How I experienced black-on-white racism, and somehow learned to get over it

About six months after Stephen Lawrence was murdered, my flatmates and I moved from Earlsfield (boring) to Brixton (edgy!). Basing ourselves in a deeply unpleasant unfurnished house with an outdoor toilet, we did what middle-class white kids did back in the early 1990s: took recreational drugs, made half-arsed attempts to get into jobs in the media, pretended that we liked football. We read the Guardian with devoted intensity (it was, after all, where the media jobs ads were to be found), but led utterly apolitical lives as the Major government fell apart like a clown’s car. I remember reading about the Lawrence case, and being aware of the accusatory swirl around the Met’s investigation; but when we staggered back from the Landor or the Eagle late on a Friday night, police patrol cars were reassuring, not sinister.

In my entire time living in Brixton (five years, during which I saw things at the Fridge nightclub that I really don’t think a hetero girl was supposed to see), I don’t think I spoke on a purely social basis to a single non-Caucasian local. After living in white areas all my life I was no longer part of an overwhelmingly dominant ethnic group, and I was utterly disconcerted by it. I was amazed to discover that the non-white population in Brixton was a substantial minority, but not a majority: this fact simply didn’t tally with my perception.  An inchoate sense of alienation was compounded by my realisation that my responses were, at the very best, irrational and distasteful; at worst… even in my head, I rarely allowed myself to finish the sentence. The discovery that I had racist kneejerk impulses made me, frankly, a bit miserable. I rationalised it to myself as a primordial response, and never missed an opportunity to be inappropriately over-familiar with the guy who sold the Big Issue outside the tube.

And yet, for all that I was a bit of a tit in those days, it was instructive. In the Acre Lane Tesco, I stepped over a basket left in the middle of an aisle by two Caribbean women; they sucked their teeth noisily at me, and remarked that they’d have to put their goods back, because white women don’t wash properly and their veg would now be contaminated some sort of infernal genital spray (these weren’t their precise words, but the meaning was clear. And, although I do have very short legs, and may well have been stoned, I feel I should make it completely clear that I really, really hadn’t absent-mindedly squatted on their basket.) For about ten minutes I enjoyed the sensation of being discriminated against, before being struck, as I so often am, by the thunderingly obvious: experiencing a social response based entirely on my ethnicity, rather than my Rowan-ness, was thrillingly novel. For the women with a morbid fear of white fanny, it was (I assume) as dreary as the Number 2 bus, if more predictable. And I couldn’t claim that I wasn’t guilty of it.

And so, as Diane Abbott wanders into what we used to call a ‘race row’ the day after Norris and Dobson were finally convicted, what it comes down to is this: white people in majority white societies may occasionally be on the sharp end of racist assumptions,  but unless the offence is grievous, whining about it just makes you a jerk. Hugh Muir wrote yesterday that immigrants in the UK need to accept the British framework, and I think he’s right. But when it comes to racism in the UK, non-white people get to set the framework. White Britons can (and should) contribute to the debate, but to assert an equivalence of gravity is bullheaded nonsense.

Some time in 1995, on a beautiful summer’s day, I spotted a black woman standing outside Brixton town hall, filming a well-attended protest outside the Ritzy cinema. I asked her what was going on, and she answered sharply that it was nothing to do with me. Piqued, I crossed the road to see for myself; it was a march calling on the Home Office to set up an inquiry into the Met’s handling of the Stephen Lawrence case. The woman with the camera was wrong; it was something to do with me. I fully supported the marchers. But it wasn’t my march.

Revenge

My father once spent three months living with Moshe Dayan on his farm in Israel, making a documentary about Dayan’s archaeological collection. One night towards the end of his stay, when everyone was out of their gourds on hummus, my dad asked Dayan about the Israelis’ execution of Adolf Eichmann. ‘What really happened? I don’t believe that you would have that man in your power and just execute him cleanly.’ Dayan replied: ‘I’m not going to tell you what happened. But no, we didn’t just execute him.’

I’m not making any assertions here about what the Israelis did or did not do to Eichmann. But let’s say – in an entirely hypothetical scenario – that Eichmann was tortured before his death (which was my father’s interpretation of Dayan’s remark). For all my liberal pantywaist leanings, I would find it a comprehensible response to the almost incredible burden of terror, pain and grief for which Eichmann was personally, instrumentally responsible. As someone who has led a laughably comfortable life, I don’t think I have the right to condemn the actions of people who had lived through such horror and state-instigated sadism, and finally had the chance to extract some revenge.

