We are from a working class backgound. Entering the army is the best economic option for a working class man. Just like entering the sex industry is the best economic option for women. But this post is not going to be about men. It’s going to be about women, and how the British coalition government has utterly shafted them.
The riots have been a long time coming. No proletariat can handle the type of unequal distribution of wealth that’s been going on in British society for very long. It is the unequal distribution, not the economic crisis, which fuels these youths’ anger. But lets look at the economics for a moment.
The U.S has been downgraded by S & P from a AAA rating to an AA+, and Britain is surely set to follow.
Call me cynical but I often wonder whether all the point of all the shouting is partly to get women focused elsewhere. There’s nothing the patriarchy likes more than a good smoke screen, and I believe that women often underestimate how crucial their oppression is to the continuation of the status quo. Women’s oppression is NOT a by-product of patriarchy, or of capitalism: it is the basis upon which the power structures stand. If women were free, there would be no powerful men. Men know this but women are slow to catch on.
What I am concerned about is that amidst all the kerfuffle and panic, the British electorate are overlooking the fact that the government has put policies in place designed to keep women poorer, and men richer. The Fawcett Society has drawn up a document and taken it to The Equality and Human Rights Commission:
The coalition government’s emergency budget could be branded unlawful after a groundbreaking legal case was launched in the high court. Papers filed on Friday claim that Treasury officials broke the law by failing to carry out an assessment of whether the plans for heavy spending cuts would hit women hardest.
The action is being taken by the country’s leading women’s rights group in what is believed to be the first ever legal challenge to a British government’s budget. The Fawcett Society, which believes the plans “risk rolling back women’s equality in the UK by a generation”, is being represented by barristers from Matrix Chambers, which was co-founded by Cherie Booth, wife of the former prime minister Tony Blair. It follows research that suggested women would shoulder three quarters of the pain inflicted by the budget.
As far as I am aware, the government has ignored the Fawcett society and has kept to their original policy changes, designed to keep women, especially mothers, poor and unable to leave the fathers of their children, should they wish to do so, for economic reasons.
Yesterday I was accused, on a malestream website, of peddling the “politics of envy” for holding the men in power accountable.
Stating facts has nothing to do with “the politics of envy”.
That’s the mistake Freud made, you see. He mistook women’s desire for equal rights for a desire to posess a penis. IN his confusion, he could not grasp that critiquing a system of power distribution is not connected with the subjective emotion, envy.
That term rather sounds like something you would coin to throw at people who dare to criticize a system where those people are marginalized economically, such as women, are paying through their taxes to uphold the lifestyles of the wealthy.
Women take on shitty part time jobs to fit around the kids, or a fired for not adhering to the feminine standards foisted upon them, and yet we are supposed to support the scrounging bankers, who were utterly incompetent at their jobs, and in return their taxes are taken to support these men, who are rewarded with bonuses.
And anyone who criticizes them are envious? No, I don’t envy the bankers, or any other men who rely on the subordination of women for their success. I wonder how they can look at themselves in the mirror, or how they sleep at night. How do you envy people who are that amoral?
Poverty is relative and is broadly defined by academic Daniel Dorling as “the inability to participate in the social norms of a community”
If you live in mud hut in an Amazonian rainforest, without a mobile, TV or air-conditioning, but have a full stomach, can barter with your neighbours, and most importantly, feel that the distribution of wealth in your community correlates with the work people put in (women aside here: we all know whatever women do gets valued and paid less coz it’s women doing it) then you are not poor, indeed, you do not feel poor.
But if you live in a rich, developed country, even if you are in posession of a mobile and a car, you can still be poor, and indeed you are poor if you cannot participate in social norms such as sending your children to university, or going out to a restaurant now and again.
In addition, a mobile is an essential part of daily life in developed countries, as is a car. Many people cannot shop for food, or simply get out and about to see other people and socialize, without a car. Nobody uses land-lines anymore so if you have a job, you are often expected to be on call, hence the need for a mobile. These are the basic requirements needed for living, although some people of course don’t have them.
In fact the people most in need of a car are women with young children, and they are the very people least likely to own a car.
In the same community, a single man without children can own several cars?
This is the problem. Vulnerable groups are supporting and subsidizing the wealthy and powerful.
I’m still in shock that tax-payers shelled out for bankers’ bonuses after they caused the crash. Don’t think I’ll ever get over that one.
As for the rioters, I don’t condone violence any more than I condone illegitimate governments such as the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition making decisions that affect the lives of the proletariat, but which they themselves are protected from, through their wealth and male privilege. But I did notice that the youths torched department stores–out of town complexes built adjacent to run-down estates, places the locals passers-by had no legitimate right to enter themselves, seeing as they had no money to buy the goods. If we are to prevent more violence, we cannot pretend this incident was random and arbitrary. We cannot pretend it was “just kids wanting to play supermarket sweep” as one paper reported it. This is political unrest. We should name it for what it is.
And we all know what vulnerable men do when they are being fucked over by more powerful men.
They take it out on women.
Let’s play let’s pretend, just like the politicians and papers are.
Let’s pretend this was totally unexpected.
Let’s pretend it is RANDOM.
Let’s pretend that the group comitting violence is not economically and socially marginalized and disenfranchised.
Let’s pretend this has nothing to do with the U.K being one of the most unequal societies in the world in terms of income.
Let’s pretend the government has not been implementing policies designed to shaft the poorest
Let’s pretend taxpayers money has not gone on upholding the lifestyle of powerful people who should have been sacked and thrown in jail (bankers’ bonuses, anyone?)
Let’s pretend a political analysis of the gross inequalities in society is unecessary
Let’s pretend this is “just kids wanting to play supermarket sweep” as one paper reported.
Let’s pretend that some people just like looting and vandalizing, and others don’t.
According to the media and politicians, some people just like causing chaos and other people don’T.