This past Saturday, my wife, my children and I took a trip to London for the day. In the afternoon we went to Madame Tussauds, which was very pleasant, but in the morning we attended the open day at Lycée International de Londres Winston Churchill in Wembley Park
Journals—Therapy for the Mind and the Soul.
There’s something ‘liberating’ about writing something that you know no-one will ever read.
Fatherly Pride
It was with a very fatherly sense of pride that I watched my son’s football coach call him back for a “quick word” after he’d dismissed the rest of the team following their 7-1 victory this weekend.
All of a (Shaving) Lather
Am I offended by the new Gillette advert? No. Does it really bother me all that much? No. So why write about it? Well, everyone else seems to have an opinion on it, so why not. I saw it on twitter last night, but if you have no idea what advert I mean, you can catch it on YouTube. On both platforms there are a lot of people going a bit nuts over it. At the time of writing the video has 289K dislikes compared to 53k likes and 77k+ comments, a lot of which are neither negative or taking the piss. Honestly, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. The film is a bit… Meh. Not the sort of thing I’m going to remember in a week and certainly nothing to get upset over. The general disquiet over it seems to be that it’s a bit ‘liberal leftie’, that it’s ‘virtue signalling’ and pandering to those who don’t buy razors by directly attacking those that do (i.e Men). I don’t really see that. But maybe I’m not looking hard enough or trying hard enough to be offended. You see, for me, it’s the reaction this short film has garnered that is the interesting thing – certainly it’s more interesting that the film. The reaction speaks to the kind of society we are now and, let’s be honest, it’s not a pretty picture. Let me discuss the film first. I don’t think its core message is very different from the core message that Gillette has always championed. That of Respect. Gillette is a company whose core product area is male grooming. And good grooming has always been more associated with men who are respected – with Gentlemen, if you like – that with men who are not respected. Or, to put it another, perhaps better way – a well-groomed man will usually command more respect than a badly groomed man or one who is not groomed at all. Just look at the way people react differently to the well-groomed Jacob Rees-Mogg compared to the rather less well-groomed Nigel Farage – even though men spout the same vile brand of xenophobic hate. Sorry, got a bit Brexity there. Apologies. For as long as I can remember, Gillette has used the slogan “The Best a Man Can Get” (complete with catchy jingle that’s now stuck in your head just like it is mine), and their ads have featured generations of men being respected because of the fine grooming they receive from Gillette’s blades. There’s also been a strong sense of ‘generations’ in the advertising – as if they’re trying to say that good grooming (and the respect that comes with it) is passed down from father to son. How many times have you seen an older man shaving next to a younger man (or boy) in a Gillette ad? And is this film’s message really that different? Certainly it’s about respect – about respecting and being respected. And it’s about men teaching the next generation to be better men. Okay, there was no real need to namecheck the #metoo movement and the use of the phrase “toxic masculinity” by a company whose product essentially relies on masculinity for its purpose is probably not the best idea, but really, is there anything wrong with showing a man stepping in to tell another man he’s crossed a line or stopping a fight between two boys? But in the end, like I said at the start, it’s all just a bit… Meh. The reaction though… Man, the reaction! We’ve actually got people trying to organise a boycott, not just of Gillette products but of other products by the parent company, Proctor & Gamble. That’s insane! It’s a fucking advert for fuck’s sake! Why are you getting so damn upset over it? And what, exactly are you getting upset over? Do you think men shouldn’t step up an intervene when friends cross the line or boys are fighting? Really? It seems to me that this not about the actual content of the advert, but more about the use of the term “toxic masculinity” and the namecheck of #metoo at the start. I think what’s happening is simply that a lot of people who consider themselves to be on “The Right’ see this as P&G pandering to “The Left” and they don’t like it. I think it’s more that a marketing department is taking a calculated risk that associating themselves with one political position will win it more customers than it loses them. Because that’s what this is ultimately about – winning customers and making more money. “The Right”, of course, is a varied church, but a it’s clear that a lot of the people getting outraged by a razor advert are the same people that use terms like “Cultural Marxism” and “Snowflake” when talking about “The Left” and I do find it odd that the very people that accuse their political opponents of being too easily offended (and offended by everything) are themselves so quick to take offence over something so trivial. Honestly, I’m more offended by Willy Boly’s sending off against Man City last night – Never a red card, in my opinion and would only have been a yellow at most had it been one of City’s players on one of ours. Sorry, got side-tracked again. Where was I? Oh, yes, trivial offence. Maybe it’s me? I implied in an earlier post that I think I’m mellowing into my middle-age rather than charging head-first and gammon-faced into it, so maybe this short film should worry me or disturb me more than it does. I blame James O’Brien. But like I said (again)… Meh. I’ll have forgotten its content by the end of the week. It certainly won’t stop me buying and using Gillette razors. I have no particular affinity for them – I’ve used Wilkinson Sword and Tesco own brand in the past too. And I won’t stop aiming to be
Still part of the Team
Back in 2015, I wrote about the importance of Team Sports in the context of my Son joining an under-10s football team.
Three seasons later and he’s still playing for the same team.
It’s in the Numbers
My day-job can make a person rather blasé about large numbers. Which, when I stop and think about it, is worrying because those large numbers I deal with represent money—in many cases more money than most people would ever encounter in their lives.
