Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Do you ever wonder, what else have I been horribly wrong on all this time?

278 replies

JaneorEleven · 04/11/2022 03:16

Do you ever wonder, what else have I been horribly wrong on all this time? If I was SO wrong on those that are GC, what else have I been wrong on?

All my life I’ve been solidly left leaning, and pretty much agreed with most points on the left. I’ve described myself as an old fashioned socialist, love the idea of the NHS, a safety net for lower income people and unemployed, social and economic equality, disability rights, rights for women all tied up with feminism including being pro-choice, LGB and the TQ etc rights, you name it, I supported it.

I had previously been very sympathetic to Trans issues, and had a friend who transitioned, and I supported this person as best I could. But after some time of researching and I guess educating myself for lack of a better expression, I did a complete uturn on this, and found myself agreeing with many wise GC women. It was a bell I couldn’t unring. And Mumsnet played a large part in this.

I’m British now living in the US, and find myself busy Terfing USA. I’ve listened to NPR for years, nodding along, but now almost daily, they have a segment that infuriates me with regards to Trans issues. Could be anything from “trans kids” not getting their meds, to prisons, to bathrooms, schools, and they support it all. Female reporters who I held in high esteem, interviewing and fawning over transwomen, platforming them and letting them hold court without challenging them.

These past few weeks, I’ve started to question myself. How could I have been so wrong on this? I thought GC peeps, or Terfs, were full of hate and lacked patience and understanding.

Which leads me to ask, on what else have I been so badly wrong? Anyone else think like this? Now I don’t think I’m a closet right winger, but is it possible I’ve allowed the left to lead me up the garden path on other issues too?

OP posts:
OldGardinia · 06/11/2022 15:09

@BatCheeseIsFine Thanks for the reasoned response. I think from having debated trans issues outside of MN for so long, I'm a little primed for a negative response. It's refreshing and frankly much needed, to get a reply such as yours.

Abhannmor · 06/11/2022 17:12

ArabellaScott · 05/11/2022 11:29

Almost sounds a bit anarchist, in fact. Grin

Yes , very perceptive. I think of latter day Tories as anarchists in many ways.
They seem to have got rid of the Precautionary Principle. There was an essay called Is Thatcher a Tory- back in the 80s . The author's* thrust was that she was a Whig. But she wasn't thick or clinically insane like her successors.
name escapes me

Aintnosupermum · 06/11/2022 20:12

Musk apparently paid her legal fees for the case in London and paid the security bond for the 2nd trial. This was told by a friend in media relations. I discounted it at first but then two other people in the tech world said the same thing. I then heard it from someone who, along with their husband, know him personally. It would be incredibly great rumor control to hear it from so many people connected in different ways. Some shade of this is true.

ArabellaScott · 06/11/2022 20:58

Abhannmor · 06/11/2022 17:12

Yes , very perceptive. I think of latter day Tories as anarchists in many ways.
They seem to have got rid of the Precautionary Principle. There was an essay called Is Thatcher a Tory- back in the 80s . The author's* thrust was that she was a Whig. But she wasn't thick or clinically insane like her successors.
name escapes me

Well, I don't know much about political history, so I looked up Whigs.

Seems Burke was a sort of proto-anarchist?

I am now quite confused.

EdithStourton · 07/11/2022 08:46

@ArabellaScott thanks for your book rec too!

Debbehthchosenmum · 07/11/2022 09:13

Just thought of another one yesterday- when they brought in a female Dr Who I have one friend who said he wouldn't be watching it. I didn't write him off as sexist because he is a very kind, gentle, effeminate gay man with lots of female friends and just definitely not sexist. I thought he was overreacting though. I now sympathise more with those who were saying, there are so few male characters and role models who are gentle, non violent and just, not macho men. He didn't like that one precious gentle hero being given away. Like that meme where we challenged all the barbie stereotypes but not so much has gone into overcoming the action man stereotype. I'm not saying I agree with him, I wasn't opposed to a female Dr or anything, but I sympathise with that un-PC viewpoint a lot more.

ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 09:23

Nae bother, Edith!

Here's another that seems pertinent:

davidrobson.me/books/the-intelligence-trap/

'We assume that smarter people are less prone to error. But greater education and expertise can often amplify our mistakes while rendering us blind to our biases. This is the ‘intelligence trap’.

Drawing on the latest behavioural science and historical examples from Socrates to Benjamin Franklin, David Robson demonstrates how to apply our intelligence more wisely; identify bias and enhance our ‘rationality quotient’; read and regulate our emotions; fine-tune our intuition; navigate ambiguity and uncertainty; and think more flexibly about seemingly intractable problems.'

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 07/11/2022 09:45

It went over my head because I didn’t think racism against white people was possible.

@EndlessTea I no longer dismiss Hot Chocolate's "Brother Louie" as just naive liberalism and look how cleverly we've all moved on since then. Which I did for years. They were pioneers and we could do with more of their holding a mirror up to ourselves. Yes I understand power imbalances (racism = prejudice + power) but I also understand the difference between global and local power structures. Micro power structures don't always reflect macro ones, they can go the opposite way. (I made those terms up, I dunno if anyone else uses anything similar)

TheClogLady · 07/11/2022 10:24

Debbehthchosenmum · 07/11/2022 09:13

Just thought of another one yesterday- when they brought in a female Dr Who I have one friend who said he wouldn't be watching it. I didn't write him off as sexist because he is a very kind, gentle, effeminate gay man with lots of female friends and just definitely not sexist. I thought he was overreacting though. I now sympathise more with those who were saying, there are so few male characters and role models who are gentle, non violent and just, not macho men. He didn't like that one precious gentle hero being given away. Like that meme where we challenged all the barbie stereotypes but not so much has gone into overcoming the action man stereotype. I'm not saying I agree with him, I wasn't opposed to a female Dr or anything, but I sympathise with that un-PC viewpoint a lot more.

That’s an interesting perspective.

One that could also be made of the controversial Ghostbusters remake. The male characters in that were a long way from the ‘Top Gun’ or ‘Die Hard’ stereotypes.

I know quite a few chaps who loved the Dr Egon Spengler character (the nerdy, socially awkward inventor) and felt better about their naturally nerdy selves because of him.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=6hDkhw5Wkas

I’m pretty sure most women would prefer to see interesting, original roles for women rather than lazy m/f swapped remakes, so surely this is a ‘pleasing none of the people none of the time’ scenario?

It makes a bit more sense with Dr Who, who obviously DOES regenerate, but Who has long had interesting female characters (way too multi dimensional to be reduced to ‘side kicks’) and the show creators could’ve written in a female Timelord in addition to the Dr, which might’ve been a best of both scenario and expanded roles for women without sidelining (or worse, alienating) a core, loyal fan base.

Ultimately, we’re unlikely to see a second female Doctor for at least 3 or 4 regenerations so it still feels like a bit of a token gesture. A lose-lose situation for the show creators.

MangyInseam · 07/11/2022 10:40

Debbehthchosenmum · 07/11/2022 09:13

Just thought of another one yesterday- when they brought in a female Dr Who I have one friend who said he wouldn't be watching it. I didn't write him off as sexist because he is a very kind, gentle, effeminate gay man with lots of female friends and just definitely not sexist. I thought he was overreacting though. I now sympathise more with those who were saying, there are so few male characters and role models who are gentle, non violent and just, not macho men. He didn't like that one precious gentle hero being given away. Like that meme where we challenged all the barbie stereotypes but not so much has gone into overcoming the action man stereotype. I'm not saying I agree with him, I wasn't opposed to a female Dr or anything, but I sympathise with that un-PC viewpoint a lot more.

I thought the female dr was very much about pushing a viewpoint that men and women are interchangable. That show is deeply down an id pol hole.

OldGardinia · 07/11/2022 12:50

TheClogLady · 07/11/2022 10:24

That’s an interesting perspective.

