There has been a lot of twitter activity in my timeline about casual sexism, and the fact that it seems to be increasing. This made me wonder, and I am not entirely sure that this is true.
I should point out that sexism is wrong. There is no way that I would support or agree with sexist behaviour, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is sexist behaviour around, that there are many people who will denigrate others, based purely on their gender. The problem is, I think, rooted in the fact that men no longer know who they are meant to be.
It started in the 1960s, with the feminist movements. Actually, it started earlier than that, but I have to find some place to begin. the more aggressive feminist movements told men that they were not wanted or needed. They were hated. And we felt that anger. This is not to say that the early feminist movements were wrong in principle, just that they did not endear themselves to men, rather, they put men on the defensive. Actually, in some cases, they were wrong, because some of them wanted to build a new female hierarchy to replace the male one they so despised. If you want to know where that would have led, then Margaret Thatchers style and government is probably the closest we have experienced to this, and it is not good for men or women.
Then we got the "new man" - the man who was perfectly happy with the feminist equality principles; who would take on tasks around the house that had been female preserves; who would take their part in baby care, nappy changing and feeding. For some men, this was perfect, but for many, it had the effect of feminising them - while quite rightly encouraging their more "feminine side", it tended to dismiss and disparage their "masculine side". This, incidentally, is where the church, by and large, still is, and part of the reason for many of the problems the church as a whole is facing.
Then we had the "men behaving badly" phase, where ladishness became more acceptable, at least among younger men. It is easy to dismiss this as a simple return to an earlier stage, but it isn't. It is a reasserting of the masculine aspects, while not dismissing the feminine aspects of a person. The rise of the "ladette" is a part of this, where women are allowed to explore their masculine side too.
Incidentally, this is not my original analysis, although I cannot remember where I heard it - it may have been Elaine Storkey, but there were others who I heard and read, and it was a long time ago that this was being explored. I need to bring it up to date. This specific exploration is mine, however.
So where are we now? We are in a situation where men are very unsure of their position, and of their behaviour. What is more, we are now in a state where children have been brought up by New Men and Men Behaving Badly, and are also struggling to find their role model and place in society.
The result, sometimes, is that men are very confused. Please bear with me, as I am not excusing anything. The problem is that women have also developed differing styles and approaches - the aggressive feminist; the strong woman; the ladette; the sexual person (not object). Women, I think, are also confused with their roles, with so many different styles. So a confused man compliments a woman, and it comes out slightly wrong, because he is not sure what he should be. She hears it and doesn't know whether to be complimented or offended, and so may take the offended line.
OK, this is not how it always happens, but maybe it is more often than it should. Men flirt with women in work environments - I see it everywhere. Usually, it is not about wanting sex, or even wanting to sexualise them - it is about them trying to identify what the relations between them should be. This is often something that needs to be reassessed daily. Of course, sometimes it is about abuse or sex, and as such is unacceptable, but this "unacceptable" is not always as clear cut as it may seem.
Yes, some things are always unacceptable - treating others as objects is always unacceptable. But treating others as if they are also sexual beings is, often, intended positively. Sometimes the messages get mixed on the way out and/or the way in, but, more often than some people would like to admit, the intention is not sexist.
I would emphasise again that some people are sexist and see other people as sex objects, and nothing more. Their behaviour will often reflect this (although not always, so don't assume that the lovely person sitting next to you does not see you as a sex object), and this behaviour is also - separately - unacceptable. If you make it clear that you don't like being patted on the bottom, and they continue to do it, that is unacceptable. If you see him staring at your breasts, and then wear lower cut tops, then don't complain when he continues to stare at your breasts. Maybe, take it as a compliment that he considers your breasts worth staring at, and he assumes that your choice of garment means that you like to have them stared at. And slap him if he tries to fondle them.
I am not putting all of the responsibility on the women either. Remember that people that you work with are people first and foremost. They may be very attractive, you may consider that sex with them would be extremely pleasurable, but they are also people and it is important to respect that. Find, define, and remain within the boundaries of the relationship that you are in with them. Don't make assumptions.
Oh, and this works both ways. Women do make men into sex-objects as well as the other way round. Which only helps to confuse matters even more. Sex is one important part of all relationships, but never the most important.
And if we can stop shouting "sexism" to stuff that isn't, but keep it for the stuff that is, that would help everyone, I think. Most of the time, I suspect, it is not active sexism, it is just confused people trying to work out how to get on with each other.
