Monthly Archives: October 2010

What goes around comes around

I realised this morning what this government’s science and education policy reminds me of.
Back in communist Bulgaria we had a joke. It went like this:
The glorious leader (Todor Zhivkov, if you must know, but I like calling him the glorious leader), the Pope and a bloke on his gap year are on an aeroplane, and the plane gets into trouble. Let’s say it flies through an ash cloud. With the plane about to crash, the three of them find they only have two parachutes between them.
Zhivkov says, “I am the leader of a nation that is on the cutting edge of science and technology. Without my leadership the world will suffer a serious setback in scientific progress. I must have a parachute.” And off he goes.
The Pope turns to the student and says, “I have made my peace with God, my child. He will take care of me. You are young, you have your whole life before you, take the other parachute and save yourself.”
The boy looks at the Pope and says, “Thank you Father, but there’s no need. The guy on the cutting edge of scientific progress couldn’t tell the difference between a parachute and a backpack. So I’ll have to get a new tent, but at least both you and I can save ourselves.”

A Fairer Britain, the American Dream Remix, by Nick Clegg

Remember before the general election, as all the parties were looking for little slogans and soundbites to help you identify them by? If you were playing buzzword bingo, the Lib Dem slogan was a high score: “Change that works for you, building a fairer Britain”. A bit of a mouthful, but it did have both the buzzwords du jour.
Fast forward six months. Nick Clegg has today told us what his definition of a fairer Britain is. There is a lot I object to in his speech: the now familiar deficit narrative, the story about not passing on the debt to the next generation, some of the details on the coalition’s deficit reduction principles. One sentence, however, truly stands out; one sentence sends chills down my spine:

“True fairness is about the distribution of chances, not just about the distribution of cash.”

Clegg’s main argument is around the different definitions of fairness, and he sets out to convince us that his is the right one. It is, he argues, equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome that really matters. Those who make an effort to better themselves should be rewarded, while being shielded from the effects of pure bad luck. To achieve this, the Deputy Prime Minister proposes a £7bn spending plan, to make available pre-primary education to deprived 2-year-olds, as well as the pupil premium and a student premium (the latter not entirely thought through by the sounds of it). By doing this, Mr. Clegg argues, we will level the playing field, giving poor children the same opportunities as rich children, which will allow them to be successful in life if they are willing to work hard.
I don’t know if the Deputy Prime Minister doesn’t realise or is simply wilfully ignoring how dangerous his rhetoric is, how damaging the message. We can see first-hand what the message of equality of opportunity achieves in the United States – one of the most unequal societies in the world. The American dream is a treacherous friend. If only you try hard enough, it says, you can achieve anything. You can be anything you like – a millionaire, or even President. It points us constantly at success stories, both real and fictional, the current occupant of the White House one of them.
But the American dream has a flip side. By starting from the assumption that “all men are created equal”, it is blinkered to the inequalities inherent in society – to class and privilege, to path dependence and deprivation. If only you work hard enough, whispers the American dream, you will overcome all of that, and you will be successful. By extension, though, if you haven’t succeeded, you only have yourself to blame; you must not have tried hard enough, worked hard enough. Those other people from the same background as you succeeded (one in a million though they might be), so if you haven’t, it must be something wrong with you. So you deserve to be poor, you deserve to get no help – you didn’t try hard enough.
In all fairness, Mr. Clegg’s vision isn’t quite as blinkered to the existence of privilege and the topology of the playing field. This is precisely why he wants to invest £7bn in levelling said playing field; he specifically calls out the state’s role in doing exactly that. Yet it takes more than a couple of billion pounds spent on early education to dismantle privilege and create true equality of opportunity. It takes cultural and social change. If we truly wanted to level the playing field, we would close Eton. This move it not about creating equality of opportunity – it is about sustaining privilege while giving those of us born without it just enough scraps from the table of our masters to keep us quiet.
Much more importantly though, we should not underestimate the importance of equality of outcome as a key value and key definition of fairness. I am not saying we should all receive an equal slice of the pie regardless of our efforts; but looking at the gulf that separates rich and poor in Britain, all this talk of fairness based on equality of opportunity pales into insignificance. A country with the third-largest GDP in the EU has the seventh-highest poverty rate. Nearly one in five people in the UK live in poverty. London, one of the world’s wealthiest cities, is also the region of the UK with the highest poverty rate – nearly 30%. Nearly 3 million children live in poverty, costing society as a whole £25 billion annually. (Incidentally, that is more than half of the interest payments on the UK debt that the Deputy PM so objects to.) The majority of those children are not from the Daily Mail poster cases of workless families on benefits. The majority of them have at least one parent in work – working hard – barely able to make ends meet. Nick Clegg’s £7 billion will not rectify any of that – it is not designed to rectify any of that.
So maybe instead of paying lip service to fairness, and leaving the next generation deficit-free in a damaged labour market with chronic structural unemployment, a privatised education system, and a hollowed out, gutted knowledge economy, Nick Clegg could give us something to really aspire to: a truly fair Britain where no one is left behind – not in opportunity and not in outcome.