One that could also be made of the controversial Ghostbusters remake. The male characters in that were a long way from the ‘Top Gun’ or ‘Die Hard’ stereotypes.

I know quite a few chaps who loved the Dr Egon Spengler character (the nerdy, socially awkward inventor) and felt better about their naturally nerdy selves because of him.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=6hDkhw5Wkas

I’m pretty sure most women would prefer to see interesting, original roles for women rather than lazy m/f swapped remakes, so surely this is a ‘pleasing none of the people none of the time’ scenario?

It makes a bit more sense with Dr Who, who obviously DOES regenerate, but Who has long had interesting female characters (way too multi dimensional to be reduced to ‘side kicks’) and the show creators could’ve written in a female Timelord in addition to the Dr, which might’ve been a best of both scenario and expanded roles for women without sidelining (or worse, alienating) a core, loyal fan base.

Ultimately, we’re unlikely to see a second female Doctor for at least 3 or 4 regenerations so it still feels like a bit of a token gesture. A lose-lose situation for the show creators.

The problem with the 2016 Ghostbusters remake was that it really was crap. Even Chris Hemsworth couldn't save it and I really like Chris Hemsworth. When an all female remake of Ghostbusters was announced some people onlinr condemned it for being all female and a counter-group condemned that first group for being misogynists. Fair enough. But when the trailer came out and it became obvious that the film really was crap and a new and much larger wave of online critics appeared, some people stuck to their guns and called all of them misogynists as well. Which basically riled up the new wave because of the aspertions of sexism cast on them for not like a frankly pretty crap movie.

Compare it with Ghostbusters: Afterlife which came out later. It wasn't a remake, it was an actual sequel. The viewpoint character is female and very likeable and relatable and has a clear connection to a much loved character from the original. Amount of "misogynists" hating the movie for having a female lead? Sweet FA really (though I'm sure someone could dredge up one from some obscure corner of the Internet).

I'm not a big fan of mass swapping character's sex. Same with Doctor Who. I wasn't wholly against it and I actually liked Jodie Whitaker as the pick when it was announced. But then she did interviews saying she'd never watched the show before her audition for it. And you had previously had heavy-handed insulting stuff in the show around gender roles such as a White Male Timelord regenerating into a Black Woman and immediately exclaiming "thank god - no more of that stupid testosterone". So you had a legitimate reason to distrust how the female Doctor would be handled. I stopped watching sometime before the end of Capaldi's run (great actor, terrible scripts) but I heard from others that the show became quite anti-men in places, lot Trump stand-ins and other stuff. If they wanted a female timelord she could have brought back Fred Romanadvoratrelundar and I'd have been very happy with that. So would most fans I know male or female. Or throw in the Rani for a curveball.

Doctor Who was never a sexist show. Perhaps by today's standards the odd little thing but another related thing which upset a lot of long-term fans was the re-writing of the First doctor for the Christmas Special. In it, you had him being casually sexist to the female companion and give shocked gasps that she was in a relationship with another woman. He quite simply was not like that in the original. Nor does it frankly make sense for the time travelling space-faring visitor to a thousand worlds (even in his First incarnation) to be dumbfounded by a lesbian. But they had to retroactively MAKE the character sexist so that they could virtue signal off him.

So I think the problem for most critics genuinely isn't female characters, but legitimate complaints. But show runners and film producers keep using the accusation to defend bad product.

ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 12:57

There is an argument that polemic culture is always going to be crap.

OldGardinia · 07/11/2022 13:05

MangyInseam · 07/11/2022 10:40

I thought the female dr was very much about pushing a viewpoint that men and women are interchangable. That show is deeply down an id pol hole.

Good point - that's another aspect which there can be mixed feelings on. Mostly I kind of like the idea of sex not mattering to the things to which it shouldn't matter. But I think you may be right they were pushing that angle as a general message against sex-based identity.

