird wrath. I could knock these weasly fascists out with one tit.

Gok Wan's Rules of Attraction

Before we start I’m going to freely admit something; I quite like Gok Wan. It’s probably because on telly he’s always so sweet and nice to everyone but I always thought that he’d be really lovely in real life as well*. I can’t imagine him getting disproportionately angry if you forgot to record Downton Abbey for example. I also, and this could just be my soft spot for him, genuinely believe he wants to do his best for the people that appear on his shows. He does want them to feel better about themselves. My only problem is, I think he’s going to wrong way about it.

I love about 70% of the stuff he does on How to Look Good Naked. I get a bit uncomfortable by his constant reinforcement that all women must look smaller all the time but I also understand that, as that’s the message that’s constantly around us in society, that is what makes a lot of women feel good. Maybe I’m asking a bit much of Gok to challenge that assumption (his is, after all, just trying to make a bit of light entertainment) but I wish he’d make a bit of an effort.

However, I was pretty disappointed in last night’s fare, Gok’s Style Secrets. This time around not only is Gok giving out fashion advice, but dating advice as well. Whenever I see the phrase ‘dating advice’ alarm bells start ringing. If the advice is not ‘be yourself, surround yourself with people who like you to build up your confidence and then go talk to people you fancy’ then the advice is likely to be dodge. If the advice is not what is previously stated (or a version of it) there’s a pretty high chance that this will tell you to change yourself in order to meet someone. I have reason to believe that Gok’s advice is in the second category as it states on Gok’s own website he’ll be telling you what to do, say and wear on a date. The answer to all three is ‘whatever you want and whatever feels comfortable’ but that can’t be stretched out for an hour.

This advice is overwhelmingly aimed at women, and it overwhelming tells women to appear more ‘sexy’ and demure, to quieten down, to wear different clothes, to not laugh too loud or burp or talk for an hour about your favourite album/film/football team/breed of dog. As well as being oddly inaccurate (I’m as obnoxiously gassy and badly dressed as they come and I’ve never had problems getting into relationships. Or bed) it seems very strange to change yourself to appeal to someone else. Because then they’re not attracted to you. They’re attracted to the sanitised version you’ve chosen to portray. What if your dastardly plan works and you get married? Spending your whole life not farting and avoiding interesting topics of conversation sounds like just about the worst thing I can think of. You see this advice all the time, in magazines, in rom coms, even sometimes from ‘friends’ (who, if they think you need to change that dramatically, have no business calling themselves your friends).

The other aspect I find problematic is the focus on appearance. Setting up a woman for dating by telling her to be ‘sexy’ suggest that there is only one way to be sexy and this is the most important part of a date. What’s that? You think it is? It’s not. Finding someone physically attractive has nothing to do with how hard they tried to look sexy. Also looks are not the be all and end all of attractiveness.

And these looks are so prescriptive. The lady on last night had a very specific and personal style. Clearly she wasn’t sure it was working or else she wouldn’t have contacted Gok but other women might see that, look down at their crushed velvet dresses and think so is this wrong? It’s not, it’s not wrong. You wear what you want to wear, and it doesn’t matter if it looks sexy to someone else, or even to you, because it’s OK not to look sexy all the time.

This is the problem I always had with Snog, Marry, Avoid, although they occasionally let women who dressed in a punky or gothic style off the hook because they were ‘individuals’ it still told women even more specifically than Gok that being attractive was the most important aspect of appearance (the clue is in the title) and that only certain looks were sexy. If a girl wants to wear layers of fake tan and eyelashes with pink feathers on the end then what, really, does it have to do with you? These women will see themselves as just as individual as the goth girl whose just been told by Gok she looks scary.

So, I’m sorry Gok, but you’re assumptions are wrong, your delivery is wrong, your emphasis is wrong and I’m still gonna rely heavily on Doc Martens, band t-shirts and thick black eyeliner. And my lady loves it.

Maybe it’s different for lesbians.

*I did actually meet Gok Wan once. It was when I lived in Manchester and drink might have been consumed. I saw him on Canal Street, ran up to him, told him I thought he was ace and I wished I’d met him when I was sober. He patted me on the shoulder and said 'I wish you’d been sober when you met me too, love’. So he’s quite funny as well as sweet.

Ghost Nation

When I was younger I had far better taste in music than I do now. This is because until I was about thirteen I didn’t really buy my own music, I just listened to my Dad’s. The thought has never even crossed his mind, but he is one of the coolest people I know. As he ferried me and my brother around the scabby fringes of West Yorkshire we would listen to his music. I have fond memories of Led Zeppelin, The Jam, The Clash, The Ramones and Steely Dan blaring away on the stereo in his car. One of the songs I remember most clearly (probably because it is objectively brilliant and still gets played at clubs and house parties) is Ghost Town by The Specials.

A few days ago the song came on while my music was on random. I must have been in a pretty reflective mood because suddenly I realised every one of the words being sung to me could describe the UK at this moment. The second verse rang particularly true;

This town’s becoming like a ghost town

Why must the youth fight against themselves?