And yet, like many of my fellow pantywaists – not least my hairy namesake in Lambeth Palace – my response to the execution of Osama Bin Laden has seen me picking fence splinters out of my arse. Here was a man who was unarmed, unwell, and had spent five years watching Cash in the Attic without so much as a telephone connection to distract him. I know of no evidence that he was actively commissioning further acts of violence (although do please put me right if you do). But I understand the impulse that made the US, despite ten years and a new administration, determined to exact unilateral punishment.

Most of the sources of my discomfort are predictable, and not worth rehearsing here: due process, international law, opposition to the death penalty. But there is one factor that is not so bound up with legal processes: revenge. Revenge is a powerful human instinct, but it is not a laudable one. Most of us can comprehend the vengefulness behind the killing of Bin Laden, but it is the naked celebration of vengefulness that is discomforting.

The extraction of revenge is what happens when communication, mediation, reason and kindness have failed. It represents the bleak defeat of the best human instincts, and the forces that prompt it are the same forces that lie behind all human violence, whether rationally justifiable or not. Bin Laden’s killing was a public performance of cruelty designed for public consumption, as were the horrifying acts that prompted it.

Anyone who lost people they cared about on 9/11 deserves a moment of catharsis, and I won’t condemn them for that. But nor will I laud the stone-cold execution of a burnt-out enemy combatant. Indulging the basest human instincts is something we all do, but it’s not a cause for celebration.

In praise of Jacqui Smith

Uh-huh, oh yeah. You read that right.

Massive disclaimer: she did some downright bloody awful stuff as Home Secretary, notably on civil liberties, and she deserves all the flak she gets for that. No arguments from me there. She also did some good. Policy staff at domestic violence service providers have told me again and again that she took their sector seriously. (This is why having women at the top in politics matters; domestic violence was never any sort of priority before the 1997 generation of Labour women appeared.)

She’s judged more harshly than the other highly illiberal Labour Home Secretaries, notably Blunkett and Straw. And I reckon that’s because her old-style, anti-porn feminism irritates the po-mo, ‘sex-pos’ libertarian left, for whom any viewpoint is acceptable so long as it’s theirs.

You only have to look at the rather ugly public sniggering occasioned by her current publicity splash for her 5Live documentary on porn. I listened to it; I didn’t think it was all that. I thought Smith’s emphasis on the effects of porn on long-term relationships was misplaced, as was her apparent belief that men who don’t want long-term relationships are somehow damaged. I did, however, think it was immensely brave of her to address the topic at all, given the public humiliation she experienced as a result of her husband’s porn use. I’ve got no problem with a Home Secretary legislating on porn without ever having watched it; it’s not like classifying DVDs was an important part of her job. I’ve never watched porn either, and I hold opinions aplenty on it. Bite me.

If you’re more exercised by Smith’s naivety than you are by the fact that footage of women being throttled during sex is precisely two clicks away from this screen, your values are screwed. If your response to her intervention is to comment that you wouldn’t like to fuck her, be aware that you’re part of a long and shameful tradition of trying to silence women by demeaning them. By all means let’s have an honest debate about porn, but leave your sense of superiority at the door.

Breastmilk, taboos, and sheer, unadulterated crap

I’m not going to force you to drink my breastmilk. Partly because I’m no longer lactating, but mostly because, since that unfortunate incident with my son and the Marmite ricecakes, I make it a principle never to force anyone to eat anything. If you don’t want to spend £15 on an ice cream made with human milk, that’s A-OK with me. I don’t want to spend £15 on that either.

You  may have concerns about the commodification of people; I can understand that. You may dislike political posturing; that’s fine.

But if you espouse any of the following points of view, I may well get my leaky friend to squirt you in the eye with some of her finest breast-juice. (It’s great for conjunctivitis!)

It’s just like snot! Or shit! Basically it’s like eating shit!

It’s really, really not like that at all. Breastmilk is specifically designed to be ingested by human beings. Unlike, you know… COWS’ MILK. And comparing breastmilk – one of the most extraordinary substances known to humankind – to shit makes you a woman-hating knob-end.

