The only is not lonely

Have you seen The Duchess, the new Netflix comedy created by Katherine Ryan? It is very funny and her incredible school-run outfits have inspired me to put on a sparkly headband even though I am still, to all intents and purposes in ‘writing clothes’, or pyjamas to other people.

The show focuses on a single mum with a successful career who is very close to her child. There’s a scene at a body positivity conference where she is being interviewed and is asked ‘where is your child right now?’ and Ryan’s character challenges the question and the implication that single mothers don’t know how to raise their children. In this sense, the show is great at challenging stereotypes around lone parenting – like I said, the mother is fulfilled in her career, has a great support group around her and has a close bond with her daughter. But my smile started to fade a bit when she started talking about her child. The daughter decided that she would like to have sister and suddenly the narrative shifted. ‘She needs a sibling’, cried Katherine, echoing the desperation that a lot of mothers feel around providing their kids with everything they need. But it also suggests that an only child is an abnormality or in want of something. And this pisses me off. Later on in the show, a character is revealed to be an only child and describes himself as ‘smothered’ by his mother, who apparently cuts up his food for him and still kisses him on his lips as an adult. A lot of shows get applauded for their bravery at challenging stereotypes but are still get away at poking fun at a group of humans who a) cant do anything about their situation and b) maybe don’t feel like they are represented accurately at all. And that group is the only child.

In Working Mums, only children are described as ‘aliens’; in Catastrophe, the only child family of Fran, Chris and Jeffrey are cold and distant from one another, in contrast to the jumbled up chaos of Sharon and Rob’s crew. In Crazy Ex Girlfriend, Nathaniel is deemed to be spoilt and lonely because of his only child upbringing. And of course, Friends, which gets its own flack at the moment for a variety of reasons around representation, chooses to ridicule Chandler for being raised a singleton.

And yes, this is personal. After the birth of my son, I always assumed there would be more, but after many years of trying, there wasn’t. And you now what? There were several years where I felt very very sad about this, but now, I don’t. I don’t have family around me, so raising two kids would mean no time for writing outside in the garden listening to some smooth Bossa (as I am now) It would mean sweaty gym kits, after school clubs, shit and noise. I would always be tired. So, no, I’m fine, thanks. I’m not saying your experience of parenting (of two or more) is any better or worse than mine, but please respect the difference. Please stop presenting my kid as a weirdo for a cheap laugh. Stop presenting any kid as a weirdo for something that they can’t change. Go after creepy men or Holocaust deniers instead. It’s a cheap trick and a boring trope.

Perhaps I hold on to these perceived slights in the media because of my experience, granted, but I get enough little digs in real life anyway. Women telling me it’s time ‘to get one with the other one’ in passing, asking whether ‘i’m trying for one at the moment’, describing their own family of two as’ the perfect balance’. I actually feel sorrier for these kids, as they are growing up with ignorant, convention-swallowing dickheads for parents.

It feels very nice to say all this by the way. Thank you if you are still reading.

So please, world and by world I mean the media apparatus that we now experience our lives through, just leave only children alone (ha!) They are not de facto future murderers. They are not any more or less happy than kids with siblings. If you want to produce a truly original show, create it so that the single child experience is a happy and fulfilling one.

The Snake Eats Its Tail

Noises Off Day 6

My week of audiofasting has led to a lot of thinking and reading and thinking about reading and reading about thinking.  Sometimes these things fall into line with events in the real world, in my world, which open up a new line of thought, or in this case a new resolve.    Although not strictly following in the spirit of previous posts, I have no doubt that my thoughts wouldn’t be as clear had I not had this week of withdrawal from all extraneous noise.  Enough elucidating, let me begin ….

 

Reading Susan Sontag’s essay on style in bed this morning and feeling a range of emotions as I plough and ponder the words.  I fluctuate between envy and admiration, because she is an incredibly vigorous thinker and writer and engaging with her discourse is it’s own challenge and reward.  The envy is because she is so damn succinct and brilliant and better than me and I allow myself this bitter comparison for a second before I get over myself.

 

So I’m enjoying my read,shifting between tiny eurekas and huh? moments, when a phrase hits me with its relevance.  In her essay Against Interpretation, she describes pornography as a “substitute for life”.  My initial reading of this phrase is that of a snark, that men who use porn are losers who evidently can’t get a girlfriend.  This is a party line that I have held for such a long time that it has calcified, my long rehearsed ‘rant’ against Page 3 forming a strong part of my teaching repertoire for dealing with year 11 boys.  And this has been a momentous week for the brilliant-but-I-can’t-believe-this-is-still-prescient-in-the-21st Century Campaign against print-based porn, No More Page 3.

 

The campaign, which is petitioning to have Page 3 removed from The Sun and associated newspapers as well as pressurising supposedly family friendly companies against advertising in their pages, received a timely spike of publicity.  Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton, lanced a big parliamentary boil during a debate on media sexism.  In a brave and lucid speech against Page 3 culture and portrayals of women in the media, she wore a No More Page 3 T-shirt – and was promptly rebuked for inappropriate dress!  Here’s a better summary of events,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/12/caroline-lucas-page-3-t-shirt

This, and the Sontag, and my week of contemplation has made me re-think my position.  And it goes a little something like this…

My traditional standpoint of vilifying men who enjoy Page 3 has been missing the point enitrely.  Sorry.   Page 3 and its counterparts mayin fact provide a convenient barrier for otherwise sound adult men against the reality of forging strong personal relationships with women, whether erotic, romantic, platonic or all three.  Obviously, there are men who may use these images as a springboard for abuse or denigration, but I believe that there are more who have had their images of women so screwed up by concomitant 1D stereotypes in the press and on film, that confronting a real lady is a hair-raising experience.  So what happens?  A whole load of men stay in their shells and, along with a whole load of women, miss out on truly generous, loving relationships, which means a whole load of miserable where it could be a whole load of happy.

So am I beginning to feel pity for Page 3 readers?  Maybe yes, because my attention has been misdirected for some time.  So what of the women? In this spirit, I changed my focus to my year 10 girls and shared with them the debate and footage of  Lucas’ speech.  They feature spotted brilliantly (we’ve been looking at persuasive language techniques) but didn’t really engage with the matter at hand.  When I showed them some recent copies of the Sun, however, the response was electric.  The majority were quick to label the models as ‘whores’ and ‘not even that fit’, but when I probed them about who made the decisions and controlled this women’s image, they disengaged again.  Before this week I would have faceplanted onto my planner in frustration, but I think my audio fast is making me empathetic….

15 year old girls are hormonal, vulnerable and desperate to find stereotypes and images of women to identify either against or with.  I would say that the former is more prevalent than the latter; I would put the ratio at 3:1.  It seems easier to confess to hating goths or thinking Katy Perry gross, than it is to love Beyonce or pronounce oneself a skater.

 

As such, the Page 3 girl is not providing an aspirant model for teenage girls; more often it is an image for them to kick against; whether because they think its a model of beauty that genuinely appeals to men, but one that they can never achieve; or because they are conditioned to think of these women as cheap, worthless and “easy to define themselves against”?  Either reason is equally toxic, as both involve women-hating and self-loathing in equal measure, feeding the monster of poor self esteem that most of us, as women, have had to live with as teenagers.  And who is responsible for fostering poor self esteem?  I don’t really need to answer that question; the snake eats its tail.

My thoughts may be simplistic, silly, hardly revelatory, but my personal realisation that Page 3 makes no-one happier, male or female, makes me more determined to contribute to its removal. No More Page 3 is not a feminist campaign, it’s humanist.

 

W T F?

British journalism: The rampaging lion of integrity.

Seriously.

I can’t believe what I’m having to listen to/read/see.

I am not a political being at all, but the eulogizing of David Cameron in the majority of Britain’s press makes me distrust this country’s ability to govern itself.  Day after day, I am subjected to some  the most partial cloying reportage under the tattered banner of ‘free press’.  Witness today’s  article in the Evening Standard, by Vassi Chamberlain:

Okay so SamCam is not quite first lady yet but here’s one prediction we can unilaterally call: the frumpy political wife is out. Our Jackie O and JFK moment is nearly upon us. Finally, we can boast of the loveliness that is likely to be our new prime minister’s wife.

Does that girl ever look tired? Does she have a bad angle? Does she ever dress badly? Just look at last night: while Sarah Brown looked neat but dull in a short red mac and Miriam Clegg dowdy in cardi and messy hair, a pregnant Mrs Cameron was luminous, pretty and groomed in her purple shift.

Disgusting on several grounds.  First:  utterly subjective.  Second:  utterly irrelevant.  Third:  Criminally chauvinist (women beware women).  Fourth:  widely distributed!  The Evening Standard is given out f. o. c near tube stations, a welcome piece of tat to fill the commute home with.  Really, keep your fanzine pap to yourself in future,  Chamberlain – you demean the profession of journalism with your puerile adolescent simperings.

And the Standard’s article is the soft stuff, the filler, at the other extreme we have the font page of Murdoch’s Sun (see picture), so desperate to hammer its colours to the mast that it seems to have forgotten that its primary function is to report current events and has turned itself into a Tory jazz mag.

God I’m angry.  Give me news, not shit opinion.  Not your opinion.

This election has totally swung on what the majority of the right wing press in this country has churned out and while it is a shame that a section of the public hasn’t developed their own point of view and choose to vote according to what the Sun tells them, I vow to never again, even in jest, turn to a free paper or Murdoch ordained news source for my information on how the world is turning.

Sadly I can’t vouch the same for my compatriots.  And therefore, we can pretty much welcome in 5 years (at least) of Tory rule.