Things I don't understand about Britain #431

As this Economist article so eloquently puts it:

In America these people would be called what they plainly are: middle class. They are around the middle of the national income distribution. They have jobs of middling status, perhaps in retail or self-employed manual trades. Their nondescript semi-detached houses are neither in the inner cities (from which they, or their parents, often migrated) nor in the kind of suburbs conventionally described as “leafy” (to which they aspire to move).
In Britain, though, “middle class” has come to refer to people who are actually well off, in part, perhaps, because a small aristocracy notionally occupies the top spot socially. Middle-class professions are taken to include medicine, teaching and the law. One newspaper columnist thinks a typical middle-class family might have a “combined income of £100,000”, or $150,000; in fact it is probably closer to £30,000. Rising school fees are supposed to be a middle-class worry, though only 7% of British schoolchildren are educated privately. And the term is just as misused in politics. Advocates of cutting inheritance tax say it punishes the middle classes; yet it is only charged on estates worth at least £325,000, fully £100,000 more than the price of the average home. The 40% rate of income tax is also said to affect them; in fact, it catches just 3.8m of Britain’s 31.7m income-taxpayers. 

My husband is guilty of this as well: The Middle Class is well-off; everyone else is working class.

If you can't beat 'em, wee on 'em.

The headline: "Don't keep up with the Joneses. Beat them." (Independent, opinion) The article is actually talking about the recent research that says that making a million pounds doesn't mean much if all your friends make two million.

My first thought was, yeah, but she doesn't mean literally!

My theory of Britishness is not "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." British society is all about class and status. It doesn't really matter what people do, just if they are better or worse than you.

But different sections of British society have different ways of dealing with people who succeed [at anything].

The English, I feel, like to mock and humiliate things that are better than them or that they perceive to be better than them. They see something nice, and they want to wee on it. That's all, just to make a statement that it doesn't matter to them and they sincerely don't care that it's nice.

The Scottish, by contrast, when they see something nice, they want to destroy it.

I feel like in most parts of England, if I had a nice greenhouse in my garden in a crappy neighbourhood, the locals would mark it with grafitti, maybe nick some stuff, but it would be relatively undamaged. The Scottish, however, are more likely to put a brick in. Not cause they want what's inside, but just cause they don't want you to have something nice.

It's the one thing that's holding the underclasses back -- peer pressure to be, um, the same shit as everyone else. How dare you be better than us! How dare you think that an education and reading are going to improve your life! Your role in life is not to work hard, learn, get ahead, or improve anything. Your role is to reinforce the fact that I have nothing in my life and neither will you!

Men can be victims, too.

Also in the news today, if you recall my earlier post about the Scottish Parliament discussing male victims of domestic violence, it appears that the debate seems to have created just a little bit more gender equality in the Scotland. A new advice line aimed at male victims of domestic violence will be starting next month, funded by the Scottish Government.

The Men's Advice Line is a free phone number that is open 30 hours a week (don't worry, there's a voicemail system) for men in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. The website also helpfully has a page about covering your tracks (though most people would be suspicious if they had no cookies left). They also have a nice little assessment thing to help people know if they're in an abusive relationship:

Does your partner:

• Humiliate you, call you names or make fun of you in a way that is designed to hurt you?  
  
• Threaten you that you will never see your children again?
  
• Threaten you with violence or hit, kick or throw things at you?
  

Or do you:

• Change your behaviour or your appearance so your partner doesn't get angry?
  
• Feel scared, anxious or like you are ‘walking on eggshells'?
  
• Cut yourself off from your friends or family?  
  

If you answered yes to some or all of those questions you may be experiencing domestic violence. You can find out more here.

 Most of the webpage contains information and views similar to most female-orientated domestic violence assistance groups. To someone familiar with the range of activities that abuse can encompass, there are no surprises. The only major difference is that this page is aimed at men.

There are still problems in getting this information out to men. Do they plan on putting flyers in all health clinics and hospitals? Will they be putting up any billboards to raise awareness? On a simpler level, what does a man have to google to find this webpage?

Preliminary searches show that "men's advice line", "domestic violence male"and "domestic violence men" all serve up the Men's Advice Line. But it should appear in general searches about "domestic violence scotland" and even "scotland my wife is abusive". ("scotland my husband is abusive" reveals help some help groups.)

