Is it giving in to the patriarchy to let it slide when the security guard at the entrance to your work building makes sexist comments? Admittedly, they only get as far as "Give us a smile love" (inherently annoying as this may be when you've just struggled for 2 hours to get there) and "all right, darlin'" but they are sexist.
On the one hand, I know I should really be stamping out this kind of behaviour whenever I encounter it. On the other, if I did try and stamp it out, they might prevent (or at least make it difficult) me from entering my building with minimum fuss. Yes, I could protest about this, but let's face it - I don't have the energy.
For the moment at least, I shall swallow my pride, principles and moral standing and content myself with grunting non-commitally as I stomp up the stairs to the office.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sexism and the City
There are times when I love my job - not least when I get to do things I'm interested in on work time and it's still actually work. The latest of these (admittedly rather rare) occurances happened on Tuesday, when I attended the launch of the Fawcett Society's Sexism and the City campaign.
It was definitely worth going to, especially as it reminded me that not all (probably the vast majority in fact) of the people who work in the city are earning millions and are at the most basic - and arguably the most brutal - end of sexism. I think it's something that's very easy to forget when you're lucky enough to have a decent job that pays good money - as suddenly the aspects of sexism that are of primary concern become whether or not Henry got promoted before you because he's a man, rather than having to work a badly paid night-time cleaning job so that you be at home during the day because you can't afford childcare. That the campaign has the breadth to cover both ends of the spectrum is admirable, not to mention ambitious (and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing).
So, go to the website, read the manifesto and see if you can persuade your organisation (or yourself!) to do something to help.
It was definitely worth going to, especially as it reminded me that not all (probably the vast majority in fact) of the people who work in the city are earning millions and are at the most basic - and arguably the most brutal - end of sexism. I think it's something that's very easy to forget when you're lucky enough to have a decent job that pays good money - as suddenly the aspects of sexism that are of primary concern become whether or not Henry got promoted before you because he's a man, rather than having to work a badly paid night-time cleaning job so that you be at home during the day because you can't afford childcare. That the campaign has the breadth to cover both ends of the spectrum is admirable, not to mention ambitious (and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing).
So, go to the website, read the manifesto and see if you can persuade your organisation (or yourself!) to do something to help.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Why should not having finished them stand in the way of denouncing them?
I was given yet another business book to edumacate me in the ways of big business. Needless to say, I got about one page into the book before I got incredibly angry, skimmed the rest of the chapter and then gave up. I decided to review the book on this blog, then wondered whether that was completely fair, given I hadn't read anywhere near the whole thing. After a moment's pause, I came to the conclusion that if the first chapter - where they lay out their theory for the rest of the book - is a load of shite, it is somewhat unlikely that it will get any better. So it's fine. It got me wondering about other business-books-I-have-hated-without-reading-them-all-the-way-to-the-end.
Here is my top three:
(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.
Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.
I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.
2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.
3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.
The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.
The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.
Here is my top three:
(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.
Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.
I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.
2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.
3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.
The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.
The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.
Friday, March 07, 2008
This week in the news
A great article on how Norway is getting women into the boardroom.
It would be great to set up something similar over here, except the positive discrimination ruling wouldn't hold up. Still, as the new Equality and Diversity Head in my workplace, maybe I can come up with something that is slightly more helpful than researching the addresses of people to invite to a dinner event, which is my current task. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and try not to throw myself out of the window first.
It would be great to set up something similar over here, except the positive discrimination ruling wouldn't hold up. Still, as the new Equality and Diversity Head in my workplace, maybe I can come up with something that is slightly more helpful than researching the addresses of people to invite to a dinner event, which is my current task. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and try not to throw myself out of the window first.
Thank the blessed Lord for my BlackBerry
Last weekend, I decided to take advantage of the fact that I live in Intellectual Oxford and went to a lecture hosted by the Oxford Radical Forum. Sadly, I'd missed the feminism-focused day (although thinking on, this may have been a good thing - attend something like this and it's only a matter of time before someone gets all PoMo on your ass) and had chosen to attend what I now think of as "Why I can never be a Marxist" day.
The lecture itself, given by Gerry Cohen, was great. He's always good to listen to and knows how to engage an audience. It concerned the fact that Marxism *was* dead in its traditionally accepted form, because the working class (which is central to it) no longer exists in the form that Marx had thought it to exist then. Thus, if Marxism was to survive, it had to change its content regarding the working class. This is a terrible summary of the actual lecture, but doing it justice would take more space than is reasonable on a blog.
I began to have misgivings when I walked into the lecture room and found it dominated by SWP leaflets and pamphlets. Never a good sign. Nor that they'd advertised "Jerry" Cohen on the website, who is actually a completely different person. Indeed, the questions after the lecture indicated that:(a) the terrible stories about Marxist meetings are true - lots of people liking the sound of their own voice and getting impassioned about the fact that "we can rise up and defeat capitalism now!" which they can't (b) most of the people there were there to argue rather than actually listen and (c) the pomposity of Oxford Students is unbelievable. Oh the nostalgia...
High points:
(1) When someone took a pamphlet about beating capitalism from the rack and the SWP lady raced after him and told him they weren't free, they cost £1.00, with a completely straight face. Communism for those who can afford it, apparently.
(2) The man who claimed, as a deputy head teacher, he experienced the same exploitation as the workers did in the factories Marx and Engels observed. Yeah, I'm thinking not, theoretically or literally.
(3) The Oxford Radical Forum t-shirts for sale had a design on them that looked like it had been hugely influenced/stolen from the modernist movement, who - incidentally - were the artists of choice for many fascist movements.
(4) Singing "Solidarity forever" and realising that I am deadly afraid of earnestness in all its forms. I can't sit in a room full of middle class students with expensive hair cuts, all singing seriously about the workers without wanting to be swallowed up by a huge hole in the ground. It felt rather like being immersed into a cult, which is rather too much first thing on a Saturday morning when slightly hungover.
