There is a woman, a minister, the head of a
government, well known to all of us who is extremely fond of new and expensive clothes. So
much so that a considerable amount of the money she earns is spent on
dresses, trouser suits, shirts and jumpers, not to mention very large necklaces
and fancy shoes. Now, any woman, every woman, should be allowed to wear
whatever she likes, without censure or comment, and as the men the woman works
with are also well-dressed it is something of a sexist double-standard to single
her out. But, given the woman’s powerful role, and the fact that many of those
she supposedly represents are doing less than just about managing, that
she is rarely seen in the same over-priced outfit twice seems more than a little
tasteless. And yet, the woman seems oblivious to the impression she is giving,
even agreeing to be featured in various publications to showcase her style and fashion sense.
Although everyone, including the woman and the
ministers who work with her, pretend that the members of the government are the
ones running the country in reality they and their actions are manipulated by a
small number of rich and powerful others; the big business owners, the media
barons and others generally referred to as the 1%. These people, many of them
white, able-bodied men, have greater access to and control of, both the
capitalist means of production and the right wing ideological apparatus that is
the mainstream media. They are therefore, responsible not only for the
continued exploitation of the many, but also the ongoing skewed political
socialisation of the masses. Such is their hunger for power and money this
small, unrepresentative group will do anything they can to maintain their
position and influence. The women's love of garments and accessories is
valuable to them, in their plan to retain their status as the privileged few, willing as she is to wear their gift of a cloak woven together with threads made up of whopping great rancid lies.
Her responsibility for the policies of the
land means that the woman has to justify her decisions to her government, the ministers
that challenge and oppose her, and more generally to us, the everyday
folk in society. In a time honoured tradition, one afternoon each week the
woman is posed a series of questions by the opposition ministers. Serious
issues are raised and flaws in her plans and practices often highlighted and as such the
event should, one would think, be conducted with solemnity and judged in terms of the substance
of the points that are aired and the answers that are given (or not). Sadly
though over the years this encounter has become more like a pantomime than a
parliamentary debate with the jeerers and smearers, jesters and charlatans
attempting to drown out the sincere interrogation. 'Oh Yes It Is', and 'Oh No
It Isn't', are common taunts and given that some on the opposite benches seem
unclear to whom their loyalty should lie, 'S/He's Behind You', is increasingly
shouted in warning to the man who asks the lion's share of the questions. The
woman herself, has little respect for the questions or for those that ask them
and leads her ministers in insulting and abusing the opposition. The harshest
and most vitriolic comments are reserved for the key questioner, a man who
cares little about his own presentation of self, little about the clothes he
wears, except that is for his collection of ties in deepest red. So warped has
the system become that the nastier, more aggressive, more personal, more
insulting the attack, and the thicker the woman's cloak of lies becomes, the
more support she is given from those that control her, reflected in the
representation of her by the 1% funded media. Thus, despite the woman's obvious
lack of compassion for the many, coupled with much evidence of her bad
judgements in terms of present national crises and future local and global concerns, her own particular
toxic charisma becomes stronger and more positive in mainstream narratives.
The cloak, unlike the woman's other clothes, is
not made of luxurious cloth in vibrant colours. Rather it is a dark despicable
thing, dripping in filthy falsehood, greasy from backroom bargaining and grimy
deals. Yet, the cloak remains invisible to many people who are unable to see it
and the woman who wears it in all their true horror. Terrifyingly this means
that the woman is trusted with what she ought not to be and believed even when it
should be obvious that her words are nothing but hollow spin. On the few occasions
when the cloak slips and the woman and her ministers are exposed for what they
truly are the woman, aided again by the forces that protect her, creates a
diversion, a moral panic, in order to deflect attention away from both her
words and her actions. Once again the focus is often the man who leads the
opposition; his arguments for peace claimed as both unsafe and unpatriotic,
his efforts for those most vulnerable and alienated defined as old fashioned
and unworkable. Additionally, (and yet more evidence that the woman's claim
that she is working for a shared society for all is just another meaningless
sound bite) attention is also diverted towards those whose identities,
experiences, life-chances and choices do not fit that of the so-called, narrowly
defined ideal type. Through the use of simplistic stereotypes just about everyone is labelled as other, stigmatised as abnormal and or dangerous, defined as undeserving. Those affected include (not least): the employed who fight for their rights, the unemployed for their
drain on the system, the homeless for littering the streets; the old for their
outdated views and lack of sympathy for the young, the young for their weakness and lack of resilience, those at midlife for their lack of care and
attention for both the old and the young; the experts for their pomposity;
anyone from man or woman in the street (or online) to celebrity who dares to offer a critique. But
perhaps the greatest identification and demonisation of otherhood is directed
at those defined as unworthy stranger; the immigrant and the refugee. We are
told again and again that these people are simultaneously taking all our jobs
and using up all our resources when in actuality considerations of a day without them clearly shows their invaluable input into the healthy, safe, effective daily lives of all. So neighbour is pitted against neighbour and
the tension and fear that this encourages successfully shifts the
responsibility away from those who most deserve it. It is not the woman, the government, or the 1%, who take the blame for the inequalities and injustices in
society but rather similar others who are equally, if not more, oppressed, powerless and
vulnerable.
There are some, thankfully, who are able to see
the cloak, the woman, and her supporters, for what they are. There are some, to
whom we should all be grateful, who are working hard to ensure that more of us
can see this too. There are some, despite continued misrepresentation and abuse,
who continue to challenge fear and hate and insist on the need for hope and love.
There are some . . .
Beautiful, well put.
ReplyDeleteWhat a fantabulous post this has been. Never seen this kind of useful post. I am grateful to you and expect more number of posts like these. Thank you very much. baby clothes
ReplyDeleteYou really know your stuff... Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteready to wear
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing blog that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. marcasite bracelet thai
ReplyDelete