Sunday, 23 December 2012
Thursday, 20 December 2012
There but for the grace of God go I
This phrase is generally attributed to John Bradford, from the 1500s, and the contorted nature of the phrase makes it hard to understand and appreciate this concept. But once I grasped it, I realised that it was at the heart of my faith.
It does need unpacking. The real meaning is that I can put myself in the same position as another unfortunate, and am only not there because of "the grace of God". That can mean quite a literal sense, that God has kept me from that situation, but it can also mean that there is nothing that I have done, or that I could do, to separate myself from them.
The point is that this means I am no different from them. The fact that they have suffered or encountered some misfortune is nothing to do with them, the reality is that it could have been you in that situation, but wasn't. That is not because you are any better than they are, it is good fortune, or Gods grace that meant that you avoided it.
So criticising or condemning them is criticising or condemning yourself.
When someone goes mad with a gun in a school, and we ask "surely, someone who does that must be evil/insane/divine judgement" maybe we should just say that we have no idea why it happened, but accept that it could be me, if something just triggered wrongly. That is not to condone the actions, just to accept that the people who do this are not, at heart, different to us.
When someone is convicted of pedophilia, it is easy to say "they must be twisted, broken, evil, demonic" or whatever. If we rather say that it could be us, if we had not restrained ourselves, or we had been abused as a child, or whatever. There is nothing that makes these people "different" from us. That should give us a chill, and a new perspective on them,
When we see someone who is homeless, we can easily suggest that they have almost certainly used drink or drugs. That may be true. It is very likely that they have mental health issues, because a large proportion of them do. Drink or drugs may be a part of their problem, but they are rarely the whole story. But that could be me. It has been said that we are only 3 paychecks from poverty so we are not that far apart.
When we see people we do not easily relate to, people we are liable to reject, we need to consider this perspective, we need to say "there, but for the grace of God, go I". Not that they are right - it doesn't mean that. It means that they are just like us. It means that we could be just like them.
If God hates them, then God hates us. If we hate them, then we hate ourselves. If we accept them, acknowledge them, seek to help them, then we can accept and understand ourselves better.
It does need unpacking. The real meaning is that I can put myself in the same position as another unfortunate, and am only not there because of "the grace of God". That can mean quite a literal sense, that God has kept me from that situation, but it can also mean that there is nothing that I have done, or that I could do, to separate myself from them.
The point is that this means I am no different from them. The fact that they have suffered or encountered some misfortune is nothing to do with them, the reality is that it could have been you in that situation, but wasn't. That is not because you are any better than they are, it is good fortune, or Gods grace that meant that you avoided it.
So criticising or condemning them is criticising or condemning yourself.
When someone goes mad with a gun in a school, and we ask "surely, someone who does that must be evil/insane/divine judgement" maybe we should just say that we have no idea why it happened, but accept that it could be me, if something just triggered wrongly. That is not to condone the actions, just to accept that the people who do this are not, at heart, different to us.
When someone is convicted of pedophilia, it is easy to say "they must be twisted, broken, evil, demonic" or whatever. If we rather say that it could be us, if we had not restrained ourselves, or we had been abused as a child, or whatever. There is nothing that makes these people "different" from us. That should give us a chill, and a new perspective on them,
When we see someone who is homeless, we can easily suggest that they have almost certainly used drink or drugs. That may be true. It is very likely that they have mental health issues, because a large proportion of them do. Drink or drugs may be a part of their problem, but they are rarely the whole story. But that could be me. It has been said that we are only 3 paychecks from poverty so we are not that far apart.
When we see people we do not easily relate to, people we are liable to reject, we need to consider this perspective, we need to say "there, but for the grace of God, go I". Not that they are right - it doesn't mean that. It means that they are just like us. It means that we could be just like them.
If God hates them, then God hates us. If we hate them, then we hate ourselves. If we accept them, acknowledge them, seek to help them, then we can accept and understand ourselves better.
Sunday, 16 December 2012
Westboro Baptist Church
I have heard that Westboro are planning to protest at the funeral of the Newtown victims. I am as revolted by this as most people are and should be. @Rosamundi made a point that we should shout about this more and louder, so I thought I would do a blog post on them.
Now I do have a problem with being critical of another church. The problem is, I am all for Christian groups finding their own way, finding their own expression of their faith, and I don't expect to agree with it. I am adamant on this, that another groups expression of their faith does not need to meet with my approval for me to accept them as authentic Christians.