Another issue that should be studied is the way in which domestic abuse affects men. It is noted on the website that:

A significant number of men calling the Men's Advice Line who initially identify as victims change their own identification by the end of the call or provide information about the violence in their relationships which strongly suggests that they are either not a victim or in fact are the perpetrator (monitoring the Men's Advice Line calls in December 2008 and January 2009). Men's Advice Line staff are skilled at working effectively with all callers, including genuine victims and those who present as victims but are using violence themselves. Our focus is increasing the safety and minimising the risk.

 The question in my mind is "can a victim use violence?" If you google "my wife hits me until I hit back" you'll find all sorts of stories of women hitting their spouse or boyfriend and driving them to use violence. This is inline with research that says that men have a limited number of acceptable emotions to express (happy, horny, angry, but not hurt), and it could well be that the range of available emotions to men in Scotland leans more towards violence as an acceptable reaction. If violence is how men in Scotland communicate in general, then when pressed they would naturally use violence again. So I challenge the Men's Advice Line to not look at all male violence as abuse, especially where there is evidence of female violence (emotionally or physically). Yes, it is wrong to hit someone in anger, but like children, sometimes it's all you have left when they don't listen. If you have no other way to express your hurt, sadness and anger, sometimes violence is all that remains. Better would be to encourage other communication skills to reduce the retaliation violence so that the true abusers are exposed.

Women in the RAF - advertising equality

If you recall, some months back I posted about an RAF ad in the Metro that I found rather cliched and sexist. Well, the RAF seems to have learned from their mistakes and placed another ad in the Metro that is much improved in their visualisation of women in the RAF.

(Taken the Metro 18 March 2010) (My apologies for the folded corner.)

The text reads:

FLIGHT LIEUTENANT
ANNE GEISON
RAF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER

KINLOSS, SCOTLAND
12TH SEPTEMBER 2006

(image: plane in clouds)

A RUSSIAN PILOT CAUGHT IN A
STORM - LOST AND LOW ON FUEL.

 (image: black and white plane with lightning)

AND ME - 2 WEEKS
OUT OF TRAINING.

THE STORM KNOCKED OUT
HIS INTRUMENTS AND
HALF OF MY RADAR...

(image: black and white radio tower with lightning)

HE WAS HEADED FOR SOME RADIO
MASTS - I HAD TO ACT QUICKLY.

(image: black and white man in plane looking stressed)

I GOT HIM BACK ON COURSE,
KEPT HIM CALM, GUIDED HIM DOWN.

A FEW WEEKS LATER I RECEIVED
AN AWARD AT DOWNING ST.

(image: photo of RAF woman in front of No. 10 Downing Street)

MUM WAS
REALLY CHUFFED.

BE PART OF THE STORY

Comparison of the two ads: (apologies for sloppy formatting)

Role of main character:	Nurse	Air Traffic Controller
Person(s) helped:	"men"	"Russian pilot" (male)
Problem:	"What do you do for men who've seen what they've seen?"	storm knocked out radar
Actions taken:	care, gave coke & kind word	got him back on course, calmed, guided
End Result:	proud of soldiers "brothers"	award in Downing St, mum is happy
Words in bold:	ambushed, injured, care, they'd, kind word, coke, brothers, proud	lost, low on fuel, training, half of my radar, quickly

The main emphasis of the first ad was emotional; the main emphasis of the second ad was technical. While the first ad focussed on empathy and social skills in comforting, the second ad focussed on ability to work under pressure. The results of the ad also vary from a non-descript feeling of pride to a nationally recognised award leading to others being happy. This can also be shown in the words in bold from the ad: training, and half of my radar are both knowledge and skill based as compared to care, kind word and coke from the previous ad.

Overall, this ad shows a gender-neutral look at women in the RAF. The role is less stereotypical - how many air traffic controllers in the RAF are women? The actions and skills displayed are also more knowledge and skill based rather than a soft genereic skill such as giving coke. The ad doesn't make the flight lieutenant in question completely emotionless, though, as the note that "mum was really chuffed" shows that she still cares about her family and what they think. It softens the entire ad without over-sentimentalising it.

Congratulations, RAF, for not falling into the stereotypes that caught you last time. The huge size of this ad and its placement in the general news section of the Metro should attract women who are thinkers and doers rather than passive television viewers. The only change I'd make is from a blue colour scheme to a warmer one, as that blue is generally associated with masculinity and warmer colours with feminity. (Except for purple. Maybe that's an idea?)

Why the Guardian sometimes drives me nuts.

Usually I read, in order, the Scotsman, the Independent, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Economist and the Onion's AV Club. Each presents a slightly different view on matters, and each discusses things on a different level. Except the AV Club, which I use for Savage Love and my film reviews. But, man, the Guardian sometimes drives me nuts!

The Guadian is a left-wing broadsheet in the UK, recognised around the world. Sometimes their opinion articles feature in the New York Times (and vice versa), but the Guardian is far more frustrating than the New York Times, if only because of the readers.

The Guardian, like the other British newspapers, allows comments on the articles posted online. It is this haven of what they like to consider freedom of speech where my ire is usually directed.

Like this recent opinion article about the new dog law. As the Scottish Libertarians report, the government is considering forcing all owners of some breeds of dogs to take out insurance in case their pet attacks someone. This legislation is aimed at the "vicious" dogs generally owned by the underclasses which they own either for protection or to look tough. (Which can be a protection in itself.) It would be costly and would effect far more of the underclasses than of the middle and upper classes.

The Guardian hosted a nice piece by a 23-year-old woman with a cane corso, a "dangerous dog". She makes a nice case for why she got her dog (she lives in a rough neighbourhood, so she trained it to growl at groups of young men in hoodies), how harmless her dog really is (burglars get licked instead of bitten?) and how she feels discriminated against just because some people can't (or don't) control their dogs.

But it's the comments that pissed me off. Here is a good girl with a good dog making a case for discounted dog training classes instead of expensive insurance and microchipping, and the comments loudly reject her and her arguments.

There's no good reason to have a threatening looking 'status' dog.

How about state-funded, compulsory dog-training classes?

How about not?

Yes your personal experience outweighs all the vast evidence and everyone elses personal experience.

Did you get paid to write this?
As for the "attack dog" Jack Russell, a swift boot and problem over. Not so easy when its a pitbull, Doberman, Rottweiler, German Shepard, etc etc
As for prejudice.....yup am guilty of that, as soon as I see someone with a certain type of dog I immediately think, Chav. Am sure I am not alone in that either.

So let me get this straight. You think poor people should get subsidies to help them cover the costs of training dangerous dogs.

Okay. So perhaps we could also pay chavs to go on courses designed to teach responsible boozing, or how to enjoy a football match without wanting to beat up other people.
Funny how CiF commentators never talk about personal responsibility

I know I'm middle class, but Jesus Christ was a bunch of middle class tossers!!!

What the Scotsman REALLY thinks of the letters to the editor...

Noticed today  on the Opinions page of the Scotsman website:

Yes, this is an actual screenshot of the webpage, with my red circles added for emphasis. Blah blah blah blah.

Incedentially, the blahs are continued on the individual pages, which are about (in order from the top down):
Charity beggars, Leith, historical archives, various quotes, and hat happened on this day. Turns out only the first blah involved readers' opinions, the last three are standard Scotsman features. Perhaps this comment is not directed at the readers, but the editors?

It could be the Hatfields and McCoys

A 24-year-old man was shot AND stabbed in a pub in Edinburgh. How's that for overkill?

The man was reportedly shot several times in the face with an airgun but police could not confirm the type of weapon used.

He was also stabbed in the upper thigh, although these wounds were said to be less serious.

(All quotes from 'Man shot in face and stabbed in pub attack'; Scotsman 08/03/10)
First of all, he was both shot and stabbed? Who leaves the house with both a gun and a knife? "Gee, I don't really know what level of violence I'll be committing tonight -- better take both." Excessive? Yeah, I think so. But, fortunately,

No-one else was injured in the incident.

And the cause for this seemingly random act of excessive violence?

It is believed only one attacker was involved. There were reports the incident could be connected to a long-running feud between two families.

Yes, that's right, a family feud. Somewhere in the supposedly civilised capital of Edinburgh are two families at war with eachother.

How long does it take to establish a family feud? More than one generation, I'm sure. At least 3 to get it firm. That means that these two families have been living in close enough proximity to reinforce the feud for at least three generations. Recall what I said about people living their whole lives on one street. Bizarre.

Oddly, McCoy isn't a Scottish name. The National Trust of Names makes it Celtic/Irish, with distributions heavily wieghted in the port towns of Liverpool and Newcastle. Hatfield is an English name, centered in Yorkshire and North Wales. Maybe the roots of the age-old American cliche are British -- we all know how the Irish hate the English.

In other news, Virgin Media's cheapest broadband is really really really slow.