Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music

I am not in the habit of writing about the same subject twice in a row but after my Sunday post last week on masculinity and the way the media (mis)represents it sometimes, I am coming back today to the same issue. This was prompted by an article I read last week by author and co-founder of Fathers Direct, Jack O'Sullivan.

O’Sullivan’s column focused on the dearth of male voices talking about men and the reasons for it. He is right in a way. Why aren’t George Monbiot, Simon Jenkins, Jonathan Freedland and Martin Kettle joining the debate on masculinity? As Mr O’Sullivan states, “Men's absence from the debate has dramatic consequences, making it overwhelmingly negative.” This negativity trickles through to the next generation and thus the cycle continues. What is more, this unhelpful approach is conducive to a stereotypical view of the male of the species. Women have no qualms about addressing difficult issues. And men? We clam up apparently.

And yet, reality is so different. As O’Sullivan writes, this “debate with genuine male participation and leadership aspirational and authentically male agenda would be much welcome. “The centrepiece would be today's extraordinary transformation of masculinity. A huge transition is taking place in all our lives, as we redefine our relationships with women, with our children, with work, with our sexuality. History may judge it to be a faster and more profound change even than the developments in women's lives.” I loved that last paragraph. The key word is “transition”. We’re not the cavemen of yesteryear. Yes, it’s true that the recent stories about teenage girls’ abuse, rape and misogyny have reinforced the view that certain men are not to be trusted. But we are also the ones demanding a more flexible paternal leave, equal rights for women and recognition of the importance of fathers/male carers in children’s lives. The problem is that our voices are rarely heard.

Jack answers this conundrum brilliantly. According to him we, like women, have taken a long time to escape the confines of our gender. Whether it is in our relationships with women – amorous or not – and/or with other men – gay or straight – we are evolving. The 21^st century Responsible Dad came out of this mix, even though his habitat was mainly urban. These are achievements to celebrate, but we don’t seem to be too good at doing it.

Where I believe Mr O’Sullivan is somewhat misguided is when he pits this lack of awareness of men’s position in contemporary Britain against feminism. In his own words, “feminism has reinforced rather than challenged – or even acknowledged – matriarchy.” Two points I would like to make on that statement. The first one is that feminism was a reaction rather than an action. It was a way for women to fight for the rights they had been denied ever since the Greeks invented democracy and excluded them and slaves from it. Without feminism the right to vote, for instance, would not have been won. So, when male voices are drowned by female commentators, is not because of feminism, it is because of the woman behind the opinion. Laurie Penny and Julie Bindel are an extension of the women's liberation movement. Martin Kettle et al lack that urgency because they - we - live in a male-dominated world.

The second point concerns the absence of men writing and talking about male issues. It might be the case that journalists, intellectuals, authors inter alia, don’t think these topics are important enough to even address them. This is partly because of a misconception that matters to do with family, feelings and emotions (relationships and children’s upbringing come to mine) belong solely in the province of women, whilst men are left to deal with the Big Issue(s). In a way this situation mirrors literature. How many times have I not heard critics deride women’s books as just a compendium of emotions and feelings? Shout out James Joyce and modernism will follow straight after like a playful dog up to get the ball its owner holds in his hand. Scream “The Great American Novel” and see how Herman Melville and Scott Fitzgerald come to blows over a place in the queue. What about female writers, though? Oh, they are OK, but they can only write about feelings and stuff, you know, “wimmin things”. I think that Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison and Hilary Mantel would have something to say about that. But the misconception remains, men deal with the grand theme, women are better at chick-lit.

That’s the reason why Simon Jenkins (usually critical of Britain’s foreign policy), George Monbiot (the UK's foremost champion and defender of the environment) and Martin Kettle (wrong about the future of British dance) can’t bring themselves to write about masculinity per se, its place in modern society, its changes and challenges. They are all too busy addressing the “important” issues such as terrorism, climate change and Nick Clegg’s role in the coalition. Until they and the rest of the male commentariat realise that they have as much of a stake in raising awareness of what Jack O’Sullivan calls a revolution in masculinity as everyone else, the only debate about men will continue to be led by women. And that doesn’t help either party.

© 2013

Next Post: “Of Literature and Other Abstract Thoughts”, to be published on Wednesday 29^th May at 11:59pm (GMT)

Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music

A book review, an essay and a column made me ponder recently on the whys and wherefores of our politcal preferences.

The review was written by David Cameron's former speechwriter, Ian Birrell. His target was The Righteous Minds, an essay-cum-book that offers an insight into why people vote for conservative policies, if not governments. The author, Jonathan Haidt, is a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. His theories are interesting, if only because they seem to answer some questions whilst posing news ones.