In principle, this should even extend to a group as extreme and as antithetical to my position as Westboro. In principle, it does, but there is another side that also needs to be considered. It is not valid to say that just because a group calls itself "Christian", and justifies its positions from the Bible, that we have to accept this as being valid.
Westboro preaches hatred. On their website, they even have a page about "the hatred of God". Their site is called "GodHatesFags", and they have sister sites of "GodHatesxxx". Their message is one of hatred, and their activity is a demonstration of this hatred. The work they do is to picket pretty much anything that they think will get them publicity, and any place that they can proclaim the hatred of God. I could go on, but this provides quite enough to start with.
"The hatred of God" - it is interesting that there is only one quote from the New Testament in their list, and this is itself a quote from the Old Testament. In total, they have 18 verses. This is not a lot to provide a fundamental underlying principle for your faith. What is more, a lot of these passages are about Gods relationship with his chosen people. The word used in their translation (the King James) is "abhor", which does not necessarily have the sense of "hatred", but also the sense of "reject" - the challenge from the Bible is to purify the church, to keep the chosen pure, and free from idolatry.
What is more, these expressions are about Gods reactions to sin and failing in the world. There is nothing in here which implies that we should express this hatred to others. This "abhorrence"is a way of expressing that God does not tolerate or accept sin. That is part of his nature, and a lot of the Old Testament message is about establishing this. Gods response to this is not to picket funerals of sinners, but to send his own sin to bring people to him. Gods actions in response to his "abhorrence" is to show love, to send his own son to love and die for sinners. That is the core Christian message, if you take the whole biblical perspective, and not just a few verses.
"God Hates Fags". Anyone who has followed their activities over the last few years will be aware that they have a particular hatred of homosexuals, something that drives the majority of what they do. I have posted previously on the very poor Biblical justification for dismissing homosexuality. The truth is that they have built their entire belief system on a very dubious argument. To express it as strongly as they do is utterly mistaken, and does not reflect the Biblical message at all.
What is more, their absolute and unrepentant approach suggests that, somewhere, they know this. Somewhere, they realise that their entire position is built on a false premise.
My understanding of the Christian message - which I fully accept may be wrong - is that God is intolerant of sin and sinfulness. However, most crucially, his ultimate response to it is to send Jesus. It is not to condemn, it is to show love, to seek to bring people back to himself. this is not weak, sissy, pathetic never-mind-all-is-forgiven. It cost Jesus his life. It is hard love, it is painful love, but it is about the one who cannot accept sin taking the action, and suffering to bring the sinners back. If the Westboro people were to go to Newtown to give care and comfort to those suffering, that would be a better representation of Christianity than making it all about them. Love, care and compassion, not hatred, is the core of the God I worship.
Westboro Baptist Church are not a Christian organisation. Their message of hatred is a deliberate misinterpretation of Biblical writings. The simple fact that they use Christian language, Christian texts, and style themselves a church should not hide the fact that they preach and practice hatred.
My God does not preach hatred. My God hurts and cries with the suffering. My God seeks to bring people to him, not drive them away. My God is not their god. I would like to apologise for the confusion.
Now I do have a problem with being critical of another church. The problem is, I am all for Christian groups finding their own way, finding their own expression of their faith, and I don't expect to agree with it. I am adamant on this, that another groups expression of their faith does not need to meet with my approval for me to accept them as authentic Christians.
In principle, this should even extend to a group as extreme and as antithetical to my position as Westboro. In principle, it does, but there is another side that also needs to be considered. It is not valid to say that just because a group calls itself "Christian", and justifies its positions from the Bible, that we have to accept this as being valid.
Westboro preaches hatred. On their website, they even have a page about "the hatred of God". Their site is called "GodHatesFags", and they have sister sites of "GodHatesxxx". Their message is one of hatred, and their activity is a demonstration of this hatred. The work they do is to picket pretty much anything that they think will get them publicity, and any place that they can proclaim the hatred of God. I could go on, but this provides quite enough to start with.
"The hatred of God" - it is interesting that there is only one quote from the New Testament in their list, and this is itself a quote from the Old Testament. In total, they have 18 verses. This is not a lot to provide a fundamental underlying principle for your faith. What is more, a lot of these passages are about Gods relationship with his chosen people. The word used in their translation (the King James) is "abhor", which does not necessarily have the sense of "hatred", but also the sense of "reject" - the challenge from the Bible is to purify the church, to keep the chosen pure, and free from idolatry.