Leaving the lecture, I felt like I'd managed to be a horrible, capitalist pig (as I dialed the SO to tell him all about it) and at the same time terribly sad, because somewhere deep inside, I would really love to be earnest and a communist. Sort of. You know what I mean.
Anyway, "solidarity forever" has been going round my head pretty much continuously since that point, especially when coming up against the gross incompetence of FGW. Perhaps there's hope for me yet...
The lecture itself, given by Gerry Cohen, was great. He's always good to listen to and knows how to engage an audience. It concerned the fact that Marxism *was* dead in its traditionally accepted form, because the working class (which is central to it) no longer exists in the form that Marx had thought it to exist then. Thus, if Marxism was to survive, it had to change its content regarding the working class. This is a terrible summary of the actual lecture, but doing it justice would take more space than is reasonable on a blog.
I began to have misgivings when I walked into the lecture room and found it dominated by SWP leaflets and pamphlets. Never a good sign. Nor that they'd advertised "Jerry" Cohen on the website, who is actually a completely different person. Indeed, the questions after the lecture indicated that:(a) the terrible stories about Marxist meetings are true - lots of people liking the sound of their own voice and getting impassioned about the fact that "we can rise up and defeat capitalism now!" which they can't (b) most of the people there were there to argue rather than actually listen and (c) the pomposity of Oxford Students is unbelievable. Oh the nostalgia...
High points:
(1) When someone took a pamphlet about beating capitalism from the rack and the SWP lady raced after him and told him they weren't free, they cost £1.00, with a completely straight face. Communism for those who can afford it, apparently.
(2) The man who claimed, as a deputy head teacher, he experienced the same exploitation as the workers did in the factories Marx and Engels observed. Yeah, I'm thinking not, theoretically or literally.
(3) The Oxford Radical Forum t-shirts for sale had a design on them that looked like it had been hugely influenced/stolen from the modernist movement, who - incidentally - were the artists of choice for many fascist movements.
(4) Singing "Solidarity forever" and realising that I am deadly afraid of earnestness in all its forms. I can't sit in a room full of middle class students with expensive hair cuts, all singing seriously about the workers without wanting to be swallowed up by a huge hole in the ground. It felt rather like being immersed into a cult, which is rather too much first thing on a Saturday morning when slightly hungover.
Leaving the lecture, I felt like I'd managed to be a horrible, capitalist pig (as I dialed the SO to tell him all about it) and at the same time terribly sad, because somewhere deep inside, I would really love to be earnest and a communist. Sort of. You know what I mean.
Anyway, "solidarity forever" has been going round my head pretty much continuously since that point, especially when coming up against the gross incompetence of FGW. Perhaps there's hope for me yet...
Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Say what now?
Today someone commented (not here) that they were tired of people judging Hillary as agressive and war-mongering and claimed that this would not happen if she was a man and that it's completely irrelevant. I beg to differ. I actually think that how aggressive or hawk-like Hillary would be as a President *is* a live issue and one that I also judge other candidates by.
The problem with Hillary (as I see it) is that, in order to be a successful female politician, she has adopted a more masculine stance. Thus to make up for the fact that women are dismissed as "maternal" or too weak to be commander-in-chief, she is undoubtedly taking a more offensive stance on matter such as Iran. This is worrying - if the US go into Iran, then so will the UK. And we will be completely screwed. Hence my claim that it is in fact hugely relevant, irrespective of the fact that she's a woman.
It would be completely irresponsible to ignore the flaws in Hillary's campaign and take on foreign policy just because she is a woman. And it goes against my feminism. I am glad that Hillary has a chance to run for President and that she can be considered a serious candidate. But I will not support her as a candidate just because of her gender - I think that would actually be a form of disrespect. We are not arguing for equality so that women will vote for women, without making a judgement on their policies. So, for me, the most feminist thing to do is to ignore the fact that Hillary is a woman and to look at what she is saying instead. It just so happens that I don't agree with all of it.
So, the next time some middle-class idiot accuses me of sexism in relation to my views on the US elections (especially when one of their reasons for supporting Hillary is that she is "glamourous" -wtf?) I shall point them to this. Or tell them to sod off. Which knowing me, is more likely.
The problem with Hillary (as I see it) is that, in order to be a successful female politician, she has adopted a more masculine stance. Thus to make up for the fact that women are dismissed as "maternal" or too weak to be commander-in-chief, she is undoubtedly taking a more offensive stance on matter such as Iran. This is worrying - if the US go into Iran, then so will the UK. And we will be completely screwed. Hence my claim that it is in fact hugely relevant, irrespective of the fact that she's a woman.
It would be completely irresponsible to ignore the flaws in Hillary's campaign and take on foreign policy just because she is a woman. And it goes against my feminism. I am glad that Hillary has a chance to run for President and that she can be considered a serious candidate. But I will not support her as a candidate just because of her gender - I think that would actually be a form of disrespect. We are not arguing for equality so that women will vote for women, without making a judgement on their policies. So, for me, the most feminist thing to do is to ignore the fact that Hillary is a woman and to look at what she is saying instead. It just so happens that I don't agree with all of it.
So, the next time some middle-class idiot accuses me of sexism in relation to my views on the US elections (especially when one of their reasons for supporting Hillary is that she is "glamourous" -wtf?) I shall point them to this. Or tell them to sod off. Which knowing me, is more likely.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Just to clarify
Oh, this crazy, crazy world. Over the last few days, I've heard/seen a few arguments that go like this:
"Just because I did so-and-so* doesn't mean I'm sexist. It was just fun and no-one was offended..."
Let's pause and reflect on this a moment. Hmm. I'm afraid that, actually, yes that is exactly what it *does* mean. You my friend, are sexist. And delusional. (Ahem, let's keep this friendly.)
Whether or not a person *perceives* themselves to be sexist is irrelevant. As is how "fun" the activity happens to be. If someone takes part in an activity that is clearly sexist (in that the point of the "fun" is to demean women - for example, dressing them up like foxes and then "hunting" them, which, might I add, is *completely random* as an example. Indeed.) then they are perpetuating sexism and indulging in it, which by its very nature, makes that person sexist.