Also, @TheClogLady I think Ego was an inspiration to boys and girls. I mean, who can't relate to this:

funnelfanjo · 07/11/2022 13:07

I would like to express my deep appreciation for this thought-provoking thread, and some excellent posts that really resonate with me, particularly @Torunette sharing their thoughts on people holding positions relative to the world they inhabit. It helps break down walls and have conversations with "opponents".

To cut a very long post short, I'm experiencing that strange feeling of the ground shifting below my feet although my core values have not changed. In a world where more information is available to us than ever before, people seem to becoming far more binary in thinking, entrenched in positions and unwilling/unable to debate. Is this because I am now far more aware of people who are outside my bubble, or is there genuinely more polarisation in thinking?

EndlessTea · 07/11/2022 13:15

power imbalances (racism = prejudice + power) but I also understand the difference between global and local power structures. Micro power structures don't always reflect macro ones, they can go the opposite way.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay yes, I think so - and a sort of Lord of The Flies scenario can sometimes emerge as an unintended consequence of trying to redress the power balance - for example, class struggle or sexism.
When there’s a big disparity in numbers, it can get uncomfortable witnessing a well-meaning bloke being challenged by a group of feminists, or working class group of people challenging a posho. Up to a point it seems fair enough, those from the ‘oppressor class’ are going to have big blind spots to their own advantages and the oppressed’s disadvantages, and will inevitably make a faux pas or two, but some ‘redressers’ can sort of enjoy the power trip of having the social upper hand in that scenario, and it can become vengeful bullying. I’ve looked within to think ‘am I just uncomfortable with seeing a someone looking powerless where I have been socialised to be deferent towards them?’ but I have come to the conclusion that some people are sadists, whether they are oppressor or oppressed, and they embrace any opportunity to abuse power with both hands.
In fact, a lot of ‘call out’/‘cancel’/social justice culture is just that. Sadists with a socially sanctioned means to abuse power by believing they are ‘sticking it to The Man’.

AffronttoBS · 07/11/2022 13:29

OP , I have not read full thread, but I had similar thoughts to you about so many things about the world on so many levels...the taken as givens or assumptions that are simply not true, but we all want them to be or act as if they are true (which in turn shape reality to an extent - to keep up with the veneer of civilisation), but we would be naive to not recognise the reality.

Too many examples to mention or articulate, e.g. humans are fundamentally kind/good/sensible (most are clearly not, and are driven by envy and hate under the guise of BeKind) , we live in a democracy (we don't, all roads lead to the corrupt globalist agenda, tax payers are basically modern day serfs), progress and change is good ( the world is rapidly changing for the worse). Where 100 years ago, people died for their country, now it's the opposite, the virtue signallers 's self hate and guilt complex is destroying the country. I 'm coming to think that the way Western civilisation is going with their nation damaging, woke virtual signally cultures and policies, is evolution's way of managing the decline of population in the West.

Abhannmor · 07/11/2022 13:33

ArabellaScott · 06/11/2022 20:58

Well, I don't know much about political history, so I looked up Whigs.

Seems Burke was a sort of proto-anarchist?

I am now quite confused.

Ha ! I don't think Thazza was really an anarchist. Rather her brand of free market fundamentalism unleashed the anarchist tendency in other areas of ahem Society.

For example she spent decades excoriatinng the 'liberal establishment ' both literally and figuratively. The Church of England , the BBC, the do gooder social workers and teachers , the Universities , even the Lords and Commons.

Anything that didn't make a profit was pretty useless. She didn't go as far as the Federation of Conservative Students who wanted to legalise heroin. But she sort of set the tone ?

Yet she seemed genuinely upset that young people had no respect for authority. I don't think you can have a devil take the hindmost economy where money is worshipped and ' anyone over 25 using public transport can count himself a failure ' and expect people to carry on as if it's 1957.

MangyInseam · 07/11/2022 16:13

I think she (and Burke, as I understand him,) both took for granted an underlying strong social fabric. Moral obligations felt by individuals, interconnected communities, community organizations like clubs and churches, and so on.

The line at least for MT was that the role that government was to play was limited, it shouldn't, and couldn't successfully, take on those kinds of roles.

But one of the tendencies of modern liberalism is to say, if something is not required by law, it is allowed, and should be accepted without judgement. Which includes things like people having a strong sense of individual social and moral obligation and duty, participation in local community organizations, and so on. It's deeply individualistic and doesn't allow for moral disapproval of individual's choices and beliefs if they seem selfish or don't contribute to society.

Other right wing people seem to have absorbed the limited government bit without the strong social fabric element.

In some ways I think the authoritarian and moralistic stuff the progressive left is falling into now is an attempt to compensate for that, it's filling a hole that's been left as old ideas about social participation and duty have didapeared.

Torunette · 08/11/2022 09:56

MangyInseam · 07/11/2022 16:13

I think she (and Burke, as I understand him,) both took for granted an underlying strong social fabric. Moral obligations felt by individuals, interconnected communities, community organizations like clubs and churches, and so on.

The line at least for MT was that the role that government was to play was limited, it shouldn't, and couldn't successfully, take on those kinds of roles.

But one of the tendencies of modern liberalism is to say, if something is not required by law, it is allowed, and should be accepted without judgement. Which includes things like people having a strong sense of individual social and moral obligation and duty, participation in local community organizations, and so on. It's deeply individualistic and doesn't allow for moral disapproval of individual's choices and beliefs if they seem selfish or don't contribute to society.

Other right wing people seem to have absorbed the limited government bit without the strong social fabric element.

In some ways I think the authoritarian and moralistic stuff the progressive left is falling into now is an attempt to compensate for that, it's filling a hole that's been left as old ideas about social participation and duty have didapeared.

This is a significant problem.

Essentially, Britain ran on a bedrock of civic-minded people throughout the class system who provided much of the scaffolding of "civic society" for free. Be it leading Brownies or Scouts or Boys Brigade, being the Chair of the local WI, being Parish Councillors, being the Secretary for the local working mens' club or local am-dram or choral society etc, all of it was unpaid work, and it provided the structure of life in Britain and a heck of a lot of experience.

In this, of course, was also membership of class-based groups that were affiliated loosely to a political position, and people also were members of political parties, so many of these structures were proving grounds, so to speak.

In my view, this bedrock has been almost completely destroyed over the last twenty to thirty years. As the nature of life changed, people now no longer have the time or the inclination to get involved in a civic pursuit. Only the problem is that a lot of our culture and political system depended on it.

We are now in a situation in my area where all parties are struggling to find decent candidates for all sorts of posts, and they are now putting forward people that are not really suitable whatsoever because, to be blunt, these people don't actually exist within the worlds of the people they are supposed to be representing. They live on facebook, or on twitter, or on instagram, or in little silos of their own households instead. In short, they don't know the people around them, and don't know how other people think or experience the world.

These weaknesses are dangerous not only because you end up with sub-par politicians, but because parties or institutions then become highly susceptible to vanguardism of various forms as there is no longer a core of solid "old guard" individuals saying that something is a ridiculous or dangerous idea.

I suspect this is how the LibDems have found themselves in such a bizarre situation. It doesn't help that Gen X is a smallish generation either, so the 40-50-something pool to pull from is smaller than that of the boomers.

But from my perspective, a lot of the remaining bedrock of civic society has been attacked badly and is still constantly attacked: as old, as fuddy duddy, as too formal, as worthless. But when it disappears, nothing comes along to replace it, and it's left us in a huge mess.

I've observed a number of situations where there's been a drive to get rid of the vestiges of an "old guard". Inevitably, what results is either an unholy mess of bad governance until someone comes along and sorts it all out by revolving back to how things were run under the old guard in the first place, or the institution collapses.

The issue with this dynamic is that we either lose something orfimportance, or we end up constantly remaking the wheel, and the time and energy used to sort it all out then cannot be used to actually do what we are supposed to be doing.