What is more, these expressions are about Gods reactions to sin and failing in the world. There is nothing in here which implies that we should express this hatred to others. This "abhorrence"is a way of expressing that God does not tolerate or accept sin. That is part of his nature, and a lot of the Old Testament message is about establishing this. Gods response to this is not to picket funerals of sinners, but to send his own sin to bring people to him. Gods actions in response to his "abhorrence" is to show love, to send his own son to love and die for sinners. That is the core Christian message, if you take the whole biblical perspective, and not just a few verses.
"God Hates Fags". Anyone who has followed their activities over the last few years will be aware that they have a particular hatred of homosexuals, something that drives the majority of what they do. I have posted previously on the very poor Biblical justification for dismissing homosexuality. The truth is that they have built their entire belief system on a very dubious argument. To express it as strongly as they do is utterly mistaken, and does not reflect the Biblical message at all.
What is more, their absolute and unrepentant approach suggests that, somewhere, they know this. Somewhere, they realise that their entire position is built on a false premise.
My understanding of the Christian message - which I fully accept may be wrong - is that God is intolerant of sin and sinfulness. However, most crucially, his ultimate response to it is to send Jesus. It is not to condemn, it is to show love, to seek to bring people back to himself. this is not weak, sissy, pathetic never-mind-all-is-forgiven. It cost Jesus his life. It is hard love, it is painful love, but it is about the one who cannot accept sin taking the action, and suffering to bring the sinners back. If the Westboro people were to go to Newtown to give care and comfort to those suffering, that would be a better representation of Christianity than making it all about them. Love, care and compassion, not hatred, is the core of the God I worship.
Westboro Baptist Church are not a Christian organisation. Their message of hatred is a deliberate misinterpretation of Biblical writings. The simple fact that they use Christian language, Christian texts, and style themselves a church should not hide the fact that they preach and practice hatred.
My God does not preach hatred. My God hurts and cries with the suffering. My God seeks to bring people to him, not drive them away. My God is not their god. I would like to apologise for the confusion.
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Newtown
Once again, we are hearing the news of another school shooting in the US. Another tragedy, another 20 children dead. Another community devastated. There are a number of comments that I have seen on twitter, some of which are generating a lot of anger. I want to explore some of these responses.
"It's part of Gods plan". Often with the corollary that we cannot see the whole picture now, but there is a bigger picture. I find this response makes me angry. I do not want or follow a God who has to include the murder of young children in his "plan". I do not want a God who has to inflict this pain and suffering on a community for his "plan". I want nothing to do with such a God or such a plan. The God I know and believe in is curled up on the sofa, sobbing, holding his head, screaming with the pain and anguish. He shares the suffering of that community. Or He is no God at all. Assuming everything is part of some "grand plan" is not faith, it is fate.
"Now is not the time to discuss Gun regulation" This is the response from President Obama, and I think he is wrong here. It is precisely this sort of time that there is a desire and a motivation for change. In the UK, whenever we have avoidable catastrophes, there is often an announcement of something to change and avoid this happening again. The reason is that there is then a desire and reason for Doing Something. This does not always create good laws or action, but often, in the longer term, it does make important changes.
"This should drive the banning of guns" Actually, this is also wrong. The reason for changing gun law, or making any other changes should not be outrage, but because it is the sensible thing to do. Gun restriction in the US - which I am all in favour of - should be done because the current situation is wrong, and leads to these sorts of tragedies. The problem is that Americans hold onto their guns like British people hold onto their cars and their right to drive. Both are causing problems.
The problem is that the "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers of America. They would, I suspect, be appalled at the recent events. When these rules were made, the power of existing guns was not that great, and at that time, self protection was quite an important aspect of life. We do not live in the same world today. The weapon used in Newtown was far more powerful than anything you need for simple self-protection. Maybe the rules should be altered to allow weapons to the same power as the most powerful ones available at the time of the constitution.
I think there is a place also for asking why people feel a need to express their anger in this murderous way. Surely it is worth taking time to help people deal with their anger and frustration. Surely there is something wrong in a society that drives people to this level of anger and frustration. This is not just a US problem - every society need to allow this sort of expression, in ways that are safe. The problem in the US is that, so often, this expression is violent and deadly. Addressing not just the weapons but the people is crucial. Somewhere, this is a people issue, and if we ignore the people side of it, we will fail. Americans will find ways of getting guns whatever, and the results may be even worse.