And then, if someone (who happens to be a woman) suggests that the activity might offend *other* women, to go on to attack her on a personal level, with their attack focused upon the fact that she is a woman, *most definitely* makes that person sexist.
And a complete and utter Knob-End.
To re-cap: make argument (i) "I am not a sexist but..." and follow it up by action (ii) deliberate sexist attack because someone had the audacity to ruin your "fun" by pointing out something rather obvious makes you: A complete and utter knob-end with shit for brains
*Insert activity of choice here
NB - yes, I am very angry. I am, in fact, furious. I could've, and have elsewhere, made this point more politely and more coherently. But this is my blog, so I can be as angry as I like.
"Just because I did so-and-so* doesn't mean I'm sexist. It was just fun and no-one was offended..."
Let's pause and reflect on this a moment. Hmm. I'm afraid that, actually, yes that is exactly what it *does* mean. You my friend, are sexist. And delusional. (Ahem, let's keep this friendly.)
Whether or not a person *perceives* themselves to be sexist is irrelevant. As is how "fun" the activity happens to be. If someone takes part in an activity that is clearly sexist (in that the point of the "fun" is to demean women - for example, dressing them up like foxes and then "hunting" them, which, might I add, is *completely random* as an example. Indeed.) then they are perpetuating sexism and indulging in it, which by its very nature, makes that person sexist.
And then, if someone (who happens to be a woman) suggests that the activity might offend *other* women, to go on to attack her on a personal level, with their attack focused upon the fact that she is a woman, *most definitely* makes that person sexist.
And a complete and utter Knob-End.
To re-cap: make argument (i) "I am not a sexist but..." and follow it up by action (ii) deliberate sexist attack because someone had the audacity to ruin your "fun" by pointing out something rather obvious makes you: A complete and utter knob-end with shit for brains
*Insert activity of choice here
NB - yes, I am very angry. I am, in fact, furious. I could've, and have elsewhere, made this point more politely and more coherently. But this is my blog, so I can be as angry as I like.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Bit of Obama
If you haven't seen it, watch it.
Interestingly, some people are saying it's schmaltzy. Maybe, but actually I found it genuinely moving - and I'm not even American and/or allowed to vote.
Interestingly, some people are saying it's schmaltzy. Maybe, but actually I found it genuinely moving - and I'm not even American and/or allowed to vote.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
I'm happy to wear the trousers...
Lately I've been thinking about the role of women in business and politics, partly inspired by the ongoing battle for the Democrat Presidential Candidacy (I feel it needs capitalisation) and also because I've been encouraged to read "business literature". If any of the latter is aimed at women - which, judging from the amount of bullshit these smug men are spouting about how selling business is like seducing a woman, is not a lot - it generally encourages them to become more like men. Similarly, Hillary Clinton attracts quite a lot of sniping because she is too "man-like" and not "feminine" enough - it is clear that she has felt the need to develop quite a strong (and perhaps more war-mongering) brand of politics in order to get over the disadvantage of being female.
Is this the way things have to be? If we want to get ahead, in any sphere, do we have to conform to a certain level of expectation? Research quoted in the Harvard Review of Business (come to your own conclusions about how reliable *that* makes it) suggest that employees are less likely to take a female boss seriously. Being a woman is associated with softness, vulnerability and maternal instincts, no matter how ridiculous that assumption is (how many women like that do you come across every day... er, none).
Perhaps then, we have to overcompensate for this. Women have to network like men, swagger like men, be aggressive and stereotypically masculine (even though those stereotypes are often just as unrealistic as those about women) in order to get what they want and be taken seriously. Yet this also backfires - employers are more likely to judge a woman harshly when she is angry than they are to judge a man. Some women high up in organisations get a bad reputation amongst female staff because they are not seen to help other women reach the same heights. I could go on - but I won't; there's not that much time.
I don't have an easy solution to the problem, which ends up boiling down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Is the answer to develop a different notion of what is feminine? To change work cultures and try to correct prejudices? To ignore all of this and soldier grimly on? Obviously, a bit of all these things wouldn't hurt, it's a question of how productive they are.
I also think we need to stop criticising women who don't meet our standards of how they ought to be behaving so harshly. Yes, Clinton's not perfect and she might not be our ideal of a first woman President (for various reasons, if I were an American, I would not be voting for her atr this stage). However, let's criticise her policies as policies rather than bitch because she's acting too male, or she cried and so on. Let's also recognise that she faces some of the same problems the rest of us do - and that honestly, for many of us, our own reactions to these problems are also far from perfect.
Is this the way things have to be? If we want to get ahead, in any sphere, do we have to conform to a certain level of expectation? Research quoted in the Harvard Review of Business (come to your own conclusions about how reliable *that* makes it) suggest that employees are less likely to take a female boss seriously. Being a woman is associated with softness, vulnerability and maternal instincts, no matter how ridiculous that assumption is (how many women like that do you come across every day... er, none).
Perhaps then, we have to overcompensate for this. Women have to network like men, swagger like men, be aggressive and stereotypically masculine (even though those stereotypes are often just as unrealistic as those about women) in order to get what they want and be taken seriously. Yet this also backfires - employers are more likely to judge a woman harshly when she is angry than they are to judge a man. Some women high up in organisations get a bad reputation amongst female staff because they are not seen to help other women reach the same heights. I could go on - but I won't; there's not that much time.
I don't have an easy solution to the problem, which ends up boiling down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Is the answer to develop a different notion of what is feminine? To change work cultures and try to correct prejudices? To ignore all of this and soldier grimly on? Obviously, a bit of all these things wouldn't hurt, it's a question of how productive they are.
