We're all in this together

What difference can I make, just little old me? There are so many good things we could do that would only be effective if all or most of us did them – reducing car and plane use or meat consumption for environmental reasons, voting in elections, letting other people off the train before you try to get on, queueing, calling people out on racism, sexism, ableism, etc. What’s the point in doing these things if it’s just you doing them? You’re just a drop in the ocean.

If you’re nodding right now, what exactly do you think the ocean is made of?

There is no other way to achieve these things, other than for individuals to do them. If the only person you can influence is you, then the only thing you can do is to do these things yourself. Otherwise they are impossible. And that’s clearly not right, because they’d happen if everybody did them!

In some cases of course, you can influence other people too. It would be the topic of a different post to say how and when that should happen – no-one likes an evangelist, but some issues have to be worth fighting or campaigning for (politely, of course). But even if you can’t influence anyone, you can still do your bit. The clue is in the phrase; it’s your bit; no-one else can do that for you, so at the very least you should take care of that.

The problem, I think, is a total lack of a sense of collective responsibility. When it comes to patriotism, or supporting a team, we are all in favour of having a collective identity as a group – of being one component part of a larger body with its own voice and its own views. But as soon as it comes to something more substantial than just cheering – or sadly perhaps more often to booing others – we suddenly don’t understand the idea of being part of a group any more. As soon as it comes down to responsibility, we become nothing more than isolated individuals, denying our connections to others almost entirely. This makes no sense.

The notion of collective responsibility is crucial. For one thing, the very idea of democracy is founded on it. The people of a country elect their representatives. That is the people as a whole do so. That only happens because individual people go to the ballot box. How else could it happen? Are we so arrogant that if our individual contribution can’t be statistically significant, we deem it not worth making? “Give me ten votes, or a hundred, then I’ll do it. I have to be orders of magnitude more significant than everyone else, or I'm not even going to bother”. Seriously?

Imagine this: If you were a tourist at some really popular destination, somewhere you knew had a constant stream of visitors, and they had an attraction where each person had to lay a single brick as part of building a massive wall, would you join in? I think most people would, especially once the first few bricks were laid, and the results were beginning to show. In fact, I think most people would love being part of something like that. We have it in us to be collectively constructive, but we switch this skill off when it comes to social responsibility.

It’s time we did better on this. In fact, particularly where the environment is concerned, it’s past time. If we get onto this straight away, we can limit the damage somewhat, but by most estimates, that’s the best we can do. Where social progress is concerned, we are at least moving in the right direction in many respects now. Social media has played a real part in letting us see that many individual contributions make a real collective that can cause real change. Like the bricks in the wall, we have something visible and tangible to give us hope.

The challenge is in finding ways to visualise what we can achieve as a collective for the spheres in which we do much less well – voter turn-out and the environment in particular. If people can feel the bricks and see the wall (so to speak), it might be easier to join the dots between individual action and collective action. If individuals could see their own contributions in this kind of way, there might be less temptation to say that you can do nothing.

This does, of course, increase your sense of responsibility. But along with that burden comes power, control over our shared future (which is your own future, remember – this all works both ways), and a feeling of being part of something important. Perhaps, to re-appropriate a slogan from the current government (they weren't using it right anyway), we really are all in this together.

If a blog post falls on deaf ears, does it make a sound?

This post is obviously pertinent to bloggers, but I hope not just bloggers. There’s a lot to be said too about social media, the online information age in general, and about writing (diaries, opinion pieces, whatever).

The question is: Is it worth writing something that no-one will ever read? If the answer is “yes”, the next question is: Is it worth posting something online that no-one will ever read? I'm saying “yes” to both questions.

The first question is the easy one. It’s a piece of advice beloved of agony aunts, therapists, motivational speakers, life coaches, and really anyone who dispenses advice, that if something is really troubling you, you should write about it, then destroy what you have written. If you are angry with someone, write a letter telling them how you feel, then burn the letter. If you are struggling with an issue from your past, write about it, then shred the paper. The act of getting the badness out of your system, like pus from a wound, and then throwing it away so that you can move on, is remarkably cleansing. It might not work for everyone in every case, but it certainly can work, and that makes it worth a shot.