Politically Homeless
I wrote this post over a year ago and a lot has changed since then. Me and my political thinking chief among them. Oh, I haven’t converted to the Church of Corbyn or anything like that, but I do think I’ve drifted much more towards “The Centre” than I’ve previously ever been. I think I might even have drifted slightly left of centre, if I’m being completely honest with myself. Only slightly left, though. Or maybe the world around me has lurched a long way to the right? Is that it? I’ve always considered myself to be slightly right of centre. I have always believed in the rights and responsibilities of the individual over The State. I’ve always believed that The State should be there to provide the public services that it’s not realistic (or should that be profitable) for The Market to provide, to look after those who can’t look after themselves and to provide a helping hand back onto their feet to people who’ve fallen on hard times. And I still believe all that. I really do. But I think it’s my definitions of what’s realistic for The Market to provide and those who can’t look after themselves and what the helping hand is that have changed. I don’t know. Maybe my definitions haven’t changed and it’s simply the case that Brexit has broken everything and throughout 2018 the extremists on both The Right and The Left have felt released to say the things they’ve been thinking for years but never dared say before, making my position seem more moderate and ‘Centrist’ than ever before. But having listened to the public debate, which grows more and more toxic with each passing day, become more extreme at both ends, it’s made me question my own views, compare them to others and consider ideas that I’d have dismissed out of hand previously. The Railways, for example. I now think that having the railways, a public service, run for a profit by private companies might not be such a good idea. It leads to corners being cut to save money with the aim of increasing the dividends to shareholders. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of shareholder dividends. I hold shares myself through my pension and ISA so I want those dividends to be as high as possible, thank you very much. But the railways are such a crucial part of our national infrastructure, that surely any money they generate should be put back into making the service safer and more reliable. I don’t think straight ‘nationalisation’ and return to the days of British Rail is ideal either though, so maybe a hybrid solution can be found. Natwest has been run as a private company, but owned in the majority by the Government ever since the crash in 2008, so why can’t we do the same with the railways? Run them as Government owed, not-for-profit companies, with no special rights or market privileges? Indeed, as a public service, they’d actually have increased responsibilities. Universal Basic Income is something else I’ve been thinking about. It’s something I laughed at when presented by the Greens during the 2015 election campaign, but the more I think about it, the more I see merit in it. Of course, the more I think about it, the more I also see the problems any government would have in implementing it, but I think it could be done if the political will were there. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that I’ve changed politically more in the past twelve months than at any time in my life before. And it’s happened at a time when the political parties in this country are changing more than they have in decades, moving further apart from each other and, I believe, from the public at large. Sure, some of the people have been dragged right or left along with the Tories and Labour, but I do think there are more people like me now, people who feel politically homeless, as if we don’t have anyone to vote for, than there has ever been. My boy is thirteen now. A Teenager. And I still try, whenever I can, to make sure we’re listening to political debate and try and educate him politically. But while I was sure of where I stood and where I wanted to lead him a year ago, I no longer am. And that may not be a bad thing. Maybe it’s good for him to see his father trying to work out the current climate for himself, at the same time that he is trying to work it out. This, at least, will show him that one’s views are not fixed, that you can change your mind when the facts or the circumstances change. Ultimately, being the best, most engaged of political citizens requires thought and an ability to look at all sides of an argument and make a value judgement. And politically dogmatic people, those who have always swung the same way and are rigid in their views, don’t do that. They are not the ones that affect the results of elections. It’s people like me that decide elections. And that’s not a bad position to be in. Unless you don’t have anyone to vote for.
Left v Right
There was a conversation on the Radio this morning which, for me, perfectly illustrated the difference between left-wing and right-wing views of the world.
Language
I have said this before but, I love the way that language can be used to manipulate the way people think about something. Take, for example, the way that people who have entered a country though means other than the official channels have been described before and after the recent U.S. Presidential election. Prior to election day, during the campaign, these individuals were routinely referred to as “Illegal Immigrants.” And following election day, in particular in connection with the #sanctuarycampus protests, they are being called “Undocumented Immigrants.” Both descriptions are factually accurate. Entering a country in ways other than the proper channels, for example sneaking across a land border or stowing away on a sea-going vessel, is very much an illegal act and leads to the individual not having the appropriate documentation, like a visa, and thereby being ‘undocumented’. But the two words used here are meant to make the listener/reader think and feel different things about those being described. “Illegal” is clearly a bad thing. Its usage is designed to make one consider these people in a harsh light. They are criminals. They are ‘cheating the system’. Whereas “Undocumented” is a much softer description. Its use is designed to make you think that those being described are not bad people, they haven’t really done anything wrong, they just don’t have the right paperwork. And yet, both words remain factually accurate descriptors of the people in this situation – that being, people who have not used the proper channels to enter a country. Keep in mind, this isn’t even a descriptor of refugees, because refugees entering a country do so legally and will have appropriate documentation. The choice of descriptor tells you as much about the people choosing to use it as the people being described – if you’re able to look past the rhetoric and no be manipulated by the power of the chosen descriptor, that is. Language. It’s fascinating. And it’s one of the reason I choose to write. I love being able to manipulate what people think and feel through my choice of words. I guess what separates me from the political class is that I do it for entertainment, yours as much as mine, while they do it for “other reasons”.
Protesting Democracy
In 2015, when Britain voted for a right-of-centre Conservative majority that no one had predicted, there were protests on the street from left-wingers. In June 2016 when Britain voted to leave the EU when no one expected it, left-wingers were on the streets protesting. And now that Trump has been elected President when no one expected it, the left-wingers are on the streets protesting. Why don’t left-wingers like democracy? You didn’t see right-of-centre people protest when Tony Blair or Barrak Obama were elected. But when they lose elections, left-wingers seem to be “mad as hell” and “aren’t going to take it anymore”. Sorry, but I don’t understand that attitude.