I'll give you a small, related example. Roughly every ten years, there is some sort of clamour about anti-social behaviour among youths. We had it in our area about five years ago, and, inevitably, you get the same reactions: these youths are bored, there's nothing for them to do, we need youth clubs etc.

Now I am a researcher type. I don't like to take a policy position without a deep dive, so I went to talk to a few retired councillors who'd done the job back in the 70s and 80s. Now these were old Tories, so I expected a "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude.

I didn't get that. They both said the same thing: "There are two things that solve anti-social behaviour. The lads either age out of it or they do something so bad, they end up inside." One of them said to me: "We tried everything over thirty years. None of it works. Young lads causing trouble is just part of the way some young lads are. Go and look at old local newspapers for the juvenile reports, if you don't believe me."

So I did. And they were right. In our area, youth anti-social behaviour was arguably more disruptive in the 1950s than it is today. They were smashing streetlamps for bugger all reason, putting turf sods on folks' chimneys to smoke them out of their houses, breaking into homes to "teach him at number 5 a lesson", nicking money out of the poor box, posting dead mice through letter boxes, flinging dog poo at washing lines. Some of it was akin to a campaign of terror.

By contrast, our young lads smoking weed up in the woods was nothing.

But the old civic method of passing down information like this has gone now; I had to go out and find it. There's no mentorship anymore because the cycle of civic institutional renewal is severely damaged.

God knows what we are going to do over the next ten years. I'm in a position personally where it feels like we've just got to "hold the line".

Torunette · 08/11/2022 10:00

And just to add: the whole issue of trans ideology's spread through institutions, to me, is just another example of how weak our political and cultural structures have become.

MangyInseam · 08/11/2022 10:29

Yes yes, I think that is precisely right.

I've wondered if this is not behind some of the rural urban divide too. I've seen many rural areas seem to have kept more of that old social infrastructure, whereas cities seem much more atomic.

RedToothBrush · 08/11/2022 11:01

I think I've read a huge amount over the years about 'unintended consequences' and how ideology and science aren't bed fellows so I've been a skeptic since my teens. But thats because I've been educated in that way to question things robustly - by my own choice.

Books that are definitely worth reading which challenge orthodoxies through science are books like Freakonomics (2006) - Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner, Bad Pharma (2012) - Ben Goldacre, The Patient Paradox (2012) - Margaret McCartney, Weapons of Math Destruction (2017) - Cathy O'Neill, Invisible Women (2020) - Caroline Criado Perez.

There's many others in a similar vein, but they very much are the ones that are stand out to me in making you go 'hang on a minute'. Three of those are over a decade old, and the frightening thing for me is how much what they say has been ignored and things have got worse, since they were published.

Its disaster capitalism in action in many respects (yep go read up on that too)

The problem with the rise of social media is that people don't challenge themselves or look to find ideas that break orthodoxy. Thats fundamentally unprogressive. You can't be ideologically driven and progressive - the two concepts are diametrically opposed. Critical thinking is the essence of progressing humanity, where we look at whats actually happening first rather than deciding what we believe first. And of course, people have stopped reading in the way they used to. Or watching the news. Or some random documentary because there was fuck all else on tv.

Its not a coincidence all these things are happening at this particular moment in time.

We also have to be extremely mindful of orthodoxies and their inability to see fine detail and granular impact at minority levels. Over generalisation and lack of contextualising are the ultimate sins in looking at data, because failing to do so can mean you are failing to see whats actually happening. It dehumanises and can often miss the goal that you are trying to achieve if you don't look at the broader picture too.

I think one example of this I've seen is looking at a particular type of screening - it reduced deaths from a particular cause, but reduced quality of life and didn't actually extend life expectancy. On the surface its easy to say 'yeah we've beaten x illness' but in practise it was an expensive exercise in making someone's life worse for no benefit.

I note particularly the absence of women and women's experience in a default male world and data generated for and by males is a really fabulous lesson to learn. I also note that non-fiction books written by women are vastly out numbered by those published by men, and men are much less likely to read non-fiction written by women. Woman on the other hand are much more likely to read books written by men.