On sex education and the romantic comedy

I came across this interesting article via @DrPetra a while ago. It talks about our socially prevalent definition of sex.

Foreplay is defined by Webster’s dictionary consistent with the heterosexual, male-focused way most people in our culture describe it. Webster’s online dictionary states that foreplay is: “erotic stimulation preceding intercourse” and the “action or behaviour that precedes an event.” In this definition, foreplay is all that comes before the main event–with the main event being heterosexual intercourse.

In most people’s minds, the article argues, sex is defined as intercourse, and it doesn’t even “count” as sex unless the man has an orgasm. To underline the point, apparently when President Clinton was facing impeachment for having or not having “sexual relations with that woman”, a poll in the US found that most Americans thought that oral sex wasn’t really sex. And rumour had it that the ongoing joke in Israel at the time was that the Americans weren’t doing it right. There is a more serious point to this though.
There is a lot of concern and moral outrage in our society about pornography, and particularly about teenagers using pornography as a substitute for sex education. Most mainstream porn, after all, hardly treats women with respect, tends to be fairly formulaic (to the point of being funny), and does tend to leave young and impressionable minds with the wrong idea of sex.
And yet, here I would argue that the fragile minds of our children have a far greater enemy when it comes to healthy sexuality and sexual equality than porn: the romantic comedy. Let’s have a look at some of the messages romantic comedies send to young women (and men) about what is expected of them in a relationship.

  • As a woman, your only value is as the love interest. Your life should revolve around getting the guy. Nothing else is worth talking about. (How many romantic comedies can you think of that pass the Bechdel Test?
  • If you’re lucky, you might be allowed to be brainy and beautiful. But really, just being pretty is enough. Don’t worry your little head about anything else.
  • You may be an independent woman. You may even have a hugely successful career. But all of that is temporary and you won’t care about it anymore when you meet the guy. He will become the centre of your universe.

So far, so good, and damaging enough. But here’s where the romantic comedy (and more generally the Hollywood view of sex) really does its worst. Imagine it: The hero finally gets the girl/the girl finally finds the meaning of her life in the form of the guy; they run towards each other, they embrace, they kiss. Next thing you know they’re in bed together, and you’re invited to imagine that they’re having intercourse. I bet I know what you see in your mind’s eye right now: soft lighting, he’s on top, the covers are strategically draped over them and she, for all the world, looks like she’s in absolute ecstasy from having his hands… stroke her face. Yeah. Can you remember the last time you saw a man hand between a woman’s legs in a Hollywood sex scene?
There are two things profoundly wrong with this picture. The first, and arguably more obvious one, is what I’ve already alluded to above. Let’s face it, the vast, overwhelming majority of women do not orgasm from intercourse alone. (Even those who do, generally only do so when they’re on top.) And if you’re a man and this is news to you, one romantic comedy I can recommend is “When Harry Met Sally”. So what your typical Hollywood sex scene does is basically perpetuate the myth that sex is vaginal intercourse in which the male partner has an orgasm, thus completely devaluing women’s sexuality and their sexual experience.
But the next bit is even worse. Replay that movie again in your head: guy meets girl, predictable plot happens, guy gets girl, they snog, next they’re having sex with a stirring piano soundtrack in the background. What’s missing? At no point do they actually talk about having sex. No mention of who’s got the condom, let alone any communication of what either of them actually likes to do in bed. And so generation after generation of kids grow up, unable to talk to their partners about sex – not just unable, unaware that this is something one should possibly consider doing. Because let’s face it, parents aren’t terribly good at talking to kids about sex and rely on schools to do it, and schools… well, unless you’ve got an exceptionally good teacher all you get is the condom/banana talk – if you’re lucky.
So next time you hear anyone spluttering moral outrage about how easily kids can access porn these days, maybe you could ask them how much damage porn does to the healthy sexuality of teenagers compared to romantic comedies. Porn is far from harmless, but it is the social acceptance of the Hollywood model of sexuality that makes it so insidious and at least as damaging as porn.