Government leaving the youth on the shelf

This place is coming like a ghost town

No jobs to be found in this country

Can’t go on no more

The people getting angry

The song was released in 1981 during a time of turbulence and uncertainty in Britain. There were riots, rising unemployment and during the rest of the 1980s things would only get worse as Thatcher dismantled the unions, proved decisively that the Conservatives didn’t care about ordinary British working people and undermined British society so not people and their rights but profits and monetary value were considered the single most important thing of all.

The bleak story told in Ghost Town was of a town fallen prey to urban decay, unemployment and violence. Now, as I face 2013, I see the same problems destroying the lives of people around me. The government says there are jobs, but no one seems able to get them and more people are facing redundancy, pay freezes and cut hours. Inflation is pushing up food prices and yet it is perfectly fine to lecture people on how to eat and feed their kids. Education is considered so unimportant the government lets private companies run ‘academies’ that brainwash our children into a Thatcherite way of thinking. Those who depend on benefits, often the most vulnerable people in our society, are demonised and hounded by a system that it too scared to tax millionaires.

Government leaving the youth on the shelf

This is exactly how I feel. But in a way I’m one of the lucky ones. I got the opportunity to go to university like I wanted to. It left me saddled with a debt of £22,000 which I try not to think about but someone wanting to do the same thing as me now would be facing at least £30,000. I’ve not been able to pay back a penny of the money I borrowed. Neither have any of my closest friends from my undergraduate degree. This is because none of us have yet earned the £15,000 a year that requires you to start paying back. To get into the jobs we wanted when we started university (journalist, geologist, sociology lecturer, EU ambassador, engineer and petrol chemist to name a random sample) would have required us to take post graduate courses which have little or no funding available or work as an unpaid intern to gain experience. Few people can afford this.  

Again I was lucky. I used some family money that was left to me to put a deposit on a house to pay for an MA. I thought I might as well as these days it would have barely got me a cardboard box. But then I was then left unable by the almost entire absence of any money in the arts and humanities to continue to the level I wanted to. This is the doing of the current government. Personal experience suggests this to me because almost every professional at university I spoke to agreed I would have got funding for my MA as well as my PhD five years ago. I have no reason to believe they were just being nice to me.

Now to my friends who didn’t go to uni. Those who went straight to work found themselves constricted in jobs in companies who cannot afford to expand or whose only chance at promotion was to fund the training themselves. Few of them are now on more than £15,000 a year. The ones who went on to training placements, apprenticeships and NVQs found the same as those who’d gone to uni-when they finished there were no jobs for them.

The prevailing narrative is that young people should be thankful for any job that comes their way and forget any ambition they may have had or career they may have worked for. Jobs people enjoy are the preserves of the super rich and with the cutting of EMA, the rise in fees and the cuts to the education budgets this distinction will only increase. I’m pretty sure Mr Cameron has no idea how demoralising it is to find out you can’t do the job you wanted because the government has moved education and training down on the list of priorities.

The way young people are portrayed (explained more eloquently in this excellent blog post by Glosswitch) is also appalling. Apparently we have it better now than we ever have because we have mobile phones and don’t have to do national service. I would have assumed jobs and homes were more fundamental, but I’m clearly of a spoiled generation and should keep my trap shut. After all, we’re all in this together, aren’t we? Young people are feckless hooligans that need to be banned from wearing hoods and being in public spaces. They’re neglected and left with nothing to do then chastised for being angry and doing nothing. They can’t be trusted in their own homes until they are twenty-five (when they may well have kids of their own) and it’s perfectly alright to attack them and how they conduct themselves as ‘bad manners’ more than any other age group.  

The people getting angry

The riots in 2011 were painted as a load of feckless looters who were only after a new pair of trainers. But, as explained fantastically by a very clever lady on my MA who was doing her dissertation on the riots, thanks to Thatcherism materialism and extensive wealth are our modern status symbols. Those young people were trying to get the things they wanted and felt they were entitled to. Those TVs weren't just TVs, they were social standing. I am not defending the rioters and the arsonists and those who attacked the police who were just trying to do their job but the blanket condemnation is troubling and over simplifies the whole thing. Violence is not the answer but people won’t listen to the question.

They rioted in Manchester, a city I used to live in and have many friends in. Why did they riot in Manchester and not, say, Leeds or Newcastle (the other two cities I’ve lived in and know best)? Central Manchester is the preserve of the rich and ridiculous property prices are pushing ordinary people further and further out. It really is the London of the North. Disillusionment and wanting to claim back their city may have played some part in it. Again someone is probably going to accuse me of defending the actions of people who smashed up shops and set fire to buildings, but I’m not. I’m just trying to understand.

People are angry because the current government have demonstrated time and time again just how little they think of us and how little they think we are worth. People have a right to be angry and I think we need to get angrier. Our towns are left to decay, our young people are abandoned to a life of violence and unemployment and in desperation we turn on each other (immigrants and benefit cheats aren’t the problem here. Tory policy is).

The Specials were right in 1981 and they're right again in 2013, only I think, rather than Ghost Town, we’ve been left with the undermined, empty husk of a burnt out Ghost Nation.