This is fun, worthwhile and highly recommended.* Even if you can’t go, please pass on the details to people who might! Or “tell a friend to tell a friend”, as the young folk say…
“The Greater Manchester Land Army visits organic farms in and around the city, to help with jobs like harvesting, planting and weeding. Our goals are to increase the availability of organic food in Manchester, while giving people the chance to spend a day getting their hands dirty and learning about sustainable food production. Over the next couple of months Land Army trips will be taking place on the following dates:
Thursday 22nd May, Saturday 31st May, Thursday 5th June and Saturday 5th June
We provide lunch, tools, gloves and transport. If you’d like to come along, or to find out more, call Corrina at The Kindling Trust on 0161 226 2242 or email corrina@kindling.org.uk
* A long long time ago MCFly editor Marc Hudson went on one of these days. Came back with all his fingers and toes, but lost a book to a fellow volunteer. So it goes…
Website on cycling for transport to be launched during Bike Week
This summer will see the official publication of a consumer guide to utility cycling. Cycling For Transport will be launched at the start of Bike Week.
The website will be a source of information on bikes and cycling accessories, written especially for those who want to cycle for transport. Alongside technical information on bike parts, it will give practical tips on integrating cycling into everyday life, including pages on storing a bike at home and on non-sporty clothing suitable for longer journeys. It will also have a concise glossary explaining bike terms, helping new cyclists to cut through the jargon.
CyclingForTransport.com is being written by Alex Bailey, a life-long cyclist living in North Manchester who cycles to get around the city. “Bicycles have been my main mode of transport for 25 years, and I have a marginally unhealthy obsession with them,” jokes Alex. “I’ve now decided it’s now time to stop boring my friends with my cycling information and instead to put it online where people who actually want bike facts can find them!”
“There are plenty of cycling sites out there, but this one will deal with utility cycling, rather than racing, mountain biking or leisure rides,” says Alex. “Transport cycling in the UK seems to be the poor cousin of performance cycling. And as long as the manufacturers perceive cycling as a sport, the bike shops will sell the wrong bikes to people who actually want to cycle to work. However, when consumers know what to look for, they choose something more suitable.”
“So people need accurate information. I wanted to create a site where utility cycling solutions were presented clearly and without unnecessary detail.”
A text-only version of the site was uploaded late last year so that other cyclists could offer comment. This spring, the site was illustrated with photographs taken in Bristol, Bath, Cambridge, London and Manchester. Additional images will be uploaded prior to the official launch on 14 June 2014.
Cycling For Transport is a technical website for people who want to make cycling their main mode of transport for short journeys. It has information on bicycle components and accessories. It also covers the practicalities of integrating cycling with everyday life. The site is located at www.cyclingfortransport.com and a full list of the pages is available at the site map.
Alex Bailey is a teacher and technical writer living in North Manchester. He has cycled as his main form of transport for 25 years.
Bike Week takes place 14 to 22 June 2014. It is a celebration of cycling to work, with events taking place throughout the UK. More information can be found at www.bikeweek.org.uk.
Jokes about the ship hitting the fan aside, this will probably be interesting, frustrating, depressing and useful. Anyone who goes and does an event report for MCFly will get a big splodgy kiss… Please forward details (of the conference, not the kiss) on to anyone who you think would be interested .
SHIPPING IN CHANGING CLIMATES: PROVISIONING THE FUTURE
18th and 19th June 2014, Hilton Hotel, Liverpool, UK
Registration is open plus we are hosting a conference dinner and reception at the Hilton Hotel on 18th June. Registration for the conference and conference dinner is available here
Keynote presentations will include speakers from the International Chamber of Shipping, Lloyd’s Register, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Shell and CE Delft. In addition to keynotes, the conference will include presentation topics ranging from fuels of the future, alternative methods of propulsion, to policy implications and challenges.
We would be extremely grateful if you would pass this e-mail onto any colleagues who might be interested in attending the conference.
Places for both the conference and dinner are limited so book now to avoid disappointment.
Please do not hesitate to contact me, or check www.tyndall.manchester.ac.uk, if you would like any further information.
