Archive for July, 2011

Chavs: A Review of The Demonisation of the Working Class

Monday, July 25th, 2011

I do not subscribe to a “class conscious” philosophy that suggests that I shouldn’t condemn the animal cruelty involved in producing cheap meat in supermarkets because otherwise poor working class families wouldn’t be able to afford it, or that the environmental movement shouldn’t try to end cheap flights because otherwise working class families might not be able to take their one holiday a year to the costa del sol. I think that animal cruelty and environmental destruction are issues that concern everyone regardless of class.

But at the same time, I don’t think we should forget the following facts:

* The average income in Britain is £21,000.

* The average banker thinks the average income in Britain is £50,000.

* There are 2.5 million people unemployed, 800,000 people on incapacity benefit – and 500,000 job vacancies.

* Before Thatcher came to power, one in ten people lived in poverty. As of 2010, that number is now one in five.

* Of those people living in poverty, over half have a job. It’s just a shitty, low-paid job that can’t support them and their dependants.

Now, I should state that the reason that I bought this book was because I was at Marxism 2011 and heard Owen Jones, the author of Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class, talk on the subject. It turns out that what he said was very little different from the content of the book, but the fact that I was sufficiently horrified and riveted to buy it should tell you much.

Chav Chavs: A Review of The Demonisation of the Working Class

A caricature of a chav.

Owen Jones opens his book with the claim that mocking the working class is the only acceptable prejudice in our culture. Everyone of my age has grown up with the podgy, swearing, burberry covered, Croydon facelift wearing, caricature with several children stropping behind her on her way to Primark. He started to write the book after attending a friend’s dinner party where someone made the light-hearted joke, “Shame Woolworth is closing, where will all the chavs buy their Christmas presents?” Jones points out that if anyone at the party had said “paki” or “fag”, they would’ve been ejected immediately, “but working class people are pretty much the only section of society that you can say virtually anything about”.

He’s pretty right, though I wouldn’t be quite so quick to pronounce racism, sexism and homophobia dead quite yet. But in an era in which the Mail on Sunday can make the fact that Peter Mandelson had not, in fact, broken up with his boyfriend page 3 news (as I read once with some disbelief), the fact that middle-class Madeline McCann can command front page news for months on end when working class Shannon Matthews’ kidnapping was actually overshadowed by coverage of possible sightings of McCann nine months after she disappeared seems to prove Jones’ point.

I think the forgotten point in Jones’ book is that stereotypes aren’t based in nothing. The only time I have ever heard someone used the word “paki” was from someone from inner Hartlepool, who stopped the entire room dead with his comment and seemed genuinely surprised that everyone didn’t share his sentiment. My last review was on a sex researcher who demonstrated that working class people do have sex younger, with more people, and with more pregnancies than middle class kids. I think that this omission is a shame, not because I think that we should be trying to protect our prejudices at all, far from it – I for one finished the book and hatched a deeply illconceived plan to move to the middle of an estate in Middlesborough on the basis of this talk by a South African who moved to a black township in order to confront his latent racism – but in order to ask the question: “Why does it matter?”

D0015 492 Chavs: A Review of The Demonisation of the Working Class

The Duggar family have nineteen children and Jim Duggar once ran for the Senate. Are they feckless?

Why does it matter to you that someone loses their virginity at 14 instead of the national average? What gives you the right to look down on someone because they shop at Woolworths instead of Waitrose? Is there some sort ineffable superiority in quinoa over crisps? The only thing that ever truly worries me about class differences is that working class people seem to be much more keen to sort out disputes with their fists than words. But if, as the interesting named “Korn Artist” put it in Eminem’s track When the Music Stops, “When you ain’t got nothing left but your word and your balls”, what else can you use? But I being sidetracked here, in much the same way that the government likes to hide the fact that we lose £70bn a year in tax evasion by blaming people on benefit (which costs us £1.5billion which in any case is equal to to the total amount of benefits that goes unclaimed every year).

Battle strike 1934 Chavs: A Review of The Demonisation of the Working Class

Workers in battle with the police during the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934. This has nothing to do with the article, but is slightly less depressing.

