Sean Faye2013-05-19T13:16:28-04:00Sean Fayehttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=sean-fayeCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Sean FayeGood old fashioned elbow grease.Let's Challenge Some of the Lazy Media Myths Propogated by Coverage of the Occupy Movementtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13063062012-02-28T08:49:32-05:002012-04-29T05:12:01-04:00Sean Fayehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-faye/"They haven't made their point"
The most benign of the viewers' emails and texts being read out on Sky News and the BBC during and in the immediate aftermath of the occupation were expressing variations on a belief that the eviction was the appropriate course of action because the protest proved itself inefficacious - the protestors "had their chance" but failed to get their point across and so should now gracefully accept their defeat and retire. The chief problem with this perspective is that it's belief that society functions as a great floor debate where everyone has an equal platform and opportunity to speak and the most cogent arguments will always win out. This is, of course, nonsense - the reason that the Occupy movement operated by taking hold of such a prominent public space as St Paul's is precisely because the usual denizens of the City of London are afforded much greater opportunity to provide public apologetics for their commercial agendas than those making up the camp outside St Paul's in the last four months.
Just consider the airtime Stephen Hester and his ilk are given to explain not only their own continued receipt of vast sums of lucre, but also to couch the continued losses and failure of the banks they run in terms of success. Viewed in this light, I would say that the protest has actually been extremely successful in raising consciousness of the inequalities of unencumbered capitalism - at the most simple level its continued use of the figure of 99% (as opposed to the richest 1% of the population who control 38.5% of global wealth) is a good example of one of the more memorable messages emerging from the camp.
As for the reporting itself - the use of 'vox pop' often masquerades as an display of journalistic balance or objectivity; in many instances it claims to be reflective of our democratic society - the viewer's 'man in the street' opinions add to a colourful panoply of views alongside the opinions of politicians, clergy and protestors themselves. This actually creates a false dichotomy between protestors and 'the public', as if purpose of the Occupy movement or any form of protest is actually to act as a form of popular, X Factoresque, electioneering. This being the case, these protestors have, we're told, lost "the public vote". In fact, vox pop is merely a disguised media contrivance that has nothing to do with true democracy: the opinions sought and aired are selected and the clear bias of coverage usually lies in this selection.
"None of these people work"
A particularly common stroke in press coverage of most protests or challenges to the civil and economic status quo is the selection and isolation of individual figures and the use of seemingly 'material facts' about them to discredit the movement as a whole. The irony in the case of Occupy LSX is that many media outlets, in their strident defence of the cathedral dedicated to him, forgot St Paul's admonition "For the body is not one member, but many". The use of individuals to shape opinion of the whole produced many illogical and reductive results - i.e. because some protestors at the camp were middle class students their presence was supposedly an example of lazy, bourgeois indulgence rather than genuine political conviction - the tents outside St Pauls perhaps not dissimilar to the tents at Glastonbury. In actual fact, the better coverage shows that students, unemployed, homeless and employed people all contributed to the life of the camp. It was noticeable in live coverage of the eviction that the BBC would frequently gloss over speaking to the middle-aged homeless claiming an affinity with the protest in favour of young people with non-regional accents - those who accord with the now fixed, almost clichéd, media narrative of pampered Charlie Gilmour-type students.
It is interesting to compare this 'laziness' argument with the repositioning of right-wing media after the riots last summer when several convincing cases were made for the argument that the people involved were the disenfranchised poor. Suddenly we were bombarded with a handful of examples of rioters who had jobs - how could they have rioted when they were employed? They weren't disaffected after all - they were all just mindless yobs! Where the common adage is that your right to complain is weak and inauthentic if haven't you don't 'participate' in society by working, it's worth nothing how the media decides the reverse can be equally true when it suits.
"Just compare this nonsense with real protestors in the Middle East or Russia"
Analogies with Tahrir Square or Russian pro-democracy movements have been used as a stick with which to beat the Occupy protestors - the Occupy camp's reluctance to move on when merely told was ungrateful. They should consider themselves fortunate that they live in a country where they have a right to free assembly. The flaw in this argument is the notion of human and civil 'rights' themselves. The problem for those trying to discredit the camp in this way is that rights are exactly that. Freedom to protest is not a privilege people should thank their leaders for before kindly moving on when asked. What is instead missing from the references to Russia and the Middle East in the context of discussions about an occupation in the heart of the City of London is the parade of egregiously wealthy oligarchs, sheikhs and political despots and the flow of their money into the City to be protected, defended and increased, often at the expense of their own people.