Best wishes
Amrita Sidhu
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
If you are as time-poor as the rest of us, feel free to skip to the final section, past the “smiley activism doesn’t work” and “Hudson’s first law of Mancunian activism” to the “what is to be done” bit.
The implication of your tweets is that if only I was all sweetness and light, things would be peachy. But…
Smiley activism doesn’t work.
How do I know? Some (by no means all) experiences; 2007. Participated (at council’s invite) in repeated workshops that were supposed to lead to a citizen-written climate policy by end of year. The process fizzled out. 2008. Asked about the promised Climate Strategy engagement. Fobbed off (and then lied to about how the Council was going to spend the £1m that was set aside for Carbon Reduction. But I digress). 2009. Co-launched “Call to Real Action”, which helped Council run its stakeholder-engagement process to produce the “Manchester Climate Change Action Plan” 2009 -10. Endless meetings of the Environmental Advisory Panel (which I proposed), which I attended unpaid. Panel became Council-dominated fig-leaf and talking shop. 2010. Invited to attend Economy Employment and Skills Scrutiny Committee meeting. Council promised to prepare report on Steady State Economics. Council didn’t 2011. Launched open letter – signed by various people the Council likes – where we offered to help write a document about Steady State Economics. Council members said “yes”, but officers “forgot” this and went ahead and wrote their own. 2012. Proposed a series of low-cost ways to revamp of the sclerotic Environmental Advisory Panel. A very senior officer publicly announced the council would work with me to produce questionnaire/proposal. The council didn’t, and then abolished the Panel. 2014. Launched open letter to Council on 9 actions it could take on climate change. [Here’s a link to the video] And we were met with blandishments and buck-passing and broken promises. See a pattern emerging at all?
[And it’s not just me – plenty of other people have tried to engage the Council. And found that unless you are offering yourself as a fig-leaf, saying what they want to hear, then you are ignored.]
But of course, just because smiles don’t work, doesn’t automatically mean that snarls do. Except they sometimes can, and I am a little surprised you don’t acknowledge this, given our recent history.
In February 2014 at Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee you asked for a progress report on the long-delayed Green Infrastructure Strategy. This was accepted as a recommendation and then WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND ON THE MARCH MEETING AGENDA. (Sorry for shouting, but this stuff matters)
And guess what – I wrote a robust email – which I cced you into, and as if by magic, the item appeared and was discussed… (For that email, see footnote 2)
Hudson’s first law of Mancunian policy activism (3) Policy initiatives from outside the Town Hall/Chamber of Commerce nexus will only be acknowledged if they a) help avert embarrassment and/or b) further entrench the comfort and power of the incumbents.
For some history and theoretical underpinnings (4), see this video.
So, the “Call to Real Action” climate project of April 2009 was welcomed because the Council had tried and failed to do plausible climate policymaking, and The Glorious Leader had committed to flying to Copenhagen in 8 months’ time with a completed policy in his hand.
And any attempts to get the Council to think outside the box (steady state economics) or to properly scrutinise themselves and their abject failure would create serious discomfort, risking the image (the word is used advisedly) of “Open for Business” and “Everything basically under control.”
So, if I believe all this, why do I bother? Because I can’t not. I can’t tear my eyes away from the car crash that is Manchester’s endless bullshitting about climate change. True, it’s merely a microcosm of the species’ bullshitting, but it’s one that I – as a citizen with freedom of speech, freedom of assembly-(ish) and occasional freedom of information – have a responsibility to try to DO something about. Thus Manchester Climate Monthly, the videos, the interviews, and the concrete proposals of how things could be done differently. The proposals that never get taken up unless they save embarrassment…
What is to be done?
So, Kevin, you have a reputation for speaking out – both in public and ‘behind closed doors’ – about overweening power and the damage it can do. It seems to me then, it would very very helpful if you could;
a) go into specifics of what you proposed in your 30min+ speech at the Unlock Democracy event on Tuesday (the one you said I should have been at.) What, precisely, do you think needs to change in the mechanics of the scrutiny committees, the Executive’s consultative panel etc?
b) explain which of the seven proposals that I put forward in such a positive and engaging way you agree with, and what you are therefore going to push for within the Labour Party/Group and as a councillor. When are you going to push for them? How?
c) explain which (if any) of the seven proposals you disagree with, and give your reasons.