Because the true point of this is not whether some, a lot or, or even all working class people are fat, violent, or fecund, it’s the fact that some of the poorest, ill-educated, neglected people who exist in our society are treated like shit by the rest of us, called lazy (even though they can’t find work in their areas), greedy (because their jobs can’t pay for their rent and they have to live in substandard housing inherited from their parents), and pregnant from puberty (even though in 2007, 11% of pregnancies were to under twenty year olds, the same as in the 1950s). The Tories are doing their very best to perpetuate that stereotype, with Tim Loughton even saying that we should imprison pregnant teenagers:

“We need to send a message that it’s not actually a good idea to become a single mum at 14. It is against the law to get pregnant at 14. How many kids gets prosecuted for underage sex? Virtually none. What are the consequences of breaking the law and having irresponsible underage sex? There aren’t any.” I will let that stand as it is and let you think about the practicalities of imprisoning pregnant fourteen year olds.

Chavs is filled with sentences that you just have to stop and say “What?” Jan Moir wrote on the death of Jade Goody: “A vulgar loudmouth, she initially appeared on the show as some Hogarthian lowlife. First we have this godforsaken wedding, then the christening of her children, then an ungainly, lickety split spring to death and the ultimate chav state funeral.”

Or, “The son of a railway signalman, John Prescott went on to fail his eleven plus and became a waiter in the Merchant Navy. … Tory MP Nicholas Soames, a grandson of Winston Churchill, used to shout drinks orders at him in the House of Commons whenever he rose to speak.”

Or, “‘Old fashioned Tories say there isn’t any class war’, declared Tory newspaper editor Peregrine Worsthorne, ‘New Tories make no bones about it: we are class warriors and we expect to be victorious.’”

Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild F038790 0029A%2C Wolfsburg%2C VW Autowerk%2C K%C3%A4fer Chavs: A Review of The Demonisation of the Working Class

Factories that used to offer comfortable working-class skill jobs are now mostly gone.

There’s quite a lot more stuff like that, you’ll have to read for yourselves. After doing so myself, I’m still prepared to admit I’m not keen to walk down roads with working class kids hanging around on street corners (because all their youth clubs have been closed and they can’t get jobs) – I’m never been sworn and shouted at by a middle aged pinstriped banker, after all, and my friends who have been robbed weren’t mugged by elderly asian ladies in saris. But I can’t even begin to start to cover the chapter after chapter detailing how working class people are forced to live on manky run down estates with little access to amenities and education, working in jobs where they can that are transitory and low-paid, attempting to raise children in environments where they have nothing to offer them and with few opportunities of social mobility, and for all their trials, being constantly mocked, derided, and despised on every television channel, newspaper front page, and middle class neighbourhoods everywhere for “not being good enough”. I defy you to read this book and not feel that maybe Marx had a point, if this is the way, as a society, we treat the majority of its citizens.

Check out the book and its reviews on Amazon here:

Fact-checking:

At the beginning of the article: The first fact is just common knowledge as far as I am aware – the BBC references it is this article: Just what is a big salary?

The second fact re the average salary were from a survey of a range of occupations – most people who are higher tax earners think that the average income is somewhere around their own. It comes from a survey done by the TUC that you can find the details of here: Stuck in the middle with who?

There are some very pretty graphs regarding national income on Wikipedia: Income in the United Kingdom.

The remaining three facts are from the book itself.

Tax evasion and benefit fraud

The issue of tax evasion is a tricky one, as since the rise of UKUncut I have seen estimates from £25bn to £120bn a year, with most estimates around the £70bn mark. The PCS, a public services union, says £70bn, and has a very long examination of tax evasion with statistics, graphs and charts available here, for the geeks among you: http://www.taxresearch.org​.uk/Blog/2010/04/15/tax-ev​asion-costs-the-uk-70-bill​ion-a-year-2/

I actually calculated the issue of benefit fraud by finding a statistic on the entire benefits system and then dividing it by 100 to reflect the fact that fraud actually only accounts for 1% of benefit expenditure (a statistic which should be especially outrageous when you consider the amount of time the government spends banging on about scroungers bankrupting Britain when we spend just under that servicing our national debt a WEEK). That link is here. Interestingly, I just went to look up a specific statistic and found an estimate of £1.1 billion for fraud here: http://citywire.co.uk/new-​model-adviser/tax-evasion-​costs-treasury-15-times-mo​re-than-benefit-fraud/a378​274

If you allow for different years and the somewhat sketchy nature of national statistics, it all roughly adds up.