I also think we need to stop criticising women who don't meet our standards of how they ought to be behaving so harshly. Yes, Clinton's not perfect and she might not be our ideal of a first woman President (for various reasons, if I were an American, I would not be voting for her atr this stage). However, let's criticise her policies as policies rather than bitch because she's acting too male, or she cried and so on. Let's also recognise that she faces some of the same problems the rest of us do - and that honestly, for many of us, our own reactions to these problems are also far from perfect.
...But the pockets are too small to be useful
Why is it that trousers designed for women have such impractical pockets? Men can carry around a whole host of useful items including (but not limited to) phones, wallets, ipods, loose change, keys in their voluminous pockets without looking like they've sprouted giant tumours. Women, on the otherhand, are lucky if they can fit in some clean tissues and 20p for the machine in the toilet. It's made quite clear that pockets are there for show and are shrinking over time - rather like the little toe. Perhaps it is part of the conspiracy to encourage us to buy vastly overpriced handbags.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Redundancy: word of the week
Things that annoyed me this week:
1) The advert on TV for a children's magazine (specifically targeted at young girls) called Strawberry Shortcake. Not only does this charming magazine give away crappy pieces of tat so that teh childrens can play at cooking, the TV voiceover cheerfully exhorts these innocents to "learn to cook just like mummy!"
To which I (quite cheerfully - although it would be a lie because actually I'd be spitting with rage) respond: bite me.
Mummy might be an excellent cook. She may well (rather like I do) own many cook books and enjoy good food. However, it is *not* the sole responsibility of mummy to do all the cooking. Nor, in this day and age, should we be marketing such blatant sexist crap to children. Especially when it is obviously false - look at all the famous male chefs on TV who outnumber the female ones. By all means encourage your children to cook but (a) do it regardless of their sex (b) don't do it by making them think that mummy should do all the cooking and (c) ease off on all the pink coloured, strawberry-decorated bits of plastic.
2) All attempts to make powertools/gardening equipment and screwdrivers more "suitable" for women by making them pink or decorating them with a vile array of floral motifs. WTF? Are women incapable of using tools unless they are markedly "feminine" (and I use feminine in the narrowest possible sense, as I hardly think bouquets of flowers are the be and all and end all of feminity)?
Perhaps women in general are scared and perplexed by something like a screwdriver. They don't know how to wire a plug. However, stick some fucking flowers on the thing and all of a sudden - empowerment! Why did we not think of this before? Maybe if we repaint fire engines to be pink with a ribbon border and rose petal motif, women will want to be fire officers!
It is *kind* of the patriarchy to give us the permission to use these tools. I mean, it just wouldn't do for a women to use a plain old garden trowel (the way she's been doing for *years*) because that's just too emasculating. No, better make it pretty for her.
I had this argument with my (supposedly feminist) boss, who thinks its wonderful that this has happened. He feels this is empowerment forging ahead. Now women can do "manly" things. In fact they are positively encouraged to do it. How can this be bad? He is seemingly unable to see the point that women are only encouraged to do these things as long as they do them in the male-approved, girly way. Which, when you think about it, is only the patriarchy once again dictating the behaviour of women.
3) My sexist new colleague: He's in a position of some power in the organisation, which is a little worrying. At first we gave him the benefit of the doubt - his "in a room with a bunch of girls" comments were annoying but could be due to nerves. They weren't. He's just an arse.
Today he made the wonderful remark that if he were in charge of recruitment he would "never hire any women over the age of about 28 because they'll just go and get pregnant". Gee, how enlightened this man is. Especially given that he's about 35 and already has three children under ten. But that's okay, because that's his wife's problem.
Ignoring the distinctly frosty looks he was getting (he works in an office where he is the only man) he carried on making highly "amusing" remarks about our capacity to be walking incubators and how scary we women were and men better watch out. In the end, I couldn't take it any longer.
Him: "...yeah, all the fellas better watch out with you around."
Me: " Haven't you heard Egbert*? You're surplus to requirement. Men are completely redundant now."
(He starts to snigger then examines my dead-pan expression, looking increasingly worried. He then walks off without saying anything.)
On the one-hand, I'm annoyed with myself for letting him get to me. My comment may have shut him up, but he's obviously so thick that it's going to be one more bit of proof to him than feminists are all a bunch of ball-breaking man-haters who envy him his penis. On the other, it may well be true**.
Think about it, if even *some proportion* of men were to become redundant in terms of procreation (and we're definitely thinking crazy sci-fi utopia here) the misogynist wankers who can't control their mouths even in the most inappropriate of circumstances are going down first. Fact.
*Egbert not actually his real name
** I do not think that all men are redundant. Only the ones I don't like (heh).
1) The advert on TV for a children's magazine (specifically targeted at young girls) called Strawberry Shortcake. Not only does this charming magazine give away crappy pieces of tat so that teh childrens can play at cooking, the TV voiceover cheerfully exhorts these innocents to "learn to cook just like mummy!"
To which I (quite cheerfully - although it would be a lie because actually I'd be spitting with rage) respond: bite me.
Mummy might be an excellent cook. She may well (rather like I do) own many cook books and enjoy good food. However, it is *not* the sole responsibility of mummy to do all the cooking. Nor, in this day and age, should we be marketing such blatant sexist crap to children. Especially when it is obviously false - look at all the famous male chefs on TV who outnumber the female ones. By all means encourage your children to cook but (a) do it regardless of their sex (b) don't do it by making them think that mummy should do all the cooking and (c) ease off on all the pink coloured, strawberry-decorated bits of plastic.
2) All attempts to make powertools/gardening equipment and screwdrivers more "suitable" for women by making them pink or decorating them with a vile array of floral motifs. WTF? Are women incapable of using tools unless they are markedly "feminine" (and I use feminine in the narrowest possible sense, as I hardly think bouquets of flowers are the be and all and end all of feminity)?
Perhaps women in general are scared and perplexed by something like a screwdriver. They don't know how to wire a plug. However, stick some fucking flowers on the thing and all of a sudden - empowerment! Why did we not think of this before? Maybe if we repaint fire engines to be pink with a ribbon border and rose petal motif, women will want to be fire officers!