I don’t mind breastmilk, but it’s for babies. When adults eat it it’s disgusting

Well, it’s not just for babies. Many children aren’t fully weaned until they are seven or so; some continue to feed even after that. Many nursing mothers talk about using up expressed breastmilk in their coffee, or in puddings. There’s even the famous scene in The Grapes of Wrath in which a woman nurses a dying man. Sure, the norm in developed countries is that breastmilk is consumed by babies. But there are plenty of things that children eat and adults don’t: fromage frais, Space Dust, Happy Meals, stuff that they find up their noses. You probably don’t convulse with horror when someone offers you a bag of chicken nuggets. So when you say that your revulsion is caused purely by the age factor, I think you’re lying. Probably to cover up your embarrassment at the stupidity of your own response.

It’s like eating shit!

It’s still not like eating shit. But you are evidently impervious to rational argument. And your mouth-breathing repetition of Ricky Gervais’s gag about the spunk sandwich isn’t impressing anyone.

Adult consumption of breastmilk is taboo, and taboos are there for a reason

You know, another word for ‘taboo’ is ‘superstition’. A longer phrase for ‘taboo’ is ‘thunderingly stupid stuff dreamed up before the Enlightenment’. Seriously, name me one taboo – other than the incest one, I’ll give you that – that represents rock-solid common sense? You know other things that used to be taboos? Menstruating women. Men having sex with men. The taboo argument is pure bunkum, and is most often espoused by people who will demand five pieces of peer-reviewed evidence when you suggest that Nuts might not be good reading material for eight-year-olds.

There is – with deadening inevitability – a serious point to this. New mothers who choose to breastfeed are met at every turn with attitudes that make it likely that their breastfeeding will come to a premature end (by which I mean, before they and their babies are ready to stop). The pursed-lipped customer at the next table in the cafe; the TV doctor who says that they should ‘give their breasts back to their husbands’; the partner who says ‘you’ve done it for x weeks now, it’s time to move on to formula’. These attitudes are of a piece with the don’t-touch-me-with-breastmilk-I-might-die comments that have been expressed since the Baby Gaga story came to light. We live in a culture that is terrified by the idea of breasts being used for their primary purpose. A little rational self-examination, in these circumstances, would go a long way.

Mothers: fear and loathing

When I decided to have my children, I anticipated a few things: disturbed nights, perineal stitching, unending devotion (of me, obviously). But there was one sickening development that I hadn’t prepared myself for. By the simple act of having children I became – in the eyes of many – stupid. If I’d been commonly thought to be stupid before my gametes did their business, I probably wouldn’t have noticed. But I wasn’t, and so I did. And some years later, when I come across garbage like this piece from Eva Wiseman (purveyor of dreary columns about make-up), it still pricks me. Like Winston at the beginning of Nineteen Eighty-Four, I haven’t yet settled to the inevitability of my fate.

Yes, mothers are thick. Haven’t you heard? They’re bovine and unreflective. They can’t help it; it’s just what happens. They’re ruled by their emotions, unable to think clearly about anything beyond the next nappy change. If they continue to work full-time (in a proper job – you know, in an important sector, like the media) then they might just hang on to their personalities and intellect; but you’ve got to admit, it’s a struggle, and one that most of them lose.

Another thing about mothers: they lose all sense of perspective; their worlds shrink. It’s not their fault, of course. What with all the tiredness, and their new-found stupidity, and their inability to reflect, there’s something inevitable in the closing of their minds. And frankly, in a lot of ways, it’s preferable. After all, who wants mothers going anywhere near a voting booth, or offering up their ridiculous views? They can’t possibly have anything useful to say about anything that occurs beyond their front doors, and they’d only embarrass themselves. They may once have understood electoral reform, or cultural tropes, or pastoral agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa; but these things are lost to them now.

So when – bless them - they step blinking into the sunlight, and put forward a point of view – about culture, about sexuality, about politics, about geothermal engineering - it’s really best that they should be ridiculed and dismissed. It’s for their own good, you see: they don’t belong in the grown-up world of power and debate; not any more. They’re in the twilight zone of motherhood, en route to the utter invisibility that our society is kind enough to accord to older women. It’s really best that they get used to it.

Recession, mothers and the pay gap

I took a royal kicking on the internet the other day, which is never comfortable but is often instructive. The piece was this one, and the kicking was in the comments, as data-geeks swarmed all over the figures quoted by the Fawcett Society on the gender pay-gap in the UK. The consensus was that there is no significant gender pay-gap (outside a couple of industries, notably pharmacy and IT) until you move into the post-30 age group. At this point, you’re talking not so much about a pay-gap as a motherhood gap.