]]>I'm Convinced: Santa Claus Is a Dictatortag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11640762011-12-22T19:00:00-05:002012-02-21T05:12:02-05:00Sean Fayehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-faye/
That's right, people - Santa is a dictator. I'm convinced of it. I don't mean the upbeat, not-really-that-nasty, Garibaldi biscuity type of dictator, either. I mean that Santa is truly an arms developing, epaulette wearing, election rigging tyrant with a white beard and a (Pol)pot belly.
My reasons?
1. Secrecy and military might
It is known worldwide that Claus resides at the North Pole in a compound large and sophisticated enough for the alleged manufacture and distribution of a sufficient quantity of toys to satisfy the world's estimated 2 billion children.
However, upon inspection of these deliveries on Christmas morning, it is often clear that many of the gifts have actually been manufactured elsewhere - increasingly by Apple, usually in China. This betrays the official reason given for the size and location of the site. From this, we can only conclude that the North Pole compound is, in fact, becoming a heavily militarized zone and is being used to develop a nuclear programme the scale of which has never been seen before on earth.
2. Censorship
From the Tiananmen Square blackout to the use of state television in North Korea and the ban on the BBC's presence in Zimbabwe, all totalitarian states practice a policy of isolationism and censorship when it comes to the mainstream Western media.
Going even further than the notorious repressions of Robert Mugabe, Claus has never allowed the media into the North Pole and not only enforces a complete blackout on broadcasting, he imposes the strictest known policy of isolationism of any regime in the world by magically cloaking this workshop from sight, further increasing suspicions that 'Santa's Toyshop' is the true Axis of Evil.
3. Lack of democracy
Hosni Mubarak had ruled Egypt for a long 30 years before being toppled in February. Yet this pales in comparison with Claus, whose initial assertion of power began an estimated 1700 years ago as Saint Nicholas of Myra. It is clear that he is the longest serving continuous autocratic ruler of a social, political and economic entity in history. Christmas is a thoroughly undemocratic institution: Santa Claus holds a single-handed and unaccountable grip on the patronage and tone of the season and the considerable resources it controls. Claus, notably, shows no signs of relinquishing this power, which marks him out as the most tenacious of dictators - even Fidel Castro retired in 2008.
4. Serfdom of the elves
As already explained, Claus has imposed significant strictures on media coverage of life at the North Pole in order to maintain his grip on power. It is believed his political regime is maintained by the oppression of a large population of elves. Reports vary but it is widely agreed that these elves are forced to undertake labour in order to maintain the benign façade of toy manufacture by working in tiny, toymaking gulags appropriate to their diminutive height.
5. Orwellian surveillance and use of propaganda
He sees you when you're sleeping/
He knows if you're awake/He knows if you've been bad or good/So be good for goodness sake.
Need I say more? The most menacing song ever written? Claus had this song put out in 1934, undoubtedly inspired by the use of song and anthem in stirring up disproportionate awe and admiration by the Nazis. Santa Claus is Coming to Town is basically the Christmas equivalent of Deutschland über alles.
Just as Mao's face adorns the Forbidden Kingdom, Saddam Hussein's statue once stood looming over Firdos Square and Stalin had himself inserted into innumerable newsreels and films, so too has Claus ensured the ubiquity of his image - ensuring it adorns pictures, decorations and Coca-Cola ads all over the world.
The time for action - join my (Santa) cause!
I hope you can now see the truth behind the brainwashing - that our benefactor is also our oppressor. The time to act is now! This year we will finally dethrone our jolly overlord!
Liberate yourself this Christmas: block up your chimney, eat your own mince pies, burn your red Santa hats! Vive la revolution! ]]>So, Why Does Feminism Ignore Men?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11354312011-12-07T19:48:55-05:002012-02-06T05:12:02-05:00Sean Fayehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-faye/
Just so we're clear: I'm cool with feminism. I'll cheer for Greer. I'm surfing the third wave (or is it the fourth?). Me and feminism are like Thelma and Louise. If you started to bristle when you read the title, you can relax. If you were hopeful about the title and are starting to bristle as you realise I'm an emasculated flounce of a man you may walk the plank now.
However, I think there is a general problem when it comes to men and feminism. Some feminists say it's the oppressors' rage at seeing their patriarchal power and dominion threatened; I say that, in a lot of cases, it's just that men don't get it. Why would we? When I was at school (independent, all boys- I know, it was never going to be a Dianic love-in, but still) no one ever came to speak to us about balancing a career with children or explained to us what might happen if we became teenage fathers. It just never came up. Not our issue - that was for our friends at the girls' school. Same with putting condoms on root vegetables (Matron showed us a Femidom once but that was universally considered a bizarre anomaly). For some reason this bit of sex ed silliness was judged to be a strictly feminine art, ignoring the fact that this (a) absolved us of all contraceptive responsibility and (b) was totally useless if you were gay and would never encounter one of the appropriately trained females.