So it is worth writing something that no-one will ever read. Keepers of secret diaries know this too. There’s worthwhile catharsis to be had. But in the age of social media, when so much of the lives of so many of us are lived online, what of the temptation to post your thoughts or your diary entry on a blog? Or to put them on twitter or facebook, or a personal website? This seems less widely acceptable. A lot of people do it, but I’d be willing to bet a lot of people think it’s narcissistic and pointless. There’s probably some overlap between those two lots of people.

I think there’s something beneficial to the modern person in posting their thoughts online, even if no-one reads them, and even if the writer knows that. Part of who we are is expressive, and this expression doesn't need an audience, or at least it shouldn't. That sounds pretentious, but I think it makes sense to most people. Think about some similar examples: You might wear clothes you like, even if no-one sees you wearing them. You might get a tattoo that’s in a place where it’s always covered up. You might tidy your flat, even if no-one’s coming round. You might sing a song you like, even if no-one’s listening, and you’re not practising for a time when they are. All these things are expressive of your personality or how you’re feeling, and doing them is as much a part of you as the colour of your eyes, the way you stand, or what makes you laugh.

Now that so much of our lives has moved online, it’s not surprising that that expressive dimension is to be found there too. It’s the perfect place for it, with the internet’s instant communication, ready links to images, audio and video, and the ability to edit and re-edit almost anything you want. It’s not narcissistic to be who you are, and part of that is always going to be expressive in some way. The online world, and social media and blogging in particular, are the perfect venue for that expression, so it’s natural to find it there. The act of expressing, even to an audience that only ever exists in potential, is the act of being you.

A final caveat though: If you don’t accept that expression online doesn't need an audience, then for you, it probably won’t be true that it doesn't. If you believe you need the attention of others on everything you do in order to validate it, then you will continue to need that attention. The cathartic and expressive benefits of blogging or similar are only available to those who do it for themselves, not for the audience. If there is an audience, and you reach them and inspire or comfort them, of course it’s ok to take pride in that. It’s also ok to think about who you might be offending before you post. However, as soon as you are a slave to your audience, and value your contribution to the world only in terms of the number of people who see that contribution, or how loudly or vehemently they comment on it, then you have lost the main benefit of communicating it in the first place.

Of course, all of this could be a desperate bid to console myself that if no-one reads this, it hasn't been a waste of my evening typing it. You are completely free to think that. But if you do, remember that a) you read this far, so it hasn't been totally wasted on you; and b) I feel better for having written and posted it, so I really don’t have to care what you think.

Put away childish things?

Kids’ stuff is pretty fashionable right now. In clothes there’s fun prints and pop socks (even with sandals, shock horror!); in entertainment, all the classic children’s TV is being re-made (The Magic Roundabout, the Clangers); and even in food, we have cupcakes and cake pops absolutely EVERYWHERE. Is there anything wrong with all this?

Some people are highly suspicious of it all, and I can sort of see why. There’s two main criticisms I've heard around the place (can’t remember where; they’re just, you know, in the air): 1) It’s just escapism because the country has been in recession for years, and we shouldn't give in to it, but instead should face up to the harsh realities of our lives, and 2) It’s feeding into some latent paedophilia, and that’s obviously horrific, so we shouldn't go there. I’ll deal with number 2 first, because now I’ve mentioned the “p” word, no-one will be calm enough to think about number 1 until 2 is done with.

This is most often a worry with things like “school disco” events at clubs, or very sexualised clothing that’s also somehow childlike. And maybe in some of those cases, people complaining about this are on to something. Adult school discos are meat-markets, and that’s inappropriate. But that doesn’t mean the objection applies across the board, and that eating a cupcake, or wearing a dress with kittens on it, or whatever, is in any way suspect. And in any case, there’s something of victim-blaming about suggesting that the problem is with the person wearing particular clothes, or eating particular food. You can bet they’re not doing it with the aim of seducing a paedophile. If someone finds them attractive on grounds of childlikeness, then that person is the one with the problem, not their target.