There are a few possible explanations for this, but it seems to me it largely comes down to one thing: employers. Employers who think that mothers are unreliable, that flexi-time is unworkable, that job-sharing is inefficient, and that mothers who have taken time out have become de-skilled.

A report by Regus finds that mothers seeking work this year are going to find it tougher than ever, as the proportion of companies ‘planning’ to hire mothers drops to just 26% (43% of companies were planning to hire at all). So roughly 40% of companies expecting to recruit this year would simply not consider an application from a mother. As Regus points out, given that many of the public sector employees losing their jobs this year are women, the outlook is pretty crappy for anyone who has been idiotic enough to reproduce, and still expects employers to take her seriously.

I had a conversation with the excellent women at Maternity Action recently (the site is a marvellous resource of legal information and advice), and one of the problems we have here is a lack of data about pregnant women and mothers who are facing renewed discrimination in this recession. So – acknowledging that this is going to be more anecdotal than stats-driven – it would be great if you could use the comments section on this post to describe your experiences of workplace or recruitment discrimination. If you’ve recently been told (or suspect) that your job’s going because you’re pregnant, or have been passed over for promotion because you’re about to go on maternity leave, or been asked at interview about your childcare arrangements, I’d love to hear from you.

Here is a list. You might be on it

Earlier this week, the people who live in my house got together to compile a shortlist of People and Things. We did this on the basis of What We Could See At The Time and also What Was In Our Heads That Very Minute. We then handed the shortlist to our milkman, who assumed it was a cheque and returned it shortly afterwards with a bad grace and some runic markings (something do to with Dairy Diaries). Anyway, we are pleased now to share with you the results of our deliberative procedure. Check it out because you very much might be on there.

PEOPLE

1) Evie from down the road (age 5)

2) Robertson Ay

3) Norman Baker MP (transport supremo and performance artiste)

4) Funny-looking woman on the news just now

5) Steve Jansen (other surviving members of Japan did not quite make the list)

THINGS

1) Wireless dongle (broken)

2) 2mm crosshead screw (you can’t throw it away. It’s obviously from something.)

3) Nerf gun

4) Governance in post-war Hungary

5) Dairy Diary

Hope this feeds in to the general stuff-that’s-going-on picture. If you’re not on the list, do please keep checking back.

Exciting news from the Institute of Big Thinks

A new year, a freshly-hatched egg of crazy mess from the right-wing think tanks that are metastasizing in Westminster. The latest piece of wearying cognitive dissonance is by Dr Catherine Hakim, whose Centre for Policy Studies report on ‘feminist myths’ in employment practices is published today. Dr Hakim argues that the battle for equal opportunities has been won (oh, yay!), and that further activity by the all-powerful feminist lobby would be counter-productive. So, at this point you’re thinking: ‘why should I give a tuppenny sod about what the CPS thinks?’. But the problem is, these people are the non-horse-related working parts of Cameron’s brain. Just a few weeks ago, Theresa May gleefully lopped the goolies off the Equalities Act.

We’re about to enter the disorientating thickets of new right thinking, so try to hang on to the following. Women in full-time employment are paid 17 per cent less than men doing equivalent work, rising to 36 per cent for women working part-time. Just 4 per cent of the executive directors of FTSE100 companies are women. Motherhood prompts a slide in women’s earnings and status; the pay gap for mothers who work full time is 21 per cent.

The CPS report doesn’t dispute any of this, but uses it to make some arguments that could politely be described as counter-intuitive. There are three main problems with the analysis: 1) its assumptions, 2) its political impetus, and 3) all of the words. Dr Hakim concedes that equal opportunity policies have had some notable successes, and concludes that they should therefore be discontinued. The fact that the pay gap has remained constant over the last 10 years is adduced as evidence that no more need be done to address it. She asserts that women now have more choices than men, requiring us to believe that educated, capable women are taking poorly-paid, low-status jobs purely because they prefer them. ‘Why are women less likely to achieve the top jobs and associated higher pay?’ she trills, swiftly concluding that there’s no way of knowing and that we therefore needn’t worry ourselves about it. She simply fails to acknowledge the structures that frequently require women to choose between having children and doing well in their professional field.

Those who benefit from the status quo pretend to believe that the current situation arises from the ‘aspirations and preferences of women’, as Dr Hakim argues. Perhaps it needs to be spelled out: even women who gladly choose to stay at home with their children in the early years do not rejoice in the consequent financial penalties and lifelong hobbling of career choices. It will not do to tell us that we have made our beds, and we must lie in them. The waste of women’s non-domestic talent and potential is not just a personal disappointment for those concerned; it distorts and encumbers every area of public and industrial life, and has baleful effects on men and children as well as women.

We are where we are not because of a surfeit of feminist practice, but because of its absence. When it comes to reproduction, equality does not lie in pretending that men and women are exactly the same. Of course we should celebrate and respect those women who do not have children, or who are happy to return to work shortly after giving birth; but the irrefutable truth is that the physical and emotional demands of pregnancy, labour, baby care and breastfeeding have practical consequences. Too many employers remain stubbornly resistant to job-sharing and flexible working, despite the fact that such practices work excellently in almost all contexts. Children require intensive parenting for a comparatively short time; sympathetic employers who support their staff through this period are rewarded with hard work and loyalty in spades.

Dr Hakim and her colleagues on the right make great play of the desirability of free choice, while doing nothing to encourage its availability. Those who wish to improve the lot of women in the labour force should resist the distractions of neo-conservative thinking, and keep their eyes on the prize.

Mass CiF trespass: a proposal

Emboldened by the response to my long, whiny piece about CiF trolls (and befuddled by suet and booze), I’d like to propose that we make Monday 10 January the day of the first mass Comment is Free trespass. The idea is that people of mild temperament will shuffle gently onto CiF threads throughout the day, expressing their views in a thoughtful and respectful way. If nothing else, it will confuse the hell out of the regulars.

Given that you’re all models of reason and good temper, you don’t need any rules. But here are some rules.

1) Don’t be an arse. Once you’ve spent a few minutes on CiF your sensitivity to arsery will become dulled, so try to have a solid sense of your own definition of ‘terrible, terrible arse’ before you log in.

2) If you feel compelled to forcefully address a point made by a troll, remember the ‘shit sandwich’ technique. So:

@angrylittleman13: I do so admire your tenacity. It’s a shame that you employ it to argue that ‘all furriners should be killed’. I disagree with this view because… [insert National Curriculum Key Stage 1 ‘personal and social development’ bullet points here]. However, your syntax is a testament to the power of out-of-the-box thinking.

3) Check in on the environment and development boards to play with the specialised sceptic and xenophobic trolls.

4) At certain points you will become bewildered and disorientated. You will start to wonder whether Harriet Harman did more harm to this country than the Luftwaffe. This is completely normal. Do some Lamaze breathing, have a cup of chamomile tea, read something by Aditya Chakrabortty. In extremis, stroke your Tony Judt action figure.

5) For the love of Christ, don’t link.

Give me a hug and hold my copy of the Beveridge Report. I’m going in.

Sack Kay Burley! No really, just sack her

[This is my entry for Bright Green Scot's Dick of the Year contest; see the BGS site for other candidates and to cast your vote FOR KAY BURLEY.]

 ‘What are you protesting for?  You might as well
go home and watch it on Sky News.’

If you can watch this clip without shrieking wordlessly into the void, your therapist is better than mine. It’s not just that Burley is a pitifully bad journalist who is no closer to elucidation than she is to cold fusion. It’s not just that she wouldn’t know a De Hondt ballot if it chewed thoughtfully on her stringy, cartilaginous arse. It’s not just that she’s toe-shreddingly rude to David Babbs, whose kindly response (he recognises early on in the proceedings that he’s dealing with a very large toddler) deserves international recognition. It’s not just that she repeats ‘65 per cent of the public voted for a hung parliament!’, as though that meant BUGGER ALL about BUGGER ALL in THIS OR ANY OTHER UNIVERSE. It’s not just that at some point in the collection of shameful episodes that she is pleased to call her career, she has looked upon the works of Rush Limbaugh and thought ‘that, my friends, is how it should be done’. It’s not even that she works for the world’s most evil walnut-masquerading-as-a-billionaire.

No. It’s the squalid, mendacious assertion that political activism is not just risible, but useless. It’s the suggestion – in 2010, of all years – that if you want to change the world, the best thing you can do is abandon a protest and watch the TV instead. The months between May and December exposed Kay Burley as a towering, totemic dick.

[Coda: it's not fair to ask you to watch the first clip without also linking to the one below. The gently disruptive tactics and the cheerful bathos ('Sky News is shit!') will bring your cortisol levels back down.]