If you want to have an (unedited) guest post on MCFly, you are welcome. If you want to write it on your own website, MCFly would happily cross-post/link to it.
But the citizens of Manchester – whether they vote or not – should be able both to test your ideas and to find out what you think of other people’s ideas, above and beyond cheap tone-policing.
Best wishes to your party for what is sure to be a very tight race in all wards.
Marc Hudson
Footnotes
(1) “Presentation issues”; That’s a euphemism for my sarcasm and cynicism. Why do I write like that? Because smiley activism doesn’t work. And so you are left with the decision of whether to speak truth to power. And of how to keep your self-respect intact. I know several people who think they are changing the system from within. And these people – I don’t know how they look themselves in the eye in the morning. So many compromises, so many silences, so much cowardice. If I am going to do this activism – unpaid – then the only payment is the ability to call it like I see it. Perhaps you can understand? I don’t know.
(2) Here’s the email I sent, on February 27th (cced to Cllrs Kevin Peel and Kate Chappell)
Dear Councillor Curley,
I am writing to you in your capacity as chair of Neighbourhoods Scrutiny.
as you may remember, I was at the Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee meeting in early February.
At the end of the discussion of the Climate Change “Action” “Plan” I distinctly heard Councillor Kevin Peel request that the long-delayed Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy be submitted to the March Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Committee.
I also distinctly heard this recommendation be accepted.
I am therefore confused and alarmed that
a) the minutes do not reflect this, and that
b) the item is not scheduled for discussion.
I await your response.
Marc Hudson
(3) The “law” is an embarrassing banality. It’s not special to Manchester. Any encrusted regime acts the same way. It’s the niche actors who need to decide how they respond. The best way is to have both an inside and outside approach. And to movement-build. Which is hard, when you’ve too few actually reliable people. So it goes.
(4) By “theoretical underpinnings” I of course mean “hobby-horses for which I found some academic footnotes”.
So, after 5 years, the Manchester Certain Future “steering group” (see MCFly passim ad nauseam)
a) holds its first AGM, with less than a month’s notice
b) sends the radical goal of creating a “low carbon culture” down the memory hole
c) keeps the focus nice and tight on businesses. Civil society? Not so much…
And are they getting any locally successful “carbon entrepreneurs” to do the keynote? Of course not. They’re importing Tom Burke, no wait, that was two years ago, Tony Juniper. Who has so much to say about the specifics of Manchester’s failures, successes and challenges.
Tuesday 10th June. Maybe they’ll announce that a third organisation has got an implementation plan towards the twingoals of carbon emissions reduction and the creation of a low carbon culture. Which would leave only another 997 to go. Below is the email they are sending out.
Dear Mark [sic],
Manchester: A Certain Future is an action plan to reduce the carbon emissions by 41% for the City of Manchester. [ed: AND CREATE A LOW CARBON CULTURE???]. What makes this plan so different is that it has been written by organisations all over the city, so it is owned by the city. And we all have a part to play. This year, we are focusing heavily on the plan. A number of actions and activities are taking place over the city to assist in meeting the targets of the plan.
The first AGM will present our first Annual Report documenting progress achieved so far against the targets set when the plan was published, and importantly, what we are doing now.
Our AGM is taking place on Tuesday 10th June 2014 at the Town Hall and we would love it if you were able to attend. The event starts at 4pm and from 6pm onwards there will be a drinks reception and time for networking.
Tony Juniper will give the keynote address and Gavin Elliot, Chairman of M:ACF Steering Group will present M:ACF’s 1st Annual Progress Report, followed by a Q+A session with the full Steering Group. There will also be an opportunity to question the Steering Group panel on progress made so far to reduce carbon emissions in the city and time to network with other delegates.
There are some big names involved in the plan and in the AGM so what a great opportunity to align your business or organisation to the city’s commitment to reduce its carbon emissions.