The reason they’re probably wearing / eating whatever it is, far from a warped attempt at sexiness, is because it’s fun. And I think it’s because it’s fun that you see cupcakes on sale at burlesque nights, and sexy clothes that are also cutesy. We’re combining multiple types of fun, some of which are adult, and some of which are childish. There are bad ways of associating those two things, so it’s not unproblematic, but by and large it’s the people making the associations who have the problem. So I think school disco bad, cupcakes absolutely fine, other stuff perhaps somewhere in the middle. But we can debate about whether the stuff in the middle crosses a line without getting hysterical and tarring everything with the same horrific brush, because some of it is definitely innocent.

Fun brings me to issue number 1 – that people only like this stuff because it’s escapist, and we should all live in the real world. It might be right that it’s largely escapist. People who say this are on to something I think, when they point out that it’s no coincidence all this has become fashionable during times of hardship. Where they’re wrong though, is in thinking there’s anything wrong with that. Escapism is an essential ingredient in a healthy life. Without it we’d have a lot less art, a lot fewer dreams, and a much duller world. Of course it can all go too far – if you’re sitting around watching The Magic Roundabout in your pants all day because it’s easier than dealing with your job, friends and family, then you’re overdoing the escaping. But then, if you’re doing that, you probably need help rather than condemnation. We all use things to help us escape – alcohol, holidays, a good film, sex, a trashy magazine, a gym session – and it’s just as well too, or we’d all go mad.

So both arguments come back to fun. I see no reason why children should have all of it. We shouldn’t shoulder our adult martyrdom and refuse all joy. Some of what made us happy as kids still can, and provided it doesn’t interfere with other aspects of our lives, I don’t see the harm in indulging that. Children are people, adults are people, we’re going to have some stuff in common, including some fairly basic things that make us happy. We have to give up on some of those things, or at least rein them in substantially, when we grow up, but that’s because they get in the way of other responsibilities we now have. You can’t spend all day on the swings when you have a mortgage to pay.

But who went from that to saying that “grown-ups don’t go on the swings”, huh? Fools. If it makes you happy, you have the time, and it’s not hurting anyone (don’t take small kids’ turn in the playground), go on the swings! Why not? Put away childish things to the time in your schedule when you can afford to indulge them by all means, but don’t bury them entirely if they still bring you joy. There’s no reason kids should have all the fun.

Baby, baby….baby, baby…so many babies!

It is widely accepted that there are too many of us (see e.g. these images, this article, and this website). There aren't enough resources for us all to have a decent quality of life even if we could manage the resources we have optimally, and we are a long way from knowing how to do that. And it’s getting worse. There are of course people who deny this for various reasons, but I'm interested in why even those who do believe it continue to have babies. Many, many babies. They’re everywhere; just log in to any social media site and scroll. Most days they even outnumber cats, and cats own the internet.

I think the reason is that people like stories. We like being part of stories, and we tell ourselves that our story is taking a particular form we know and love, even if that requires a little self-deception. Everyone’s favourite story is a fairy tale with a happy ending. You might not think it, but just because you aren't a princess-in-a-tower-prince-charming-on-his-white-horse kind of person, it doesn't mean you don’t like fairy tales.

The thing about fairy tales is that they are folk stories, and thus pretty formulaic. The basic formula for a life story goes: grow up, overcome adversity, be an amazingly popular and charismatic party animal, find A Steady Job and settle down with The Right Person, marry them, have 2.4 children, invest in a cottage with roses round the door (or a semi with space for a BBQ in the garden), raise children to live the same life as you with certain minor improvements (a bit more money, etc.) Most people would add a hatchback in the drive, a family dog, annual holidays in the sun, and a flat screen TV. Anyone who doesn't add those things is clearly An Individual, a bit of a maverick, but basically still ok because they have the main chapters of the story intact; they have only changed the details.

In many respects we all delude ourselves into thinking we are following the script better than we are. We pretend some waster is The Right Person, we pretend our jobs are steadier than they are; we've all done these things to advance to the next chapter as soon as we can. We’re chasing the happy ending.