In the end, ranting is not the response at this point. Shouting and screaming that "Its all part of Gods plan!!", or "We need gun control!!" is not the total of the response to make here. At this point, we should be praying and seeking comfort for those who have suffered. We should be hurting with God for the pain that has been caused. And yes, we should have a reasoned commitment to make changes to the society that produces these hurt people.
My prayers and my thoughts are with the people of Newtown today. May God be with you in your anguish.
"It's part of Gods plan". Often with the corollary that we cannot see the whole picture now, but there is a bigger picture. I find this response makes me angry. I do not want or follow a God who has to include the murder of young children in his "plan". I do not want a God who has to inflict this pain and suffering on a community for his "plan". I want nothing to do with such a God or such a plan. The God I know and believe in is curled up on the sofa, sobbing, holding his head, screaming with the pain and anguish. He shares the suffering of that community. Or He is no God at all. Assuming everything is part of some "grand plan" is not faith, it is fate.
"Now is not the time to discuss Gun regulation" This is the response from President Obama, and I think he is wrong here. It is precisely this sort of time that there is a desire and a motivation for change. In the UK, whenever we have avoidable catastrophes, there is often an announcement of something to change and avoid this happening again. The reason is that there is then a desire and reason for Doing Something. This does not always create good laws or action, but often, in the longer term, it does make important changes.
"This should drive the banning of guns" Actually, this is also wrong. The reason for changing gun law, or making any other changes should not be outrage, but because it is the sensible thing to do. Gun restriction in the US - which I am all in favour of - should be done because the current situation is wrong, and leads to these sorts of tragedies. The problem is that Americans hold onto their guns like British people hold onto their cars and their right to drive. Both are causing problems.
The problem is that the "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers of America. They would, I suspect, be appalled at the recent events. When these rules were made, the power of existing guns was not that great, and at that time, self protection was quite an important aspect of life. We do not live in the same world today. The weapon used in Newtown was far more powerful than anything you need for simple self-protection. Maybe the rules should be altered to allow weapons to the same power as the most powerful ones available at the time of the constitution.
I think there is a place also for asking why people feel a need to express their anger in this murderous way. Surely it is worth taking time to help people deal with their anger and frustration. Surely there is something wrong in a society that drives people to this level of anger and frustration. This is not just a US problem - every society need to allow this sort of expression, in ways that are safe. The problem in the US is that, so often, this expression is violent and deadly. Addressing not just the weapons but the people is crucial. Somewhere, this is a people issue, and if we ignore the people side of it, we will fail. Americans will find ways of getting guns whatever, and the results may be even worse.
In the end, ranting is not the response at this point. Shouting and screaming that "Its all part of Gods plan!!", or "We need gun control!!" is not the total of the response to make here. At this point, we should be praying and seeking comfort for those who have suffered. We should be hurting with God for the pain that has been caused. And yes, we should have a reasoned commitment to make changes to the society that produces these hurt people.
My prayers and my thoughts are with the people of Newtown today. May God be with you in your anguish.
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Do anything you want to do
Why don't you ask them what they expect from you ?
Why don't you tell them what you're gonna do
You get so lonely, maybe it's better that way
It ain't you only, you got something to say
Do anything you wanna do
Do anything you wanna do
This is the chorus of "Do anything you want to do" by Eddie and the Hot Rods. They were a one hit wonder, but it is a spectacular hit. It is an earworm too - once you hear it, you will struggle to get it out of your head. The title seems to indicate it is a rebel song, and it is, but I think there is more to it that this. I want to give it some analysis from where I stand.
Why don't you ask then what they expect from you? Good question. Why not challenge the establishment, the church, the systems and structures that you are in, ask then what they expect, what their demands are. Not least because you can be sure that they will actually be demanding more than they admit to.
Why don't you tell them what you are going to do? This is, in my experience, the place of freedom - when you start to define and state what your faith actually means. It is often a point of freedom just trying to work out what you are going to do, never mind actually telling your church or whatever how you intend to live your faith out. It is the point when you decide to make your faith your own, and not just what others tell you it should be.
You get so lonely, maybe its better that way. Well living your faith outside the church can be very lonely. It may be that this is the only way that it can be - that being apart from the church community is the better way. But it is lonely, and there can be a lot of rejection. Maybe its better, but it is not easier.