At time of posting this, 5 Lib Dem candidates, 18 Green candidates, 5 Conservatives, 1 Independent (Pirate Party – thanks to sharp-eyed reader Joe for correction) and … 2 Labour candidates (one a sitting councillor, one a candidate) have bothered to tell Manchester’s voters what they think.
Two. Out of 3233 candidates. [Joe also pointed out there are 33 elections – there are two seats in Sharston up for grabs, and both Labour and the Liberal #snowballschanceinhell Democrats are trying to get both.]
You can encourage candidates from ALL parties to fill in the survey, which is here.
UPDATE: See excellent list of suggestions from Holly in the comments, and a crucial point about gender constructions….
“Wonderful presentation from our guest speaker. Now, any questions?” says the chair of the meeting, usually about 10 or 15 minutes later than they ought.
Up shoot some hands. And those who’ve been to more than one or two meetings know what comes next…
Prepared “questions” that are thinly-or-not-at-all-disguised speeches and hectoring points. And these “questions” are asked by usual suspects, who are usually male.
As the clock runs out (and people drift out), a few female hands tentatively go up. Their owners have realised that their question – the one they’d told themselves wasn’t up to scratch – is actually better than what’s gone before. But, alas, it’s too late; only one or two get asked, and dealt with too quickly. And the meeting finishes, and with it the opportunity for something different.
We’ve all been here, yes?
And some of us have even seen the pattern. And some have even thought “if only women were more confident/if only the patriarchy didn’t teach them to shut up so much.”
It. Doesn’t. Have. To. Be. This. Way. It really doesn’t. And we don’t even have to wait for the overthrow of Entwined Phallocratic Capitalism.
It is – you’ll be happy to hear a man validate your concerns – absolutely the case that all-male panels are a problem worthy of dealing with (even boycotting). But it can genuinely be hard to find female speakers on certain issues. Why? Because for historical “legacy” (cough cough) issues, women are still not able to participate in the intellectual life of “the nation”.
What we could do, RIGHT NOW, is fix the Q and A problem. And at the same time, we might make our meetings more energising, more welcoming to other “minorities” (51% and all that), on criteria such as class, confidence, colour and clique. It would be a win-win. (Except for the incumbents – the chairs and their comrades who think time-limits are for the little people. They would lose…)
We are, I think, responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions. If we organise meetings on the existing format, then we are responsible whenever (and it’s usually the case) the Q and A of a meeting is dominated by a tedious clique of actual-or-metaphorical trots. We can, if we choose, tweak our actions, and have a higher likelihood of a different – even emancipatory – consequence.
Reasons that will be given for not doing this;
“We like the current set-up.” Yes. It shows.
“It requires change.” Oh, sorry, my bad.
“It requires that social movements change the way they do things. Any fule no that all the ills of the world are due to governments/states and corporations, and that social movements activists are pure and perfect. Didn’t you get the memo?” Whatevs/facepalm.
“It requires a very high-level of skill to say ‘turn to someone sat next to you or behind you and say hello, and help refine any questions that anyone has.’” Yes, of course it does. You sure you didn’t mean 1) or 2) or 3)?
“It takes too much time.” Er, given that two minutes is about the usual length of a single soul-destroying and credibility-sapping fake ‘question’ from one of the mates of the chair, I don’t really see how you can keep a straight face when you use this excuse.
“The focus on gender is a bourgeois deviationist individualist tendency. After our party seizes the control of the state (with a withering-away to be scheduled at a later date, naturally), all such problems will be liquidated. Along with those who keep banging on about them, comrade.” You crack me up, you really do. Comrade.
“It comes from Marc Hudson and he is atheist/Australian/bitter failure/burnt-out cynic/conflict-junkie/doomster/elitist/feral/Green Party disser/Green Party member/hypocrite/megalomaniac/ratbag/sexist/twunt/undercover cop” (choose any five of the above. NB, two, possibly three, are not factually correct.) Maybe you could try separating where an innovation comes from from the personal characteristics of the person who came up with it? #toohardbasket?
“It’s too complicated – just emphasise that women are welcome to contribute.” Yep, I’ve seen this done, and it usually doesn’t ‘work’. Why? Well, I think because it makes it even MORE stressful for a woman to contribute. She is now not just risking her own credibility, but having to carry the weight for other women. It can have the exact opposite impact to what is sought. And it’s asking individuals to change the system, rather than asking the system to change. Which, I thought, was what activism was all about? Or maybe that’s just me?
“It’s patronising and belittling. It’s typical white-knighting by a man-splainer. Women aren’t delicate little flowers, and are perfectly capable of sticking up their hands if/when they want to. They just choose not to.” Finally, a reason that I can respect, if not agree with! But hang on, if women are so strong, and the patriarchy no longer has any impacts, then let’s phone up the Fawcett Society and Riotgrrls and Feministing and tell them they are wasting their time, shall we? That is to say, how come there is still so often the pattern I mentioned at the outset? Either the patriarchy has impacts that (still) need combating or it doesn’t. I – Mr White Knight – don’t see how you can have it both ways. But I could be wrong.
Just to be clear; What I am not saying.
I am not saying that women are intrinsically smarter than men.
I am not saying that all women’s contributions will be all full of emotional intelligence or insight.
I am not saying that women are incapable of drivel and bullshit. They are human. We are all capable of drivel and bullshit. It’s what we do – homo sapiens driveliens….
Manchester City Council has 96 councillors. At the moment Labour has 86 councillors out of that number. After the May 22nd elections, it will be 95 and a half. One Party State, much?
So, the “scrutiny” process – whereby councillors (and, theoretically, members of the public) ask awkward questions of the 9 member Executive and paid officials – becomes even more crucial.
Sadly, it is utterly broken, an empty ritual played for laughs and sycophancy.
There are various reasons for this, asides from Labour’s iron grip (the hollowing out of the local state, the death of local media, the collapse of civil society institutions, “bowling alone” etc.).
Anyway, enough with the context. The City Council’s “scrutiny team” have circulated a survey to anyone who attended any of the six scrutiny committees’ 10-or-so meetings in the last year. It is, as you’d expect if you’d ever been to a meeting, very detailed, geared to insiders rather than outsiders, procedurally “correct” and yet/because of this, baffling, intimidating and demoralising.
At the end (if you can get that far without killing yourself), they ask you to “Please describe any other ways in which you think scrutiny could be improved in Manchester”.
Ha. Haha. How long have you got? Well, here’s 7, in no particular order. There are hella more, but since these ideas will be ignored regardless, I ain’t gonna waste much more time.
a) Use social media – at the very least Twitter, Facebook and Youtube – to publicise the agendas of the six scrutiny committee meetings a week in advance, with ALL THE PAPERS having a brief description of each paper on one single web-page, instead of in six different pdfs. This makes it easy for people interested in scrutiny to alert their friends who might be specifically interested in issue x or x. Here’s one MCFly made earlier.
b) Create an email subscription system whereby people can express interest in being kept informed about specific items of interest [housing, recycling, digital economy etc etc etc], so they know when reports are coming to scrutiny (or, more often, being delayed/deferred/ignored.)
c) create an easily searchable database of upcoming reports etc (the “forward plan”) , with a traffic light system to indicate when they are constantly being kicked into the long grass (e.g. the Finance Scrutiny Committee’s promised report on how other councils with a preponderance of one party cope with that).
d) Set up a seventh scrutiny committee specifically designed to examining and IMPROVING the Council’s diabolical under-performance (and that’s a kind interpretation) on all matters environmental (biodiversity as well as climate), with non-council members of that committee, such as proper independent scientists. Here’s some terms of reference for such a committee.
e) Create simple videos that explain the remit and function of each of the scrutiny committees. Many people in Manchester have poor reading skills, and are intimidated/baffled by the dense and arcane jargon that the Council uses. Videos would dent that fog. Here’s one MCFly made earlier. And another. There are others. And god forbid that you actually video and audio record the proceedings. Or livestream them. I mean, it’s not as if this is the 21st century, or that Manchester is constantly bleating about being a digital hub. (Shame about the broadband speeds, eh?)
f) Make it a disciplinary offence for any executive summary of a document to be as inaccurate as last year’s Annual Carbon Reduction Plan summary was. That document hid the fact that emissions had actually gone UP, and that the council was – despite all previous promises – going to miss its “20% by 2014” reduction target. The executive summary was all bland positives. This is simply unacceptable.
g) Create an online attendance indicator so that members of the public can see which members turned up for (how much of) each committee meeting. This should also put a stop to members lying about having been present at meetings. Just sayin’.