It is *kind* of the patriarchy to give us the permission to use these tools. I mean, it just wouldn't do for a women to use a plain old garden trowel (the way she's been doing for *years*) because that's just too emasculating. No, better make it pretty for her.
I had this argument with my (supposedly feminist) boss, who thinks its wonderful that this has happened. He feels this is empowerment forging ahead. Now women can do "manly" things. In fact they are positively encouraged to do it. How can this be bad? He is seemingly unable to see the point that women are only encouraged to do these things as long as they do them in the male-approved, girly way. Which, when you think about it, is only the patriarchy once again dictating the behaviour of women.
3) My sexist new colleague: He's in a position of some power in the organisation, which is a little worrying. At first we gave him the benefit of the doubt - his "in a room with a bunch of girls" comments were annoying but could be due to nerves. They weren't. He's just an arse.
Today he made the wonderful remark that if he were in charge of recruitment he would "never hire any women over the age of about 28 because they'll just go and get pregnant". Gee, how enlightened this man is. Especially given that he's about 35 and already has three children under ten. But that's okay, because that's his wife's problem.
Ignoring the distinctly frosty looks he was getting (he works in an office where he is the only man) he carried on making highly "amusing" remarks about our capacity to be walking incubators and how scary we women were and men better watch out. In the end, I couldn't take it any longer.
Him: "...yeah, all the fellas better watch out with you around."
Me: " Haven't you heard Egbert*? You're surplus to requirement. Men are completely redundant now."
(He starts to snigger then examines my dead-pan expression, looking increasingly worried. He then walks off without saying anything.)
On the one-hand, I'm annoyed with myself for letting him get to me. My comment may have shut him up, but he's obviously so thick that it's going to be one more bit of proof to him than feminists are all a bunch of ball-breaking man-haters who envy him his penis. On the other, it may well be true**.
Think about it, if even *some proportion* of men were to become redundant in terms of procreation (and we're definitely thinking crazy sci-fi utopia here) the misogynist wankers who can't control their mouths even in the most inappropriate of circumstances are going down first. Fact.
*Egbert not actually his real name
** I do not think that all men are redundant. Only the ones I don't like (heh).
Friday, January 18, 2008
Unreasonable Optimism
I am inexplicably cheerful about the coming few months at work, despite nothing having changed in the slightest and the likelihood of me ever getting promoted (or at least to a job that doesn't make me want to eat my own limbs and howl like a wolf) is still zilch. Yet, I still have this unnerving sense that *good things* are going to happen - perhaps the work ethic I mysteriously developed in the closing months of last year was not just zombified, mindless obedience but an actual moment of maturity/growth.
(Shakes head in horror at the thought I might always feel like doing random extra work *at the weekend*)
It could be that this good mood is just a leftover of Christmas cheer or some side effect of the recent illness. Either way, it should be gone soon enough: it's bonus and pay meetings at the beginning of next month. Meh.
(Shakes head in horror at the thought I might always feel like doing random extra work *at the weekend*)
It could be that this good mood is just a leftover of Christmas cheer or some side effect of the recent illness. Either way, it should be gone soon enough: it's bonus and pay meetings at the beginning of next month. Meh.
Seasonal Malaise
So Norovirus has struck again this year, worse than ever if the media is to be believed. The back-to-work season was sandwiched between dire warnings of projectile vomiting and uncontrollable pooing. Commuters on packed, sweaty trains looked at each other furtively in case their seatmate was suddenly struck down - after all, the papers warned us, these germs were everywhere and could hit at any time. Anyone who looked vaguely ill was to be avoided or sent evil glares: were they the fiends who were ignoring NHS advice to stay at home? In offices, there were competitive renditions of whose-family-was-worst-hit-at-christmas-dinner and slightly sadistic shudders at the terrible pains absent colleagues must be going through.
I am almost disappointed I didn't get it - I feel I managed to miss out on an experience bigger than myself (I am of course being sarcastic here).
There obviously was/is a nasty bug going around - attendance at my work post-xmas party was decimated by ill-health (or perhaps people using a mild cold as an excuse not to go) and the Heloise-stronghold has been brought low by disease of the mucus/miserable/exhaustion type. Apart from the feeling ill part, it's all been rather jolly and an excuse to sleep for 16 hours a day and not change out of pyjamas. Due to the rigid following of the "feed a cold" rule, I've failed to lose weight - although colds should probably not be fed by left over xmas chocolate but by healthy things that we were too ill to go out and buy.
The trouble with illness-related media paranoia is that it tends to override my usual scepticism and awaken any latent compulsive tendencies floating around my head. I have a slight weakness for hygeine paranoia anyway - if I think too hard I can find myself avoiding touching door handles, taps, light switches or the flush on toilets (to name just a few) - but with something as thrillingly disgusting as Norovirus, it can spiral well out of control. Those germs could be everywhere - buttons on cash machines, chip+pin machines at the supermarket, train seats, tables, computer keyboards, restaurants, the kitchens where my pret sandwich was made - and if I'm not careful the logical next step would be to lock myself in my own bathroom, gently rocking backwards and forwards. Luckily, getting a genuine illness put a stop to this dangerous behaviour, if only because I was confined to house arrest.
On the plus side, Tesco was gloriously empty last weekend (although they were so short-staffed they could only open half the tills and the shelves were pretty empty) which gave a bizarre snapshot of what the world would be like during a flu epidemic but without the death and actual terror.
I am almost disappointed I didn't get it - I feel I managed to miss out on an experience bigger than myself (I am of course being sarcastic here).
There obviously was/is a nasty bug going around - attendance at my work post-xmas party was decimated by ill-health (or perhaps people using a mild cold as an excuse not to go) and the Heloise-stronghold has been brought low by disease of the mucus/miserable/exhaustion type. Apart from the feeling ill part, it's all been rather jolly and an excuse to sleep for 16 hours a day and not change out of pyjamas. Due to the rigid following of the "feed a cold" rule, I've failed to lose weight - although colds should probably not be fed by left over xmas chocolate but by healthy things that we were too ill to go out and buy.