It ain't you only - you've got something to say. You are not alone. The truth is, however you feel, however you want to explore and pursue your faith, there are others who can help you. What is more, you do have something to say - to the church, to others, to the world at large. Never give up.
Do anything you want to do. This is not a call to faith anarchy. It is a call to follow your faith wherever it leads you - into church, out of church, wherever. And enjoy the journey. As they say in the verse "I know I must be someone, now I'm going to find out who". That is our life mission.
And after all of that analysis, it is still a good fun punk rebel song. Worth a listen whatever.
Why don't you tell them what you're gonna do
You get so lonely, maybe it's better that way
It ain't you only, you got something to say
Do anything you wanna do
Do anything you wanna do
This is the chorus of "Do anything you want to do" by Eddie and the Hot Rods. They were a one hit wonder, but it is a spectacular hit. It is an earworm too - once you hear it, you will struggle to get it out of your head. The title seems to indicate it is a rebel song, and it is, but I think there is more to it that this. I want to give it some analysis from where I stand.
Why don't you ask then what they expect from you? Good question. Why not challenge the establishment, the church, the systems and structures that you are in, ask then what they expect, what their demands are. Not least because you can be sure that they will actually be demanding more than they admit to.
Why don't you tell them what you are going to do? This is, in my experience, the place of freedom - when you start to define and state what your faith actually means. It is often a point of freedom just trying to work out what you are going to do, never mind actually telling your church or whatever how you intend to live your faith out. It is the point when you decide to make your faith your own, and not just what others tell you it should be.
You get so lonely, maybe its better that way. Well living your faith outside the church can be very lonely. It may be that this is the only way that it can be - that being apart from the church community is the better way. But it is lonely, and there can be a lot of rejection. Maybe its better, but it is not easier.
It ain't you only - you've got something to say. You are not alone. The truth is, however you feel, however you want to explore and pursue your faith, there are others who can help you. What is more, you do have something to say - to the church, to others, to the world at large. Never give up.
Do anything you want to do. This is not a call to faith anarchy. It is a call to follow your faith wherever it leads you - into church, out of church, wherever. And enjoy the journey. As they say in the verse "I know I must be someone, now I'm going to find out who". That is our life mission.
And after all of that analysis, it is still a good fun punk rebel song. Worth a listen whatever.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Jacintha Saldanha
Jacintha was a nurse at a top private hospital. Such a good hospital, that royalty used it when needed.
At 5:30 in the morning, one presumes towards the end of a long shift, the phone rang.
Quite why she answered it, rather than a telephonist, is not clear. maybe at that time in the morning, she was just close by, and took the call. The voice on the other end of the phone may well have sounded like the Queen at 5:30 in the morning. Having never had such a call, I wouldn't know.
So she put the call through to the Duchess of Cambridges suite. Where another nurse, presumably believing it to be the Queen herself, revealed details of the Duchess' condition.
This was probably wrong even if it was the Queen, but I am not sure I would have been the one to tell Her Majesty no. The staff are, I presume, used to important and powerful people using the facilities of the hospital, and calling for updates. That makes me wonder why there was not better security precautions, but, on the other hand, it does mean that having the Queen phone up is not an unreasonable eventuality.
The caller was, of course, a DJ from an Australian radio show, making a spoof call. People have said, hearing it over the radio, that it was clearly a spoof, that the voice was not very good etc. That is an easy judgement to make listening to a radio-quality recording, but over the phone at 5:30 in the morning is a different situation.
2 days later, Jacintha appears to have taken her own life.
It is not yet completely clear whether she did kill herself, or that the spoof call prompted this, but both would appear to be the case. This is a tragic end to a stupid prank. And it highlights very pointedly the dangers of this sort of prank - someone is made to look stupid.
Now anyone who has worked with me knows that I have no problem with making jokes at other peoples expense. But I am always careful not to humiliate people, not to make them feel stupid or worthless. I am never cruel in my humour, or when I am, I apologise, because that is not the point. It sometimes takes me a while to understand a new work colleague, to know what I can get away with and what I can't. In case you are wondering, yes I do get as good coming back at me, and take it in good humour. My experience is that it builds some great camaraderie - within the sort of people I work with, at least.