Will a single one of these happen? Don’t bother watching this space…
‘Living With Environmental Change’ (LWEC, Liverpool University) and ‘Climate Change, Environment and Sustainability’ network (CCES, MeCCSA)
Friday 30th May: 10.30a.m.-5.30p.m.
Venue: The Foresight Centre (‘Hope Lounge’), University of Liverpool
To book yourfreeticket clickhere and follow ‘Book Event’
(if problems are encountered contact Dr Neil Gavin: gavin@liv.ac.uk)
Climate change as an issue has recently been somewhat eclipsed by economic turbulence in Britain and Europe. Maintaining its profile in the national dialogue is a challenge for many organisations and institutions. This symposium focus on this, drawing on speakers from a range of disciplines. They will present their take on the challenge of keeping the clients, stakeholders and the public, engaged with and informed about climate change, and will speak on their related area of specialisation: media coverage of the issue, challenges in researching this area, attitude formation and change, and public policy in this area. The aim is here is an exchange of ideas, experiences and expertise.
10.30- Registration
10.50-11.00 Welcome: Dr Neil Gavin (University of Liverpool, LWEC, and CCES Convenor)
11.00-12.20 Dr Neil Gavin (University of Liverpool) ‘The Role of Media Coverage in Keeping the Flame Alive’
Edward Langley & Matt Evans (Ipsos-MORI) ‘Finding a Voice: The Role of Social Research in Understanding Public Opinion on Climate Change’
12.20-1.00 Lunch
1.00-2.30 Saffron O’Neill (Exeter University) ‘Visualisation and Climate Change: Exploring Imagery Through the Communication Cycle’
Lorraine Whitmarsh (Cardiff University) ‘Who Cares About Climate Change? Public Attitudes to Environmental Change’
2.30-3.00 Coffee
3.00-4.45 James Painter ‘Reporting Risk/Uncertainty Around Climate Change: What’s Known and Still to Know’
Keynote: Andrew Miller (Chair, Science & Technology Select Committee) ‘Communicating Climate Change’
Followed by Round table: ‘Where Now for the Mediation & Understanding of Climate Change?’
4.45-5.30 Reception
Expressions of interest in attending can be booked, free, by
clicking here (and following ‘Book Event’ on the main ‘Info’ tab)
(if problems are encountered contact Dr Neil Gavin: gavin@liv.ac.uk)
Our "leaders" are going to keep making empty promises. It makes them feel good. It gets the activists to act like zombie kittens. If you want to have some self-respect and perhaps make a difference (actual facts may vary), then find a functioning group that cares about your skills and knowledge - what you have, what you want.
One useful group might be www.climateemergencymanchester.net - you can email them on contact@climateemergencymanchester.net
manchester climate monthly 
“Meetings are institutionally sexist”; discuss. (White-knighting by #Manchester #climate bloke)
UPDATE: See excellent list of suggestions from Holly in the comments, and a crucial point about gender constructions….
“Wonderful presentation from our guest speaker. Now, any questions?” says the chair of the meeting, usually about 10 or 15 minutes later than they ought.
Up shoot some hands. And those who’ve been to more than one or two meetings know what comes next…
Prepared “questions” that are thinly-or-not-at-all-disguised speeches and hectoring points. And these “questions” are asked by usual suspects, who are usually male.
As the clock runs out (and people drift out), a few female hands tentatively go up. Their owners have realised that their question – the one they’d told themselves wasn’t up to scratch – is actually better than what’s gone before. But, alas, it’s too late; only one or two get asked, and dealt with too quickly. And the meeting finishes, and with it the opportunity for something different.