The trouble is, the world doesn't fit. We haven’t the space or the resources left in this world for fairy tales. We’re heading for something more like dystopian sci-fi. As resources run out, people will fight over them. As people from different cultures are forced to share space more and more closely, they will fight over it. It’s already happening. As the climate warms, the crops fail, our tribes become more divided and suspicious of outsiders, old diseases run rampant, and we lose our faith in doctors, politicians, and one another, we will fight. We’re defending the story. Did you ever snap at a friend for suggesting that your current partner wasn't The Right Person to be settling down with? Nothing makes us more edgy and makes us turn on one another quite like the defensiveness of pretending that the story is unfolding just fine when it clearly is not.

The only future our world has space and materials to support, the only future those endless babies have to look forward to when they grow up, is one where they have to fight for everything. If you starve rats, then throw them in a steep-sided barrel from which they can’t escape, with only a few scraps of food, they will tear each other to shreds for those scraps, then start eating one another. That seething mass of desperate rats in a barrel is the future if our current story is allowed to play out.

We are well-practised in self-deception. We are just too good at defensive denial. But we do know the truth; we write and read about it in the papers all the time. We just don’t let the knowledge touch us, so we live according to the lie, not the truth we know. If we lived according to what we know, rather than the fantasy, there would be a lot fewer babies.

This dystopian hell might not happen to this generation. All the babies currently gracing Instagram might get to live out their parents’ lives again, producing more babies, and more dreams of marriages and semi-detached houses and family cars. It might not even happen to the next generation. The world is too complex a system to predict with any exactness. But unless something changes dramatically, it will happen relatively soon.

The biggest ray of hope in all this I think is not carbon storage technologies, or one-child policies, good as these things may be if handled appropriately. It’s diversification in the stories we tell ourselves. It is becoming more and more acceptable to diverge from the standard fairy tale; to not marry, to change careers as often as you want, and most importantly, to remain child-free. The more choice people have to mould their own story, the more opportunities there are to make genuine choices based on what the world can offer you, and what you really want, rather than slavish adherence to the same old story. This will not only bring population down by making family life only one option among many, it will increase the tolerance of difference we need in a crowded world.

It’s time to ditch the standard fairy tale. All except the ideal of a happy ending, of course.

I feel pretty

Why do people like wearing clothes that they like? Sounds like that’s answered its own question – because they like them – but some people don’t seem to understand that.

A while ago a friend of mine said that she would happily buy a new dress even if she didn't have anywhere to wear it to. She would be happy just wearing it alone in her flat. Most people found this weird. I think it makes perfect sense (if you like clothes. Clearly not everybody will or should feel the same way).

I think this is basically the same as someone buying a painting. You hang it in your flat, and you don’t have to wait for other people to come round and see it before you start appreciating having it. You might enjoy showing it off if you’re that sort of person and it’s that sort of painting, but there’s no reason you have to. Most people don’t find this nearly so hard to understand, so why don’t they think the same about clothes?

The common idea seems to be that people who care about what they wear dress the way they do in order to get attention. Normally people mean sexual attention, but they can also just mean general “look at me!” attention. But that can’t be right. Women in particular often get a lot of attention that they don’t enjoy at all (again, mostly sexual) for what they wear, but continue to dress the same ways. For many people (although of course not all) the kind of attention their clothing brings them is a real cost. There has to be a benefit to outweigh this and make them keep dressing up. In fact I often think that if I had an invisibility cloak, one of the first things I would do is go shopping and buy some of the clothes I never wear because it would attract attention I would hate, but which I actually think I would look and feel good in. I can’t be entirely alone in that thought.

Clothing choices are partly expressive of who you are and how you feel (or at the very least of your taste in clothes) but that doesn't mean those expressions need an audience (or at least not always). I swear when I stub my toe, even if no-one’s there. It’s expressive and it makes me feel better. Everyone knows it’s fun to dance when no-ones watching. It’s expressive and it makes you feel better. Having a painting hung on your wall, even if no-one else sees it, if you are the sort of person who is into art, is expressive and makes you feel better. So it makes perfect sense that wearing an outfit that you like is also expressive and makes you feel better, regardless of whether anyone sees you wearing it.

This might not be true if no-one ever saw you. But that’s pretty hard to imagine. You probably wouldn't do any of the things in that last paragraph either, because if you never met other people, you probably wouldn't even know what swearing or dancing or paintings were!