The trouble with illness-related media paranoia is that it tends to override my usual scepticism and awaken any latent compulsive tendencies floating around my head. I have a slight weakness for hygeine paranoia anyway - if I think too hard I can find myself avoiding touching door handles, taps, light switches or the flush on toilets (to name just a few) - but with something as thrillingly disgusting as Norovirus, it can spiral well out of control. Those germs could be everywhere - buttons on cash machines, chip+pin machines at the supermarket, train seats, tables, computer keyboards, restaurants, the kitchens where my pret sandwich was made - and if I'm not careful the logical next step would be to lock myself in my own bathroom, gently rocking backwards and forwards. Luckily, getting a genuine illness put a stop to this dangerous behaviour, if only because I was confined to house arrest.
On the plus side, Tesco was gloriously empty last weekend (although they were so short-staffed they could only open half the tills and the shelves were pretty empty) which gave a bizarre snapshot of what the world would be like during a flu epidemic but without the death and actual terror.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Read it and Weep
Rather than start the year with my usual moaning, I thought I'd start with a list of some of my favourite feminist reading - if the state of the railways this week is anything to go by, we'll all have the chance to catch up on a bit of reading...
1) The Women's Room
Definitely worth reading - if you're only going to read one feminist book, I'd read this. Not only did it resound within myself and my own experiences, it also illustrates that feminism is not just one theory, but lots of different strands of thought grouped together. It's one of my favourite books of all time and I've read it over and over again.
2) The Second Sex
Simone often gets overlooked, but it's not a bad book. You might want to pick and choose the chapters you read (rather than grimly plough through the whole lot) but some parts are bizarrely relevant, for all society is thought to have moved on.
3) Feminine Mystique
Yes, Betty did go a bit bonkers towards the end, but this is a good read and it's great to see what all the fuss is about. Not perfect, obviously (but who, or what, is?) and some parts are a bit outdated, still - I'd recommend it.
4) The Golden Notebook
I know Doris Lessing is a bit edgy in terms of her feminist credentials but this really is a great book. Perhaps all of you are more sane (or together) than I am, but I found some parts of this book very insightful.
Other books worth reading:
Germaine Greer - Female Eunuch
Naomi Wolf - Beauty Myth
Bell Hooks - collected writings
Imelda Whelan
And of course there are others; the only trouble with doing this when you're supposed to be doing something else (and preferably more productive)is that time is somewhat limited.
To head off the criticism that all/the majority of these are (a) middle class and white and (b) fairly old; I am myself middle class and white and I haven't been all that taken by recent books on feminism. Still, I will try to do better next time.
1) The Women's Room
Definitely worth reading - if you're only going to read one feminist book, I'd read this. Not only did it resound within myself and my own experiences, it also illustrates that feminism is not just one theory, but lots of different strands of thought grouped together. It's one of my favourite books of all time and I've read it over and over again.
2) The Second Sex
Simone often gets overlooked, but it's not a bad book. You might want to pick and choose the chapters you read (rather than grimly plough through the whole lot) but some parts are bizarrely relevant, for all society is thought to have moved on.
3) Feminine Mystique
Yes, Betty did go a bit bonkers towards the end, but this is a good read and it's great to see what all the fuss is about. Not perfect, obviously (but who, or what, is?) and some parts are a bit outdated, still - I'd recommend it.
4) The Golden Notebook
I know Doris Lessing is a bit edgy in terms of her feminist credentials but this really is a great book. Perhaps all of you are more sane (or together) than I am, but I found some parts of this book very insightful.
Other books worth reading:
Germaine Greer - Female Eunuch
Naomi Wolf - Beauty Myth
Bell Hooks - collected writings
Imelda Whelan
And of course there are others; the only trouble with doing this when you're supposed to be doing something else (and preferably more productive)is that time is somewhat limited.
To head off the criticism that all/the majority of these are (a) middle class and white and (b) fairly old; I am myself middle class and white and I haven't been all that taken by recent books on feminism. Still, I will try to do better next time.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Deck the Halls
Christmas is almost upon us and I am finally writing a post. This month has flown by, mostly from a combination of frantic work-based activity and exhaustion induced cold-head. Still, presents have now been bought, they are mostly wrapped and awaiting beautification (this is where the odd obsessive trait comes in very handy) and the house looks festive.
Nick Clegg has been elected leader of the Lib Dems, which I don't really have much of an opinion on. The government is lurching from one crisis to another, with the only bright spot being Cameron ending up with egg on his face over the whole illegal donations thing. The police want to strike (we won't even start on why that is a bad idea), GPs don't want to work evenings or weekends and there has been disasterous news from Terry Pratchett. First Great Western are still shit.
Still, there is always next year. And before then, a whole week of festive celebration - in fact, I may well go and make some mince pies...
Nick Clegg has been elected leader of the Lib Dems, which I don't really have much of an opinion on. The government is lurching from one crisis to another, with the only bright spot being Cameron ending up with egg on his face over the whole illegal donations thing. The police want to strike (we won't even start on why that is a bad idea), GPs don't want to work evenings or weekends and there has been disasterous news from Terry Pratchett. First Great Western are still shit.
Still, there is always next year. And before then, a whole week of festive celebration - in fact, I may well go and make some mince pies...
Friday, November 30, 2007
Interrupted Service
November has been a bit of an heavy month for various reasons, none of them particularly earth-shattering, but together they've formed a giant heap of crap that I've given up struggling to get out. As a result, I have neglected my blog. Apologies.
Part of this is my fault. I shouldn't have started writing so much about politics - especially how *optimistic* I was about things that were happening - because I've obviously jinxed the Labour party. The more depressing things got, the more I couldn't bear to look at my previous witterings. So, I have gone back to resolutely ignoring newspapers/articles/blogs touching on the current string of disasters. I'm trying to cheer myself up by drinking my tea from my new funky mug but so far, it doesn't seem to be working.