The truth is that this event, traumatic and challenging as it undoubtedly was for all of those involved, is not the entire story. I am sure that Jacintha had some history of problems, and may have been suffering from depression. It may be that she had some job history of small mistakes, or lack of attention. I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know is that she was working as a nurse, a profession that demands a whole lot from people - more than I could give - and often returns comparatively little. Nobody gets rich or famous from being a nurse, and yet our medical services would simply not function without them. the excellent sitcom Getting On showed this difficult role brilliantly well.
At some point, Jacintha felt that she could not continue, and her only option was to end her own life. That is a desperate position to be in, a terrible state to have arrived at. And yet many people hit that judgement daily and weekly. Some people do end it, while others don't - sometimes, the ones who do are the stronger ones. Some people live with the reality that their life does not appear to be worth living for weeks, months, years. Some people have to live with a member of their family having taken their life, something that stays with you forever.
Suicide is a terrible action, for all involved. To have been finally driven to this by a prank call is especially tragic. My thoughts are with her family - including young children - and friends, who have to deal with this in the glare of publicity.
For anyone who needs to talk, please do call the Samaritans on 08457 90 90 90. There are other ways of getting in touch here
At 5:30 in the morning, one presumes towards the end of a long shift, the phone rang.
Quite why she answered it, rather than a telephonist, is not clear. maybe at that time in the morning, she was just close by, and took the call. The voice on the other end of the phone may well have sounded like the Queen at 5:30 in the morning. Having never had such a call, I wouldn't know.
So she put the call through to the Duchess of Cambridges suite. Where another nurse, presumably believing it to be the Queen herself, revealed details of the Duchess' condition.
This was probably wrong even if it was the Queen, but I am not sure I would have been the one to tell Her Majesty no. The staff are, I presume, used to important and powerful people using the facilities of the hospital, and calling for updates. That makes me wonder why there was not better security precautions, but, on the other hand, it does mean that having the Queen phone up is not an unreasonable eventuality.
The caller was, of course, a DJ from an Australian radio show, making a spoof call. People have said, hearing it over the radio, that it was clearly a spoof, that the voice was not very good etc. That is an easy judgement to make listening to a radio-quality recording, but over the phone at 5:30 in the morning is a different situation.
2 days later, Jacintha appears to have taken her own life.
It is not yet completely clear whether she did kill herself, or that the spoof call prompted this, but both would appear to be the case. This is a tragic end to a stupid prank. And it highlights very pointedly the dangers of this sort of prank - someone is made to look stupid.
Now anyone who has worked with me knows that I have no problem with making jokes at other peoples expense. But I am always careful not to humiliate people, not to make them feel stupid or worthless. I am never cruel in my humour, or when I am, I apologise, because that is not the point. It sometimes takes me a while to understand a new work colleague, to know what I can get away with and what I can't. In case you are wondering, yes I do get as good coming back at me, and take it in good humour. My experience is that it builds some great camaraderie - within the sort of people I work with, at least.
The truth is that this event, traumatic and challenging as it undoubtedly was for all of those involved, is not the entire story. I am sure that Jacintha had some history of problems, and may have been suffering from depression. It may be that she had some job history of small mistakes, or lack of attention. I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know is that she was working as a nurse, a profession that demands a whole lot from people - more than I could give - and often returns comparatively little. Nobody gets rich or famous from being a nurse, and yet our medical services would simply not function without them. the excellent sitcom Getting On showed this difficult role brilliantly well.
At some point, Jacintha felt that she could not continue, and her only option was to end her own life. That is a desperate position to be in, a terrible state to have arrived at. And yet many people hit that judgement daily and weekly. Some people do end it, while others don't - sometimes, the ones who do are the stronger ones. Some people live with the reality that their life does not appear to be worth living for weeks, months, years. Some people have to live with a member of their family having taken their life, something that stays with you forever.
Suicide is a terrible action, for all involved. To have been finally driven to this by a prank call is especially tragic. My thoughts are with her family - including young children - and friends, who have to deal with this in the glare of publicity.
For anyone who needs to talk, please do call the Samaritans on 08457 90 90 90. There are other ways of getting in touch here
Monday, 3 December 2012
Leveson
The long awaited Leveson report is now out. Not unsurprisingly, it has caused come controversy. Some of this has been cause by (deliberate?) misreadings of it.
I think it is worth pointing out that the enquiry looked at all sides of the various arguments, heard a lot of evidence form various people, and drew conclusions and proposals on the basis of this evidence. This is good scientific process, and it means that if you want to argue against the conclusions or recommendations, then it should be done by re-visiting the evidence, assessing it differently, and putting other arguments from the evidence.