Sometimes you might wear clothes to get a particular kind of attention. The same is true of swearing, dancing, or hanging paintings on your wall. Any of them might be explicitly meant to say something to people in general, or someone in particular. The point is just that they need not. It makes perfect sense to enjoy wearing a nice outfit on your own.

There are various consequences of accepting this. One is that if you are going to be at home on your own all day and would rather dress up than dress down, you can, and that’s not weird. Another is that if someone says you’re only dressing a certain way to get attention, and that’s not true, you can say so and have every right to be believed. Another is that if you get unwanted attention, you have every right to be annoyed. They don’t get to say you were asking for it, because the main reason for wearing what you do is just that you like it, and the fact that they happen to be there is irrelevant at best. A final happy consequence is that you don’t need an excuse to buy a new outfit, other than that you like it. No more “I have nowhere to wear it”. So what? Unless you are spending the rest of your like as a nudist, you have somewhere to wear it.

Wearing things you like can make you feel good. It’s not for everyone. Some people couldn't care less what they wear, some would rather wear nothing at all whenever that’s comfortable and legal, and others spend most of their time somewhere that there’s a uniform code. That’s all well and good, but for people who do make choices about what to wear, wearing things you like can make you feel more relaxed, more complete, more attractive (even if there’s no-one around you actually want to attract), and just more like yourself. There’s no reason to stop wanting that just because no-one else can see you. You don’t cease to exist when you are by yourself, so your taste in clothes doesn't need to either.

Just walk on by

What should you do when you see someone you find attractive in the street or on a train?

a) Compliment them and try to strike up conversation

b) Shout sexually explicit obscenities

c) Just walk on by.

It’s c), folks. The answer is always c).

But what about a) you ask? Why is a) not ok? Because it’s creepy. If you are talking to them because you find them attractive, they will obviously know that, and that will come across as creepy, no matter how uncreepy you are trying to be. Think you deserve a medal for not resorting to b)? Think again.

The problem with these kinds of approaches is that they try to create a sexually-charged situation in a totally inappropriate context. You have no idea why that person is out today; they may be visiting a sick relative, or appearing in court, but more likely they’re just going to work, or getting some shopping. In any case, these are not sexual scenarios. Having someone else’s sexual attraction imposed on them when they’re just trying to go about their day is intrusive and dehumanising.

Why dehumanising? Because they’re being treated as an attractive thing, rather than as a person who is in the middle of a life of their own, with tasks to perform, and other things and people to think about. You going and charging into the middle of that and effectively saying “STOP EVERYTHING! THERE ARE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO USE YOU FOR!” is insisting that their ongoing human life is worth less than your fleeting desire.

You don’t have a right to a piece of someone just because they are out in public. Appearing in public is not consent. It isn't a flirtatious act. It isn't a bid for attention. Thinking any of these things considers the person you are looking at only in terms of how they might fit in to your story, completely disregarding the fact that they have one of their own. The world isn't a meat counter always open for you to grab a free lunch. Or even to walk in and drool over for a bit while talking about how much you’d like a free lunch before walking out again. Still not ok.

But how will anyone ever have sex then, or get into a relationship? Well, meet people in contexts where they want to be met. Try going to a singles night, or speed dating. Sexually-charged situations, much like actual sex, have to be mutually created by two (or I guess more) people, not imposed by one person on another. Meet someone you know is looking, then read the signs from there. And genuinely read them; don’t assume that any vague degree of politeness is a come-on. It isn't. You can’t make things true just by wanting them to be. There is no point at all if it isn't mutual, because if it isn't mutual, it isn't sexual.

But what if that person was “the one”, the best partner ever, and you passed them by? Well really, I'm not sure anyone over the age of about 17 should be believing in “the one”. But anyway, consider how effective these random approaches are really likely to be. You’ll get to know people through work, mutual friends, all the usual stuff. These are the ways most people meet partners. The key is that these things involve meeting someone, not just picking them out based on their appearance. How often have you found that someone you liked the look of was impossible to get on with? And how often have you found that someone who wasn't particularly attractive to begin with became really attractive once you got to know them? Given that these two things happen all the time, it basically tells you nothing at all about compatibility if someone just happens to catch your eye. It’s just as likely that you’d be perfect with the other person you just walked past without even noticing. Which is admittedly to say not very likely at all.

