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.

Breaking down Gender Stereotypes

Browsing through my followed blogs, the Scottish Parliament Petition blog mentioned the petition from the Men in Scotland webpage asking that all publicly funded domestic abuse/rape bodies recognise and cater for male victims of domestic abuse and rape.

The petition's description:

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children.

They had 409 signatures.

Men in Scotland are absolutely correct in asking that the resources for male survivors of rape and domestic abuse be expanded. Scotland's main rape resource is Rape Crisis Scotland. When you look at the resources for people who are asking for their help (located under "How we can help"), you notice all of their centres are run "for women by women". When you click the helpful "Men and boys" on the sidebar, they recommend looking in their links section. The help they recommend is in mental health, men as survivors of abuse, the National Association of Male Sexual Abuse Survivors (website not found!), and two US sites. Where's a Scottish guy to go? Google "Scotland male rape help" and all you get is the Scotsman article from 2003!

Under Scots law, only a man can rape. The 2009 Sexual Offenses Act defines rape as:

(1) If a person (“A”), with A’s penis—
(a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and
(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents,
penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape.

One good thing about this is that "penis" includes "surgically constructed" penii. Another good thing is that you can be orally and anally raped, thus allowing men to be qualified as victims as well as women.

But the British reluctance to recognise women as potential sources of violent abuse is still strong. When it broke that a female nursery worker in Plymouth had created and distributed child porn of her young wards, shock rippled through the nation.

Up to 64,000 women 'are child-sex offenders'! (The Guardian 4 Oct 2009)

When the face of evil is female! (The Scotsman 4 Oct 2009)

Female abusers are more prevalent than anyone likes to believe! (Times Online 1 Oct 2009)

Females And Sex Abuse: The Ultimate Taboo! (Sky News 1 Oct 2009) (Alternately titled: Female Paedophilia: The Ultimate Taboo -- The Scale of Sexual Abuse by Women)

Feminism began as a call for people to recognise that men and women were equal. Yet people are still shocked when women complete the same atrocities that men do. It's bad for men to be drunk and fight and vomit on the streets, but it's HORRIBLE and SCANDALOUS for women to do so! It's bad when men rape and abuse, but it's SHOCKING and UNNATURAL for women to do so! It's bad when women are raped, but it's UNHEARD OF for men to be so! Until men and women are treated the same in terms of their actions -- not their genitalia -- we will not see equality.

This petition to recognise and help male survivors of rape and sexual abuse is one step in the right direction.

Women in the RAF - advertising genius or failure?

The Metro is a wonderful newspaper. It's available free on most public transport (buses, trains, the subway) and has regional emphasis. One of the most widely read newspapers in the UK, it also manages to take a fairly balanced viewpoint on most events, without the political agenda of the Sun, Daily Mail or the Guardian. (This is worth imitating, America!) I read it whenever I can. Normally I read the articles, but when time allows, I also take a look at the ads to see what they're advertising (usually cell phones). This ad caught my eye.



It's an ad for the RAF which is quite obviously aimed at women. The intended audience can be seen in a number of ways, mostly in the use of a female as the "hero", and also in its placement near the TV section. (As compared to the sports section.) It's done in a nice comic book style, which is quite eye catching, and effective in that sense. The text reads:

Flight Lieutenant
Laura Hodson
Aeromedical
Nursing Officer
RAF Reserves

(right side:)

Camp Bastion, Afghanistan 23rd July 2007

A convoy ambushed. Three critically injured.

(image: helicopter arriving to troops)

We had to fly them home Giving the best care we could.

What do you do for men who've seen what they'd seen?

(image: airplane)

A smile here, a kind word there.

Their eyes lit up when I found some cans of coke!

(image: man holding non-descript can of pop/soda/fizzy drink)

When I'm not with the reserves I work in a London hospital as a sister.

I took care of these lads like they were my brothers...

(image: photo of woman in flying helmet)

And I'd be proud if they were.

Be part of the story.

I approve of women joining the armed forces. If men can do it, so can women. But I recognise that it is a male-dominated male-cultured environment, and thus presents various difficulties to women. This ad, I feel, shows some of those difficulties.

1) The "hero" of this comic/ad is a nurse. This is a standard female stereotyped job. Why is she not a doctor? Why not a pilot? There are plenty of options in this same scenario that don't play into stereotypes.

2) The injured soldiers were men. While I recognise that more men are at the front line and that there are often rules against women being in the front line, and so statistically men are more likely to be injured, it also gives the impression that men are there to do the work and the women are there to care for them. (Notice the bold of the word "care" in the 3rd block.)

3) In fact, that word "care" in bold was one of the reasons I was so mad about this ad. Why "care"? It's so wishy-washy. There's no action involved. Sure, it's shorthand for "get them home alive", but perhaps "get them there alive" might have been a better choice. But then, following the plot lines, what action does she really do? She gives them "a kind word", and a can of coke. What about life-support? An IV? I'm not in medicine, but even I know that nurses do more than provide moral support. Why aren't the actions shown in the comic actual nurse-related actions? Any bozo could smile and hand someone a can of coke.

Though perhaps that's the type of woman the RAF is attempting to recruit. What do they do in their free time? They watch TV. What are they good at? Being emotionally supportive. What do they value? Family (shown in emphasis of "brothers") or Religion (alternate meaning of sister at a hospital -- unclear).

I know women in the military is a big thing, both in the US and in the UK, and many hardships are faced by female recruits in a number of areas, but come on people, let's at least try to recruit women who want to be equal and do the things men do.

Underwear and Hipsters

Two things that are deficient in the UK: underwear and hipsters.

Ok, so there is lots of underwear in the UK, I really mean SEXY underwear. Lingerie. Corsets, bustiers, basques, babydolls. Thongs.

I'm getting married next week. I bought my dress a couple weeks ago, and now that some lovely Polish seamstresses altered it by bringing up the hem and fitting it about the hips, I needed something to go underneath it. Underwear. I had in mind a nice basque in white or ivory, with suspender straps for stockings, strapless top and matching panties. Is that too hard?

But no. We spent THREE DAYS -- FULL AFTERNOONS!!! -- shopping in Edinburgh.

Day 1 We went to EVERY shop on Princes Street, including Ann Summers and La Senza, and found one single basque that fit the requirements at Debenhams. Lots of black, red, purple, any colour you could want, very little available in white or ivory.

Day 2 we went to an enormous "retail park" (that's "shopping mall with retail box stores nearby" for you Americans) in Livingston, and found exactly 0 appropriate basques. (I did, however, find some nice shoes at New Look.)

Day 3 we decided to go to "specialty" shops: a sex shop, goth shops, and pricy lingerie shops. In the end, I lost all motivation to walk any further, and went into Debenhams and bought the same basque I saw two days earlier.

It appears that women prefer to wear horrible "slimming" foundation garments instead of actual lingerie. Or, even worse, some horrible swimsuit-like contraption that would involve snaps everytime I pee. And they always come in "nude". Yeah, that's attractive.

And lingerie sections are always in the back of shops! Why is that? Women should be proud of their undergarments! Have no shame in purchasing panties!

Part Two: Hipsters.

I hate hippies. I'm not too sure about hipsters. Hipsters in the US, well, they come with a "look", don't they? There's a "hipster look", right? We don't deny that hipsters proliferate in the US. But do they exist in the UK? I don't think they necessarily exist in the same incarnation in the UK.

Stereotyped American hipster:


UK Hipster?

Get a job, ya filthy bum!

I take great offense at Mary Dejevsky's assertion that Americans are mean.

For there is a mean and merciless streak in mainstream US attitudes, which tolerates much more in the way of inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here, while incorporating a large and often sanctimonious quotient of blame.

And the British don't tolerate inequality, deprivation and suffering? Frankly, I don't see any noticable difference in quality of life between the US and the UK. Ok, sure, with council houses, we have fewer beggars and children living on the streets, and with national health care people don't have to worry about going bankrupt from doctors' bills, but is that really increasing the quality of life? And if so, at what cost?

What Mary Dejevsky calls "mean", I call "self-responsibility". When people see a homeless person in the US, they think a number of things, perhaps feel pity, perhaps wonder where their family is, perhaps wonder how they got there, and of course, the "get a job, ya filthy bum!" response. But an American will rarely say "it is my fault that person is homeless", and only a small minority will say "it is the government's fault that person is homeless".

In the UK, when people see a homeless person, they merely shake their heads at the council not getting that person a house quick enough. Or wonder why they don't have a council house. Rarely will they blame the individual.

In the US, I see cold-hearted calculated selfishness, focussing entirely upon the individual. If you fail, it's your fault; if you suceed, it's on your hands. While it may be a myth that hard work will get you further, it is certainly a truth that blaming others gets you nowhere.

In the UK, I see a complete lack of self-responsibility, blaming everything upon outside factors. It's the council's job to do this, so why should I? It's because of the class system or prejudices that I can't get a job/promotion. But worst of all, this belief that outside factors control one's destiny has led to resignation and acceptance instead of a desire to change things for the better.

Perhaps in the US, things don't always work out for the best, but at least there's a gambling chance that change might happen. In the UK, you almost guarentee maintenance of the status quo.

Pre-occupation with Class

I couldn't have said it better myself. Terence Blacker in the Independent looks very sharply at the truest and worst sterotype of the British: their snobbery. He lists a plethora of examples, which I shall not name here, and he does not address why class should be so close to the forefront of British thinking, but it is interesting.

In response to the section lower down in his article, I have not noticed "a plague of ladybirds" (ladybugs, for you Americans) in my Scottish garden. Two years ago, when our garden was a jungle, we had plenty. But since we've cleaned up the garden, re-laid the turf and started mowing the lawn on a regular basis, the ladybirds have been missing. I bought 25 online earlier this summer, May perhaps? to feast on an actual plague of aphids I had in my border. It was like putting a fat person in the middle of an all you can eat buffet. They stuck around for a while, while the aphids disappeared. Then they vanished. Lack of food? Found another source? I don't know. But I saw one yesterday on a leaf, a little red bead in the sun, so they can't have all gone.