It should not be argued against because "It doesn't seem like the right way forward".
What is more, David Cameron did state that as long as the recommendations were not "bonkers", he would implement them. The recommendations are not bonkers, so he should implement them - although that was a rather naive promise to make.
I was also interested by comments from Ian Hislop on "Have I got news for you", where he argues - not unsurprisingly - against any more regulation of the press. He makes two point, quite good ones, that a) the activities were already illegal, and so there is already legal recourse against what they did and b) if you break the law, you should expect to pay the consequences. As he has done on numerous occasions.
I think it is worth mentioning that nobody wants a state controlled press. That is a bad situation all around, and in this country, we have a long tradition of the media as a whole playing the fool to the authorities. It is an important aspect of our culture that those in authority can do stupid things, but they should expect to be pilloried in public by our comedians and have questions raised by our journalists. That is one of the core balances in our system, and it is critical to keep this, to ensure that those who have power are also subject to ridicule and challenge. State controlled media would kill that, and would be a disaster for everyone.
On the other hand, self regulation is not working and has not worked. The "hands off" approach had meant that serious abuses have been endemic in the industry. I heard Ruth Gledhill at Greenbelt this year explaining that she had no idea about phone hacking from within the business, implying that it was not as widespread as suggested. My suspicion is that Ruth may have been unaware because those around her knew she would have a problem with it - something that is not uncommon in work environments - and because she was not working on areas where this would have been used. But I don't know, and Ruth is quite welcome to respond on this. I suspect that it was widespread enough that it was considered a tool available for use by those journalists who would do anything for a story.
What I understand Lord Leveson to be suggesting (and I have not read the entire report, nor do I intend to) if for an independent body to oversee the press. That seems a good idea, someone to watch over the self-regulation to make sure it works. And that this is underpinned by statute seems to be a necessity, otherwise it has no teeth. The report could have been a whole lot harsher. the job now is to implement it, to put the British press back on the road to being trusted, at least to a greater extent than currently.
If not, then clearly government control of the press is already happening, and we should all be scared.
I think it is worth pointing out that the enquiry looked at all sides of the various arguments, heard a lot of evidence form various people, and drew conclusions and proposals on the basis of this evidence. This is good scientific process, and it means that if you want to argue against the conclusions or recommendations, then it should be done by re-visiting the evidence, assessing it differently, and putting other arguments from the evidence.
It should not be argued against because "It doesn't seem like the right way forward".
What is more, David Cameron did state that as long as the recommendations were not "bonkers", he would implement them. The recommendations are not bonkers, so he should implement them - although that was a rather naive promise to make.
I was also interested by comments from Ian Hislop on "Have I got news for you", where he argues - not unsurprisingly - against any more regulation of the press. He makes two point, quite good ones, that a) the activities were already illegal, and so there is already legal recourse against what they did and b) if you break the law, you should expect to pay the consequences. As he has done on numerous occasions.
I think it is worth mentioning that nobody wants a state controlled press. That is a bad situation all around, and in this country, we have a long tradition of the media as a whole playing the fool to the authorities. It is an important aspect of our culture that those in authority can do stupid things, but they should expect to be pilloried in public by our comedians and have questions raised by our journalists. That is one of the core balances in our system, and it is critical to keep this, to ensure that those who have power are also subject to ridicule and challenge. State controlled media would kill that, and would be a disaster for everyone.
On the other hand, self regulation is not working and has not worked. The "hands off" approach had meant that serious abuses have been endemic in the industry. I heard Ruth Gledhill at Greenbelt this year explaining that she had no idea about phone hacking from within the business, implying that it was not as widespread as suggested. My suspicion is that Ruth may have been unaware because those around her knew she would have a problem with it - something that is not uncommon in work environments - and because she was not working on areas where this would have been used. But I don't know, and Ruth is quite welcome to respond on this. I suspect that it was widespread enough that it was considered a tool available for use by those journalists who would do anything for a story.
What I understand Lord Leveson to be suggesting (and I have not read the entire report, nor do I intend to) if for an independent body to oversee the press. That seems a good idea, someone to watch over the self-regulation to make sure it works. And that this is underpinned by statute seems to be a necessity, otherwise it has no teeth. The report could have been a whole lot harsher. the job now is to implement it, to put the British press back on the road to being trusted, at least to a greater extent than currently.
If not, then clearly government control of the press is already happening, and we should all be scared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)