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

Cool Charities to Give to in 2011

Monday, July 18th, 2011

Every year I try to donate a portion of my income to charity. This year its been a bit lower because I wasn’t getting lots of money from the Student Loans Company. I used to try to find a single charity to donate to, such as the Iranian Queer Railroad, to whom I donated in memory of my friend Jeff, but this year, as last year, I donated to several different charities and write about them here. However this year, I have also added charities you can volunteer for if you don’t have any money to give.



Lama Foundation

general intro8 Cool Charities to Give to in 2011

The Lama Foundation is one of the few intentional communities left over from the 1960s. It’s a non-denominational spiritual community that is, quite frankly, AMAZING, and everyone should go visit it. There are statues of Quan Yin by the kitchen, Sacred Hearts over the door, water goddesses by the spring, and hindu gods in alcoves all over the places, random images of gurus and teachers scattered on every wall and in every room (which were all built by hand over decades of work). And most importantly, people everywhere giving their time and love to maintain a community where you can just be yourself and everyone likes you for it. It is awesome.

I have never felt so happy about giving large amounts of money to the Lama Foundation. When you turn up, their cars are battered beyond recognition, the building are home-made from straw and mud, and they don’t have indoor toilets. Every dollar you donate goes on feeding people who come to visit, to putting on programmes, to supporting the stuff that needs to be done instead of making things look good. Really, go check them out. They want to build a new roof for the main dome complex that will last the next fifty years, go donate!



The Albert Kennedy Trust

1f2eb2c3 8ffe 40c6 ba4b 3a158964ebf4 Cool Charities to Give to in 2011

The Albert Kennedy Trust was founded in 1989 to provide LGBT young people in crisis with accommodation and support. It was named after Albert Kennedy, a 16 year old Mancunian who fell to his death from a car park while trying to flee homophobic bullying.

They regularly have to turn away homeless LGBT teenagers, because they don’t have room to take care of them all. I am not, unfortunately, able to offer foster care because of that whole being-a-student-and-moving-every-year thing, but if you have the time, they’d appreciate that a lot more than money. Although money is also useful…



Re:Vision Drug Policy Network

logo Cool Charities to Give to in 2011

Yep, I’ve donated money to the drugs charity that I helped found. Always be suspicious of the person who won’t put their money where their mouth is, or expect other people to pay for their charitable endeavours.

The Re:Vision Drug Policy Network is a national charity aiming to empower young people to campaign against the war on drugs. The aforementioned “war” is often used to destroy the lives of young people under the bizarre illusion that this will somehow protect them. It’s therefore important that we as young people stand up and say “nuh uh.” We stand for the control and regulation of all drugs – it’s a little ambitious, but we’re confident we can make an impact. We started up in March and are looking to start doing some serious stuff from September. If you don’t have any money, we’ll take your time instead. :)

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

The One Man Sex Revolution: A Review of “Kinsey: A Biography”

Monday, July 11th, 2011

Akintervw The One Man Sex Revolution: A Review of “Kinsey: A Biography”

Kinsey at interviews.

I wonder if you can imagine a world in which you had literally no idea what sex was, and had no way of finding out. A world where you thought that you could impregnate yourself by touching your genitals, a world where semen was finite and you would die if you ran out of it. A world in which you considered yourself totally abnormal for having uncontrollable sexual desire and thought anyone else who did was probably a prostitute, criminal, or insane.

The fact is, that world was reality for pretty much everyone prior to 1948, when Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (and its follow-up Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female in 1953) demonstrated rather conclusively that masturbation, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, and sexual fantasies were all completely normal, indulged by significant numbers of the population, and that no-one had (scientific) reason to feel guilty about anything that crossed their mind. It’s hard for me to imagine, as I type this on my gateway to the world wide web with its immediate and instant access to any sexual information I might desire, how phenomenally revolutionary it was to be told such things. But the fact that that information gets published at all is because of one man, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, about whom Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy published the rivetingly titled, “Kinsey: A Biography”.

First Street 1320%2C Kinsey House%2C Vinegar Hill HD The One Man Sex Revolution: A Review of “Kinsey: A Biography”

Kinsey's house, that he built into an L shape in order to avoid chopping down a tree.