It's not like anything positive has been happening on the feminist front either. The church has gone bonkers and it feels like it's only a matter of time before someone takes my uterus away because I am incapable of looking after it. I know I shouldn't really feel so defeatist but I've no energy to think positive thoughts, perhaps because the doom-pill (this month's contraceptive of choice) may well be an attempt by the patriarchy to break me through continuous bleeding, bloating and general foulness.
To cheer myself up, I attempted to teach myself to crochet but I am incompetent and haven't got beyond the first chain. Having conquered the ribbing in knitting, I felt full of confidence (now shattered) and I can't do any knitting because I can't afford any more wool.
Has anything even vaguely cheering happened in the last month? Farnham's annual ceramics fair was good, although actually not as good as the Oxford one in October. I've bought a giant, glittering german advent calendar that is practically the size of me. It turns out I am of the branch of my family completely lacking class who believe that anything can improved by the addition of glitter and/or sparkling things. Although even I draw the line at the pink-and-blue-sparkly reindeer from Paperchase (I was going to link to a picture of one, but can I find one anywhere? No. You'll just have to take my word for it).
So, I am clawing my way desperately towards Christmas, a period I usually love for the abundance of sparkling lights and good cheer. I think I'll take a trip to Liberty in London next week and look at the Christmas decorations to jolly myself up. Until then, I'm going to stick on some music, drink some wine and wallow in gloom. December tomorrow, December tomorrow...
Part of this is my fault. I shouldn't have started writing so much about politics - especially how *optimistic* I was about things that were happening - because I've obviously jinxed the Labour party. The more depressing things got, the more I couldn't bear to look at my previous witterings. So, I have gone back to resolutely ignoring newspapers/articles/blogs touching on the current string of disasters. I'm trying to cheer myself up by drinking my tea from my new funky mug but so far, it doesn't seem to be working.
It's not like anything positive has been happening on the feminist front either. The church has gone bonkers and it feels like it's only a matter of time before someone takes my uterus away because I am incapable of looking after it. I know I shouldn't really feel so defeatist but I've no energy to think positive thoughts, perhaps because the doom-pill (this month's contraceptive of choice) may well be an attempt by the patriarchy to break me through continuous bleeding, bloating and general foulness.
To cheer myself up, I attempted to teach myself to crochet but I am incompetent and haven't got beyond the first chain. Having conquered the ribbing in knitting, I felt full of confidence (now shattered) and I can't do any knitting because I can't afford any more wool.
Has anything even vaguely cheering happened in the last month? Farnham's annual ceramics fair was good, although actually not as good as the Oxford one in October. I've bought a giant, glittering german advent calendar that is practically the size of me. It turns out I am of the branch of my family completely lacking class who believe that anything can improved by the addition of glitter and/or sparkling things. Although even I draw the line at the pink-and-blue-sparkly reindeer from Paperchase (I was going to link to a picture of one, but can I find one anywhere? No. You'll just have to take my word for it).
So, I am clawing my way desperately towards Christmas, a period I usually love for the abundance of sparkling lights and good cheer. I think I'll take a trip to Liberty in London next week and look at the Christmas decorations to jolly myself up. Until then, I'm going to stick on some music, drink some wine and wallow in gloom. December tomorrow, December tomorrow...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
And another thing
Mildly encouraged by the bill going forward in parliament next year – although I expect that we’ll see more belligerent statements from church leaders and the anti-abortion crew before then (who I refuse to call pro-life because, let’s face it, life seems to be the least of their concerns).
The idea that women will no longer need two doctors to sign off on abortions is very welcome and should have the knock-on effect that more women will manage to fall under the 12 week mark. Similarly that some of these early terminations could be finished in the woman’s own home, thus easing the burden on hospitals and making the whole thing less traumatic for the individual.
However, not so encouraged by Rowan Williams’ rant against women who have abortions, all of whom apparently see the whole thing as part of everyday contraceptive plans. Yeah, you know what Rowan? Noticed that myself. My friends and I *always* talk about how our contraceptive plans consist solely of abortions. In fact, we spend so much time having them, we barely have time to conceive.
These comments always seem so patronising because they assume that women are stupid. The abortion rate has gone up, not because more women are exercising their right to decide what happens to their own body and taking action earlier and earlier in the process, but because we all can’t work out how to use condoms, oral contraceptives and so forth. The fact that the NHS is getting better at informing women of their choices means nothing.
Rather than penalising women who want to get abortions and representing them as misinformed, why not campaign to increase education on contraception in schools? A friend of mine who has just started university rang me up to ask how one went about getting the contraceptive pill and how much it cost. Thank goodness she had someone to ask! Can you imagine how many young women out there just don’t know and are too embarrassed to bring it up? Then again, according to the church we really can’t do that, because that would be promoting sex.
So, let’s just hate women and blame them for being uninformed and refuse to tell them anything useful. That sounds rational. Well done!
The idea that women will no longer need two doctors to sign off on abortions is very welcome and should have the knock-on effect that more women will manage to fall under the 12 week mark. Similarly that some of these early terminations could be finished in the woman’s own home, thus easing the burden on hospitals and making the whole thing less traumatic for the individual.
However, not so encouraged by Rowan Williams’ rant against women who have abortions, all of whom apparently see the whole thing as part of everyday contraceptive plans. Yeah, you know what Rowan? Noticed that myself. My friends and I *always* talk about how our contraceptive plans consist solely of abortions. In fact, we spend so much time having them, we barely have time to conceive.
These comments always seem so patronising because they assume that women are stupid. The abortion rate has gone up, not because more women are exercising their right to decide what happens to their own body and taking action earlier and earlier in the process, but because we all can’t work out how to use condoms, oral contraceptives and so forth. The fact that the NHS is getting better at informing women of their choices means nothing.
Rather than penalising women who want to get abortions and representing them as misinformed, why not campaign to increase education on contraception in schools? A friend of mine who has just started university rang me up to ask how one went about getting the contraceptive pill and how much it cost. Thank goodness she had someone to ask! Can you imagine how many young women out there just don’t know and are too embarrassed to bring it up? Then again, according to the church we really can’t do that, because that would be promoting sex.
So, let’s just hate women and blame them for being uninformed and refuse to tell them anything useful. That sounds rational. Well done!
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Stuck in the mud
I have an acquaintance who used to be a very good friend. It’s sad that we don’t talk very much any more, or see each other that often. She blames for this – her view of friendship is that I ought to stay religiously in touch: a call once or twice a week, a night out once a week. Needless to say, I don’t manage this. My own mother is lucky to receive a call every fortnight. As a result, she refuses to contact me off her own bat. I have to initiate contact, otherwise there will be none. And even when I do, if my offering is judged unworthy, I will receive no communication back. I accept some blame for this – I am not as organised as I could be.
I suppose we have clashing definitions of what friendship is – mine is wider, vaguer: people that you like and keep in touch with and when you see them, it doesn’t feel like time has passed. I have friends I don’t see or hear from for a year but seeing them again is welcome and nice. They are still my friends. Obviously, I understand the need to be discerning about what constitutes a friend in opposition to someone you know/used to know but I have a feeling I am in the right here.
The issue is that it is no longer possible for me to be a friend in the way she so desires. We are no longer at university, living in the same house. I live with my partner, in a different city. I work a nine hour day in an hectic, stressful job, with four hours commuting on top of that, for 5 days a week. I have commitments to my work colleagues, my family and my partner which tend, due to necessity, to come before my social life. She is still a student, taking a more lax and flexible course than before, in the city in which I work. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to expect that, at this point, she should make some effort to contact me, or to try and arrange her schedule around mine rather than getting cross when mine does not match hers. That maintaining our friendship should be the responsibility of both of us rather than just me.
To be honest, it has reached the stage when I am increasingly unlikely to call her. Meeting up involves ten minutes of recriminations, half an hour of me apologising and then another hour or so of her looking martyred. I no longer feel I can apologise for having a life – we grow up, move on, our time is more precious. And I feel cross and frustrated that she makes us go through this ridiculous pantomime and makes sustaining our friendship such a challenge.
I think it is time to let this one go and I’ve been reluctant to do it because losing a friend is sad. However, you need to pick your fights carefully and this is definitely one battle I’m never going to win.
I suppose we have clashing definitions of what friendship is – mine is wider, vaguer: people that you like and keep in touch with and when you see them, it doesn’t feel like time has passed. I have friends I don’t see or hear from for a year but seeing them again is welcome and nice. They are still my friends. Obviously, I understand the need to be discerning about what constitutes a friend in opposition to someone you know/used to know but I have a feeling I am in the right here.
The issue is that it is no longer possible for me to be a friend in the way she so desires. We are no longer at university, living in the same house. I live with my partner, in a different city. I work a nine hour day in an hectic, stressful job, with four hours commuting on top of that, for 5 days a week. I have commitments to my work colleagues, my family and my partner which tend, due to necessity, to come before my social life. She is still a student, taking a more lax and flexible course than before, in the city in which I work. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to expect that, at this point, she should make some effort to contact me, or to try and arrange her schedule around mine rather than getting cross when mine does not match hers. That maintaining our friendship should be the responsibility of both of us rather than just me.
To be honest, it has reached the stage when I am increasingly unlikely to call her. Meeting up involves ten minutes of recriminations, half an hour of me apologising and then another hour or so of her looking martyred. I no longer feel I can apologise for having a life – we grow up, move on, our time is more precious. And I feel cross and frustrated that she makes us go through this ridiculous pantomime and makes sustaining our friendship such a challenge.
I think it is time to let this one go and I’ve been reluctant to do it because losing a friend is sad. However, you need to pick your fights carefully and this is definitely one battle I’m never going to win.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Act your age
I can't believe Sir Ming has gone - I actually feel a little digusted. I have met Simon Hughes and, far be it for me to launch a personal attack (because as you can tell from my blog, I am so restrained) I think he has acted wrongly.
The fact that Campbell has decided to resign with immediate effect - can you even think of a leader of a British political party doing the same thing in the past decade or two? - suggests that he was well and truly pushed rather than decided to leave of his own accord. Obviously, it was down in part to ageism - the other part was down to the Lib Dem's determination to tear themselves apart.
It is *not good practice* to have three party leaders between one election. The way Kennedy went was embarassing enough, but how can one seriously expect voters to believe you are capable of running a country if you can't even wait 5 years before tearing yourselves apart? It's completely ridiculous. With the Tories experiencing a revival, the best thing to do would have been to stand loyal and help the Lib Dems win some seats. The only reason Ming was doing so badly in opinion polls was because his own party kept stabbing him in the back. Did anyone else even care?
The fact is that Labour and the Conservatives are going stronger than ever - this is really not the time for the potential 3rd party (we won't even get in to that debate here) to go through an existential crisis.
The fact that Campbell has decided to resign with immediate effect - can you even think of a leader of a British political party doing the same thing in the past decade or two? - suggests that he was well and truly pushed rather than decided to leave of his own accord. Obviously, it was down in part to ageism - the other part was down to the Lib Dem's determination to tear themselves apart.
It is *not good practice* to have three party leaders between one election. The way Kennedy went was embarassing enough, but how can one seriously expect voters to believe you are capable of running a country if you can't even wait 5 years before tearing yourselves apart? It's completely ridiculous. With the Tories experiencing a revival, the best thing to do would have been to stand loyal and help the Lib Dems win some seats. The only reason Ming was doing so badly in opinion polls was because his own party kept stabbing him in the back. Did anyone else even care?
The fact is that Labour and the Conservatives are going stronger than ever - this is really not the time for the potential 3rd party (we won't even get in to that debate here) to go through an existential crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)