But isn't it just a compliment; something that will make them feel good? Well, for some people that probably is true. The problem is that if they don’t like it, it could really ruin their day, whereas if they would have liked it and you kept silent, their day has gone on entirely as usual so they've lost nothing. Be honest, you aren't really complimenting them out of the goodness of your heart anyway, but for what you hope you can get out of it. There’s also an issue that they maybe shouldn't be flattered by something which diminishes their value as a human being at the expense of just being considered more physically attractive, but that’s way more contentious so I’ll leave that point alone here.

Of course there’s no harm in noticing that someone is attractive. It’s not the sort of thing you can help. Just don’t let them know that you've noticed, just in case (and it is quite likely) that they’d really rather you didn't. No catcalling, no compliment, no attempted friendly chat, no obvious looking up and down. Just keep on walking.

Pretty hot, or just pretty?

In the last few months I have heard many things described as “just not sexy”, or “not sexy enough”, or words to that effect. These things include clothing, body shape, body hair, how someone smiles, particular styles of dance, how a particular person dances, and, perhaps most bizarrely of all, university subject choices. In none of these cases is sexiness the only relevant measure, and in some cases it isn't relevant at all. I'm bored of sexiness.

Not bored of sex, I should point out. Just bored of everything being measured in terms of how sexy it is, as though that’s all anything exists for. Often, “sexy” or “hot” are just used as general terms of praise. I think that’s what was happening with the university subject choices example. The fact that these things are now our favourite way of saying we like something is an annoying symptom, but it isn't the main problem. The main problem comes when we actually want to rate something’s (or someone’s) attractiveness.

I'm not talking about attractiveness as a dating prospect, or anything like that, just the kind of aesthetic judgements you’d make of a painting, or a view from a window. Our only way of liking the look of something now seems to be wanting to shag it. In many cases that raises practical difficulties, but it’s also pretty damn disturbing.

We all know that things can be pretty, or beautiful, or cute, or whatever else, without being sexy, or we wouldn't apply these adjectives to children and animals. So why, as soon as it’s something that it’s not actually illegal and messed up to fancy, do we revert straight back to using “sexy” and “hot” as our only ways of saying that something looks nice? And even when sexiness isn't the only thing, why is it still the main thing? I've heard “beautiful, but not sexy” used as a criticism (of a dancer in this case). Why is everything else subordinate to sexiness?

The problem with this, and probably part of the cause of it, is the immense pressure to be sexy all the time. There are loads of other things people might want to convey through their clothes, their movements, their choices, their expressions. Loads of things other than sexiness. If we lose all of that, the world becomes very boring. And sexiness becomes very boring too, because it’s everywhere all of the time, and constantly striving for it yourself and assessing it in others makes it a chore. And that’s a huge loss because of course, in the right circumstances, sexiness is really important for most people.

Currently, women are suffering the most from this constant pressure to be sexy. Consider professional dress, for example. The smartest suit you can imagine for a woman is probably at least a bit sexy. It probably goes with make-up, and maybe even heels. Something plainer will be taken less seriously in most professions. Consider fitness, for another example. You don’t get fit for the sake of your health, but for how sexy you’ll look in your sexy new outfit at some sexy event. This all entrenches objectification of women even further into a culture where it’s already pretty deeply embedded. The message is that women exist only to provide sexiness. Fail at that, and you are neither use nor ornament.

But men are catching up. The fitness example I just gave for women certainly applies to a large extent to men too, and the professional attire example might as well in a lot of jobs. This is not good equality. Men used to have a chance to be judged on attributes other than their sexiness, but no more! Why get an education (unless it makes women fancy you)? Why get a good job (unless the salary will attract hot women)? It’s fine to prioritise finding a relationship in your life, but good relationships aren't exclusively made and maintained by sexiness, as anyone over the age of about twenty is surely aware.

The solution of course is not to stop talking about sex, or attraction. Just don’t be afraid to expand your vocabulary a bit. Compliments will often ring truer, and judgements be more honest, if they respect what a person, or style, or performance, is setting out to convey. That might be sexiness, but even if it is, it probably isn't just sexiness in most cases. Life is richer than that, and it’s time our talk reflected that fact, or that richness will be lost.