Alfred “Al” Kinsey was born in New Jersey with poor health and a poor family. He spent a lot of time in nature as a result and subsequently took up biology as a field of study. For twenty years he happily taught in his teaching post at Indiana University and studied the gall wasp, until his openness with students about their sexual questions led to him teaching a “marriage course” designed to teach married students how to have sex; when he realised that he didn’t know half the answers to what they were asking, he started to conduct research. And by “conduct research”, I mean, he did interviews that could last up to six hours with 100,000 respondents (with three other helpers), bought tens of thousands of dollars of erotic art, filmed the sexual activity of numerous individuals and couples, both human and animal, and used the resulting statistics to prove everyone wrong about sex. Everyone did it, with themselves, each other, before, during and outside marriage. Social conservatives went nuts.

The amount of work involved sounds crazy, and Gathorne-Hardy doesn’t at any point pretend that despite Kinsey’s achievements, his absolute and total self-belief must have been very annoying to deal with, whether you were a funder, colleague, or his wife, whom he saw for about an hour or so a day for mealtimes by the end of his life. But Gathorne-Hardy makes equally clear that only someone like Kinsey could have withstood the hail of criticism and negativity that rained down on him from 1950s America. They still all bought the book though. There were a few sex researchers prior to Kinsey, such as Magnus Hirschfield, Havelock Ellis, and Robert Dickenson (with whom Kinsey corresponded until the former’s death in 1950), but no-one before or since has managed to survey tens of thousands of people with the same kind of accuracy and publish the results for public consumption. And that’s pretty damn amazing really.

Kinsey Male The One Man Sex Revolution: A Review of “Kinsey: A Biography”

Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male, first edition.

What I find particularly interesting about this book is that it revealed a lot of remarkable things that Kinsey achieved during his life besides totally revolutionising everything we ever thought we knew about sex as a species. Like, for example, Kinsey almost absent-mindedly co-wrote a book as a doctoral student called Edible Wild Plants of Eastern North America, which remains the authoritative guide in its field seventy years on. Or the fact that he was the first biologist to write a textbook uniting zoology and botany that became a set text in schools across America. Or that he spent the first twenty years of his life not just studying gall wasps, but collecting five MILLION different gall wasps and used his findings to significantly contribute to our understanding of evolution. Stuff like that. And that was before all the sex…

Kinsey comes across in Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy’s work as a man totally and completely obsessed with whatever he got involved with. To be honest, Kinsey’s behaviour does suggest undiagnosed Asperger’s: the obliviousness to other people except for how they might be useful, the refusal to admit he was wrong to critics and trying to refute them personally, inability to delegate, socialise, or take a back seat, the total, complete and utter obsessiveness that led to the eighteen hour days for years on end that eventually killed him. It’s all there, as is the fact that autism is genetic and his father also appears to have been the same way inclined. But I guess we will never know.

Kinsey movie The One Man Sex Revolution: A Review of “Kinsey: A Biography”

Did I mention there's a film?

A lot of this book is devoted to refuting an earlier biography by a man called James Jones. Jones apparently did his best to damn the legacy of Kinsey, calling him a homosexual sadomasochist who engaged in his work to justify his own sexual inclinations. Gathorne-Hardy goes to pains to prove that Kinsey was neither homosexual (he was bisexual), nor sadomasochistic (he actually didn’t like watching either practice), but to be honest with you, even if that were true, who gives a crap? True, Kinsey had sex with nearly all his project colleagues, many of the people he interviewed, male and female, and encouraged them all to have sex with each other, their wives and his own, promoted nudity, and apparently took his own self-exploration so far he circumcised himself in the bath in his early 60s (doesn’t sound weird for my friendship group…). But is Kinsey’s work in any way invalidated because of this? He said that such experiences were necessary to understand the information that their interviewees were giving them, and I have little doubt that this turned out to be true, even if it wasn’t the reason it started.

There is a considerable movement these days to try to trash Kinsey’s work, mostly from the religious right. All I can say is that the sex lives of his religious cynics is probably vastly more pleasurable as a result of Kinsey’s work, and that the abstinence movement requires by its very existence that parents and teachers have to talk to their charges about sex; more than Kinsey, the son of a lay Methodist preacher who dragged his entire family to church three times a day on Sunday, received himself. Kinsey has changed the world, and we are all so much more liberated for it. Go read about it for yourself.

Check out the book and its reviews on Amazon here:

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts: