“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd”. Bertrand Russell
This morning I discovered that I am prejudiced. I like to think of myself as liberally minded but NO. I'm prejudiced. If prejudiced means an adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts... then I am prejudiced. And you want to know who enlightened me... 36-year-old MP for Esher and Walton Mr Dominic Rabb. And I can tell you... I'm horrified! Look i best explain what happened.
This morning while doing my editorial duty... reading every newspaper while drinking copious cups of coffee and eating toast... I came across Dominic Rabb making pronouncements on the state of our nation's discrimination laws.It'savery odd thing when a tory starts campaigning for more discrimination laws - a very odd thing so it caught my eye.
For my readers who are not UK based a quick thumb nail of British Politics. We have three major parties. On the right the Conservative party (they used to be called The Tory Party and were established in 1678) In the middle we have the Liberal Democrats (they used to be called The Whigs and were also established in 1678). And on the left we have the Labour Party ( they used to be called The Fabian Society and were established in 1884). Crudely they represent: The Upper Classes, The Middle Classes and the Lower Classes... but that has all got a bit muddied since the Upper Classes lost their land, the Middle Classes lost their accents and the working classes got Plasma TV's. Okay...we're all up to speed? Good. I'll continue...
Lord bless the Conservative Party in the UK for giving British History some of its greatest moments of complete and utter loonacy... there is something about the extreme privledge that most of these people come from that allow them to come out with quotations that show a grip on reality up there with Marie Antoinette's suggestion that if the peasants have no bread then perhaps the should consume their cakes!
Our Dom... (yes, in a bid to get the illusive common touch Tory MP's follow their leader [David 'Dave' Cameron] by giving themselves working class abbreviations)... seemed to confuse having rights under legal protection with being able to take over. He failed to understand that the protect exisits because the prejudice is still there. Our Dom felt the granting of rights to women tookaway rights from men. He went as far as to criticise UK equalities chiefs for ignoring “flagrant discrimination” against the males of our nation, claiming that men were now getting a “raw deal” in many areas of life. He suggested that, like the feminists who burned their bras in the 1970s, men should start “burning their briefs” to draw attention to discrimination against men.
I kid you not he was being serious. He thinks men get such a raw deal in the modern world that their plight is akin to what women suffered before the campaigns of the 1960's and 1970's to move towards equality in pay and opportunity. He claimed men got a "raw deal" as they worked longer hours, died earlier but retired later than women - and that the population were blind to "some of the most flagrant" discrimination that poor men suffer these days. He doesn't think any moves in thses post feminist times have helped either. And if you don't believe me here is a direct quote from our Dom "Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in equality or you don't. If you buy into the whole Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus theory of gender difference – with all its pseudo science – you can't then complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions."
Okay...I spent a lot of time chortling with laughter. Did our Dom really believe that men are having such a hard time? Did he also really think that because someone reads “Men are from Mars....” that they are trying to do men down!(For heavens sake it is a relationship self-help book! The whole point of it was to make the genders be nicer to each other!) But then I read on and it became clear that Our Dom was thinking that all the serious issues regarding the limits on opportunity for women had gone. In fact Our Dom was not only promoting that argument he was promoting the argument that it was men who were were now in need of protection. So certain was Our Dom in his convictions that he was burning his Calvins and summoning his brothers to do the same!
I'd like to think Our Dom was just one more mad Tory, however... this ability to think that prejudice against women does not exist because of positive forward moves towards a more balanced frame of mind made me stop and think. What is it about small improvements that make us assume that prejudices have gone away, flipped the other way around or just reduced to the point that it's tantamount to fanning the flames to even think about any more.
Because lets get it straight … a prejudice is the act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgements or convictions. And kid yourself not there will be detriment or injury caused to a person by the holding of preconceived, unfavourable conviction of others.
Put in straight talking JaxWorld stylee... YOU WILL WOUND OTHERS IF YOU HAVE PREJUDICED IDEAS.
And I hate that... I hate the thought that I could judge prematurely or irrationally about a particular group of persons because I held an injurious and ill informed point of view.So, I thought I'd have a look to see if I was as informed as I thought about groups who suffer real discrimination and if by the passing of protective laws their problems had in fact gone away. Here are the big five... Gender, Race, Disability, Sexual Orientation and Religion.
Because each of these groups now have laws protecting them from prejudices do I , like OUR Dom hold opinions formed without knowledge of the facts regarding the level of prejudice these groups still have to deal with?
GENDER: UK Law protecting the populace from discrimination in this area came in in 1975 and made it illegal to refuse someone an opportunity because they have breasts and a uterus. In employment this meant providing they were qualified and the best candidate they should get the job and their pay should not reflect a difference betwenn them and a male doing the same role either. Of course the reality (though clearly not Our Dom's) is that jobs (esp at the top end) and opportunities still do not reflect the amount of women qualified to get them. On the employment front women earn twenty per cent less than men in the developed world. Globally the burnt of poverty in the developing world is borne by women. Sexism subtle and not so subtle is in play in society's worldwide which has led to broad negative generalisations about the capabilities of women. And yet Dominic Rabb said “despite the UK having some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world, its society was often blind to flagrant discrimination against men". Sexism is very often still a one way reality as much as Our Dom does not wish to recognise it.