We’ve all been here, yes?
And some of us have even seen the pattern. And some have even thought “if only women were more confident/if only the patriarchy didn’t teach them to shut up so much.”
It. Doesn’t. Have. To. Be. This. Way. It really doesn’t. And we don’t even have to wait for the overthrow of Entwined Phallocratic Capitalism.
It is – you’ll be happy to hear a man validate your concerns – absolutely the case that all-male panels are a problem worthy of dealing with (even boycotting). But it can genuinely be hard to find female speakers on certain issues. Why? Because for historical “legacy” (cough cough) issues, women are still not able to participate in the intellectual life of “the nation”.
What we could do, RIGHT NOW, is fix the Q and A problem. And at the same time, we might make our meetings more energising, more welcoming to other “minorities” (51% and all that), on criteria such as class, confidence, colour and clique. It would be a win-win. (Except for the incumbents – the chairs and their comrades who think time-limits are for the little people. They would lose…)
We are, I think, responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions. If we organise meetings on the existing format, then we are responsible whenever (and it’s usually the case) the Q and A of a meeting is dominated by a tedious clique of actual-or-metaphorical trots. We can, if we choose, tweak our actions, and have a higher likelihood of a different – even emancipatory – consequence.
Reasons that will be given for not doing this;
“We like the current set-up.” Yes. It shows.
“It requires change.” Oh, sorry, my bad.
“It requires that social movements change the way they do things. Any fule no that all the ills of the world are due to governments/states and corporations, and that social movements activists are pure and perfect. Didn’t you get the memo?” Whatevs/facepalm.
“It requires a very high-level of skill to say ‘turn to someone sat next to you or behind you and say hello, and help refine any questions that anyone has.’” Yes, of course it does. You sure you didn’t mean 1) or 2) or 3)?
“It takes too much time.” Er, given that two minutes is about the usual length of a single soul-destroying and credibility-sapping fake ‘question’ from one of the mates of the chair, I don’t really see how you can keep a straight face when you use this excuse.
“The focus on gender is a bourgeois deviationist individualist tendency. After our party seizes the control of the state (with a withering-away to be scheduled at a later date, naturally), all such problems will be liquidated. Along with those who keep banging on about them, comrade.” You crack me up, you really do. Comrade.
“It comes from Marc Hudson and he is atheist/Australian/bitter failure/burnt-out cynic/conflict-junkie/doomster/elitist/feral/Green Party disser/Green Party member/hypocrite/megalomaniac/ratbag/sexist/twunt/undercover cop” (choose any five of the above. NB, two, possibly three, are not factually correct.) Maybe you could try separating where an innovation comes from from the personal characteristics of the person who came up with it? #toohardbasket?
“It’s too complicated – just emphasise that women are welcome to contribute.” Yep, I’ve seen this done, and it usually doesn’t ‘work’. Why? Well, I think because it makes it even MORE stressful for a woman to contribute. She is now not just risking her own credibility, but having to carry the weight for other women. It can have the exact opposite impact to what is sought. And it’s asking individuals to change the system, rather than asking the system to change. Which, I thought, was what activism was all about? Or maybe that’s just me?
“It’s patronising and belittling. It’s typical white-knighting by a man-splainer. Women aren’t delicate little flowers, and are perfectly capable of sticking up their hands if/when they want to. They just choose not to.” Finally, a reason that I can respect, if not agree with! But hang on, if women are so strong, and the patriarchy no longer has any impacts, then let’s phone up the Fawcett Society and Riotgrrls and Feministing and tell them they are wasting their time, shall we? That is to say, how come there is still so often the pattern I mentioned at the outset? Either the patriarchy has impacts that (still) need combating or it doesn’t. I – Mr White Knight – don’t see how you can have it both ways. But I could be wrong.
Just to be clear; What I am not saying.
I am not saying that women are intrinsically smarter than men.
I am not saying that all women’s contributions will be all full of emotional intelligence or insight.
I am not saying that women are incapable of drivel and bullshit. They are human. We are all capable of drivel and bullshit. It’s what we do – homo sapiens driveliens….