A female teacher once tried to explain why holding doors open for female staff was patronising but was silenced by a lot of self-congratulatory braying about our 'chivalry' - James who sat at the back of the class had a girlfriend and she loved it. So did his mum. No arguing with that. This did raise an interesting point, though - that misogyny is in the eye of the beholder. As a result, both boys and men get constant mixed messages. A huge issue like attitudes to rape are dicey but get at least some airtime - however, the subtler relationships between men, women, sex and violence are rarely investigated in male circles.
Internet porn has become the secret training manual of the adolescent male libido and men spend the rest of their sex lives trying to simultaneously replicate and rein in the effects of this with real women. Porn, like a host of feminist issues, is a ground for debate. Are men and boys the purveyors of porn or its victims? Is it men that need to change or is it the porn? To what extent does feminism rely on curbing natural male desire and the commercial interests of consenting female performers? These are surely questions that could do with being put to young men earlier and more often, allowing them to discover what they think about it for themselves rather than leaving them to their own devices and attempting some type of crude 'correction' of their mores at some later stage.
Getting men more involved with feminism may have its pitfalls, of course. An issue like abortion is often framed by saying it is a woman's right to choose and anything approaching an argument for men 'having a say' is anathema. That said, slavish adherence to this principle also produces a culture where the responsibilities and consequences of sex become the preserve of women, their partners' gleeful thrusts unburdened by any remote consciousness of the serious effect pregnancy, wanted or unwanted, can have on women's psyche or freedoms. Striking the right balance is difficult but can only come about by opening up the discussion and working out the kinks as we go, rather than what's happening now - i.e. nothing.
I can see how the liberation of women has been the business of women themselves. Trying to 'win men over' to feminism could be construed as weakening - like a hostage bargaining with her captor. However, there remains a risk that feminism is side-lined as a special interest category purely because half of the population aren't involved in the discussion. Engaging men more directly could make feminism the powerful, omnipresent, penetrating force it should be. See, now I've said 'penetrating' in a post on feminism - there are the wages of patriarchy for you.
]]>Dear Elders, Branding Us a 'Lost Generation' Is Reductive and Patronising - Yours Sincerely, the Youngtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11039822011-11-21T19:00:00-05:002012-01-21T05:12:01-05:00Sean Fayehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-faye/
So I've been dismayed in recent weeks as young people aged 16-24 have acquired their own tagline, imposed upon us by our elders - we are now to be the 'Lost Generation', apparently. Unlike 'squeezed middle', this label doesn't even have the benefit of originality. It is, however, a sure fire way to polarise the discussion of 'worklessness' (another ugly noun) among the young and eradicate any nuances to the debate - the nuances in question being pretty significant things like class, race or gender.
Boldly aligning us all with the generation that reached maturity after the Great War either creates a tone of victimhood and pessimistic resignation, as if we are indelibly stained by the original sins of our parents, or it provokes a reactionary, angry response from an older generation. 'No', we're told, we are spoilt, overindulged creatures who are at once preposterously overeducated and woefully illiterate. Fused to our mobile phones, our social skills have atrophied and we're prone to civil unrest or parasitic benefit scrounging. We're nothing like the post-WWI generation! After all, wasn't one of 'us' caught brazenly swinging on the Cenotaph?
Reading the polemic on both sides of the debate in the news and hearing young people described as either the helpless collateral damage of unfeeling governments or wilfully idle, I had to wonder how many of the articles in question were researched and proofread by the increasing ranks of young, unpaid interns. Some would point out there's an irony here but, sassy as I am, I'll skip past that and move straight to calling it gross hypocrisy.
The 'Lost Generation' tagline isn't helpful - it's both a reductive and totalising gesture that throws graduate media interns in with teenage school leavers as if we're all one soupy, melting pot of despair.
Let's not forget, in many ways we the young have also been turned enemies to each other. Before securing a graduate entry legal job, reduced places and increased competition in the legal sector forced me to work in admin and secretarial roles at law firms - not traditionally the preserve of graduates - to gain experience. Swooping in to take these CV fillers, people like me displace someone else, equally capable and equally willing, from taking a non-graduate starter job. I am employed but I, in turn, have just passed the grenade across to one of my peers.
On the other hand, let's not pretend all young people are über industrious. Some graduates from top universities aren't getting jobs because the degree-as-passport illusion, sold to them at school, hasn't been dispelled and they refuse to persevere. The contentious 'Lost Generation' concept invites unwarranted blame from some quarters but also reinforces tiresome wallowing in others.
Sealing off young people as a discrete group and creating a separate discourse to talk to/about them will only enlarge the chasm between generations. Considering the fact that more young people are forced to continue to live at home with their parents, that could turn ugly.]]>