RACE: UK Law protecting the populace from discrimination in this area came in in 1976 and made it illegal to refuse someone on the basis that their race is different from yours. Of course the reality is that on the grounds of ethnic or national origins, colour or race, persons still find themselves barred from opportunities in housing, employment, education and social opportunity daily. Globally race and wealth disparities are glaringly obvious with the gap between rich and poor mirroring the difference in human complexion. Non-indigenous has become the new word for a darker hue in the UK as opportunity for those of 'non- indigenous' background is reduced by some 32.7% compared to identical candidates of 'indigenous background' according to government statistics.(According to the last census of a population of 60,587,300 it was recorded that 53,462,666 are white British or white other). And yet fear of swamping the indegenous peopleof the UK continues as Amy from Kent a female BNP voter from the 2010 UK election said “There is no difference between black and white in Britain any more, you can see that on my daily commute into London which accurately reflects the demographics of the population of the UK” Racism is very often still a one way reality as much as Our Amy does not wish to recognise it.
DISABILITY: UK Law protecting the populace from discrimination in this area came in in 1995 and made it illegal to refuse someone the basis that their physical or mental ability needs more support than yours. The whole 'Does he take sugar?' attitude of talking to the carer and ignoring the caree's desires has apparently been eradicated with a wealth of education about various impairments and the resources need to level the playing pitch. However on education 23% of disabled people have no qualifications compared to 9% of non disabled people and on employment of the 1.3 million disabled people in the UK who are available for and want to work only 50% of them are in work compared with 80% of the non disabled people who are available for and want to work. Though on mobility there has been a huge improvement with disabled access being at the forefront of design of everything from buses, to shopping malls, to offices. And yet Major Owens (a disabled ex-serviceman) comments “People didn't used to see a person with a disability who had to use a ramp or lift as people who have been given unnecessary privileges. But now people are saying, 'Why do we have to go to great expense for these people?” Ableism is still with us as much as our building regulations do not wish to reflect it.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION: UK Law protecting the populace from discrimination in this area came in in 2003 and made it illegal to refuse someone on the basis that their sexual orientation is different from yours. Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Asexuality was left out of the United Nations Universal Declarations of Human Rights then it dawned on someone during a tea break in the British Camp that such an omission meant it would be legal for any one of the four groups to do something unspeakable to each other so the UK cobbled together some protection for her citizens. (Some tea break it took from 1946 to 2003!) Recent statistics still show disparities between opportunity to those who are open about any sexuality other than heterosexuality. And yet when the law was passed reservations about doing so were summed up by Lord Tebbit who said “ Protection in Law is about protecting the right to BE. The concerns expressed this evening are primarily about the right to practice sodomy which is about doing, not being” Homophobia is exclusive as much as Lord Tebbit clearly pointed out.
RELIGION: As with all things religious Laws to protect religous beliefs came in a cloud of controversy... The first real law came in to just one province (NORTHERN IRELAND) in 1969, then the rest of the UK in 2003 (cherry picking a few religions) then was updated in 2010 (to include a few more). The big problem is although we all know religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe it's hard to practice. Trouble is if you don't believe what the other person believes then your tenancy not to recognise it is a religion at all let alone being in need of protection. Hence in the UK if you believe in the various Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Rasta, Baha'i or Zoroaster faiths... then you are covered. Philosophical beliefs like Humanism are also covered. BUT... meanwhile there are groups who complain they are not on the list and suffer unspeakable discrimination because their faith is seen as different. For a quote only one Brit will do Bertrand Russell who died the year after the first law to promote religious tolerance was passed, he did not hold out much hope and said “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd”. With Islamaphobia rapidly becoming our nations new sport, not a lot has changed since Mr Russell pointed that out.
Funny how looking at the real picture suddenly informs your opinion.
When looking at the real picture I had a little trip to the National Office of Statistics home to all our National Censuses going back to the Doomsday book of 1086). Most polls you can afford not to trust, (I mean how many times have you been stopped and asked about YOUR bedroom habits or how often YOU do housework) – but the Census, we all know. We all take part. We know we can trust the results.
I noticed that I live in a country where 51% of the living population are female.
Is this the statistic that sent Our Dom over the edge feeling Women were everywhere about to overthrow his world? Is that extra 2% of females over males a threat to him. (Calm down Our Dom it's the over 65 band that shows the swell, it's those living longer women you were maning about!...and they aren't taking your jobs, your homes, your freedom!)
But joke about Our Dom I may, but when I looked at the statistics I realised that I'm prejudiced. Like Our Dom the real picture, if I was entirely honest does prejudice my idea of what is normal. Do I percieve people who falloutside the majority as a threat?
I live in a country where 90.94% of the living population are white.
I live in a country where 89.72% of the living population are able bodied.
I live in a country where 98.7% of the living population are heterosexual.
I live in a country where 71.6% of the living population are Christian.
To my horror, if I am entirely honest... it does. As educated as I am, as liberal as I am, as much as I know it is wrong this information feeds my view of the world. I make judgements about anyone who is NOT white, able bodied, heterosexual and Christian. If I'm entirely honest there is a nanosecond where someone almost has to prove that my adverse opinion of them(formed beforehand and without any knowledge or examination of their personal facts) needs adjusting. The majority rule... now they do not have to apply for that first level of approval... but every one else.... sorry there IS a nanosecond where they have to prove they confound my ill informed stereotype of the cateogory (ies) the don't subscribe to. Does this mean I am one of those awful bigots who make exceptions for the people they know but suspect everyone else who doesn't fit the majority profile - because they aren't part of the herd? Do you?
And if you think you don't ...ask yourself again and be honest this time.
Funny thing is I don't even tick all of those boxes myself! Just one look at me and you can see I don't. ..but if I am honest, which I am being I am guilty of submitting to prejuidice. I just had my head in the sand about it.
DAMN YOU Dominic Rabb MP... I hate it when in trying to prove someone is a complete ill informed idiot who needs to check his facts before shooting his mouth off... I discover that there is another who maybe needs to check hers.
The JaxWorld Blog can be followed on Twitter- http://twitter.com/#!/JaxWorldBlog
If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, please log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/
Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.
No comments:
Post a Comment