For Jonathan, whose essay appeared as a tie-in for the book release a few weeks after the review, those who sit on the right side of the political spectrum care as much about society as those on the left, even if sometimes some of us might think otherwise. In his opinion, this caring attitude chimes with voters who are interested in values, not programmes, especially government-backed ones. And paradoxically, conservatives have a broader and more mixed palette of ideas, as opposed to the left's single-minded approach. Whereas rightwingers can invoke family ties, personal responsibility and an entrepeneurial spirit, liberals will more likely want to extend a safety net that covers all members of society.

So far, somehow it makes sense. That would go some way to explain why Reagan and Thatcher were voted in in the midst of two difficult economic periods in the US and UK respectively. It wasn't just the promise of a get-rich-quick future, but also a return to values voters treasured more.

In his essay, Jonathan uses the analogy of taste to illustrate why voters lean towards specific flavours, albeit from a moral perspective. Our tongues respond to five classes of chemicals: sweet, sour, bitter, salty and savoury. Although sugary foods get the thumbs-up as the most appealing of these five tastes, most of us opt for a hot, filling meal as a proper dinner.

In a similar way Haidt has identified six areas that affect our moral palate: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation. According to him, liberals score highly in care/harm and liberty/oppression but are outsmarted by conservatives in matters to do with group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (and not just in a religious context).

Jonathan's theory is that in times of (economical) distress like the one we're undergoing now, people are keener on order and authority and less on nurturing governments.

The only problem with this analysis is that recent events have shown the opposite. France has just elected a left-wing president who wants to raise corporate tax to 75% for companies making more than one million euros per annum. Although Greeks have just voted a rightwing government in, conservative prime minister Mr Samaras is being forced to form a coalition with centre-left parties. And over in Spain, Mariano Rajoy is having problems spelling the word "bailout" to puzzled Spaniards. You can sense that the tide is turning in Europe, and the way it's going is more towards people wanting nurturing as well as order and authority. Especially authority that doesn't tell porkies.

Maybe Jonathan's theory suits the US political scene more. After all, this is election year and the White House incumbent, Barack Obama, faces his sternest test yet. That of the follow-up album. Any musician worth their salt will tell you that if your debut album sells well and has a couple of chart-topping singles, people (including your own fans) will watch very closely what you do with your sophomore record. Do you break away from the format that brought you success or do you stick to the same accolade-winning formula? Not that Obama's last four years have been a fun ride. He hasn't been able or willing to implement the left-of-centre agenda he promised during his bid for the presidency in 2008. And in Mitt Romney, he has a very different opponent to Mc Cain. For starters, Romney has made the core base of the Republican Party forget about his Mormonism, which shows cleverness. Let's not forget that Mormons are not viewed benignly by Republican voters. Questions about care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation are, then, pertinent. If Romney can demonstrate that he stands for individual liberties against Obama's supposed "nanny state", the latter will not able to stroll to victory as he did four years ago against the dyad McCain/Palin.

That however is on the other side of the pond. Haidt's mention of the UK brought a robust riposte from George Monbiot, eco-warrior par excellence. This is the third element of the trio I mentioned at the beginning. George disagrees with Jonathan's theory of political "taste buds" and blames the lack of support for leftwing policies (in the UK) on voters' apathy. He has got a point. Traditional Labour followers tended to come from a blue-collar background. But once Labour revamped itself and became "New Labour", many of working-class people felt betrayed and gave up on the party. They didn't, however, decamp to the Tories, but chose to stay home on election day.

BBC sitcom "Only Fools and Horses", but were Del Boy and the rest of the gang secret Tories? Photograph: Imagenet

Moreover, it seems to me that British voters are more cynical than their US counterparts. Although I lack the political insight that living in the United States would probably give me, it appears from my vantage point that American elections are as much of a personality competition as they are about policies. Already pundits are predicting a "surprise" in November. All because Romney, unlike Mc Cain, has not got "dodgy shoulders". Contrast that with British people's reaction to the coalition's budget cuts, and the political situation couldn't be more different. There have been protests, strikes (including by teachers and doctors) and government U-turns aplenty since 2010. Our prime minister might be a posh, suave, smooth-talker, but that won't save him from the chop come election day in 2015, if not before.

Jonathan's book (which I've yet to read) sounds interesting and his essay, if not totally convincing, does throw some light on our voting habits. But I think it takes more than just having a political sweet'n'sour palate, metaphorically speaking, to talk voters into pledging their allegiance to a particular party. If you don't believe me, ask the Greeks.

© 2012

Next Post: “Living in a Bilingual World”, to be published on Wednesday 27th June at 11:59pm (GMT)