I LOVE this stuff, and its a huge part of why I'm on MN, because I love talking about things like this and how it interacts with ideology and politics. Everything from healthcare (particularly women's health) to Brexit to Politics generally. Its fascinating.

More threads like this, and go out and read more books on data, data bias and data absence!!!

RedToothBrush · 08/11/2022 11:30

Torunette · 08/11/2022 09:56

This is a significant problem.

Essentially, Britain ran on a bedrock of civic-minded people throughout the class system who provided much of the scaffolding of "civic society" for free. Be it leading Brownies or Scouts or Boys Brigade, being the Chair of the local WI, being Parish Councillors, being the Secretary for the local working mens' club or local am-dram or choral society etc, all of it was unpaid work, and it provided the structure of life in Britain and a heck of a lot of experience.

In this, of course, was also membership of class-based groups that were affiliated loosely to a political position, and people also were members of political parties, so many of these structures were proving grounds, so to speak.

In my view, this bedrock has been almost completely destroyed over the last twenty to thirty years. As the nature of life changed, people now no longer have the time or the inclination to get involved in a civic pursuit. Only the problem is that a lot of our culture and political system depended on it.

We are now in a situation in my area where all parties are struggling to find decent candidates for all sorts of posts, and they are now putting forward people that are not really suitable whatsoever because, to be blunt, these people don't actually exist within the worlds of the people they are supposed to be representing. They live on facebook, or on twitter, or on instagram, or in little silos of their own households instead. In short, they don't know the people around them, and don't know how other people think or experience the world.

These weaknesses are dangerous not only because you end up with sub-par politicians, but because parties or institutions then become highly susceptible to vanguardism of various forms as there is no longer a core of solid "old guard" individuals saying that something is a ridiculous or dangerous idea.

I suspect this is how the LibDems have found themselves in such a bizarre situation. It doesn't help that Gen X is a smallish generation either, so the 40-50-something pool to pull from is smaller than that of the boomers.

But from my perspective, a lot of the remaining bedrock of civic society has been attacked badly and is still constantly attacked: as old, as fuddy duddy, as too formal, as worthless. But when it disappears, nothing comes along to replace it, and it's left us in a huge mess.

I've observed a number of situations where there's been a drive to get rid of the vestiges of an "old guard". Inevitably, what results is either an unholy mess of bad governance until someone comes along and sorts it all out by revolving back to how things were run under the old guard in the first place, or the institution collapses.

The issue with this dynamic is that we either lose something orfimportance, or we end up constantly remaking the wheel, and the time and energy used to sort it all out then cannot be used to actually do what we are supposed to be doing.

I'll give you a small, related example. Roughly every ten years, there is some sort of clamour about anti-social behaviour among youths. We had it in our area about five years ago, and, inevitably, you get the same reactions: these youths are bored, there's nothing for them to do, we need youth clubs etc.

Now I am a researcher type. I don't like to take a policy position without a deep dive, so I went to talk to a few retired councillors who'd done the job back in the 70s and 80s. Now these were old Tories, so I expected a "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude.

I didn't get that. They both said the same thing: "There are two things that solve anti-social behaviour. The lads either age out of it or they do something so bad, they end up inside." One of them said to me: "We tried everything over thirty years. None of it works. Young lads causing trouble is just part of the way some young lads are. Go and look at old local newspapers for the juvenile reports, if you don't believe me."

So I did. And they were right. In our area, youth anti-social behaviour was arguably more disruptive in the 1950s than it is today. They were smashing streetlamps for bugger all reason, putting turf sods on folks' chimneys to smoke them out of their houses, breaking into homes to "teach him at number 5 a lesson", nicking money out of the poor box, posting dead mice through letter boxes, flinging dog poo at washing lines. Some of it was akin to a campaign of terror.

By contrast, our young lads smoking weed up in the woods was nothing.

But the old civic method of passing down information like this has gone now; I had to go out and find it. There's no mentorship anymore because the cycle of civic institutional renewal is severely damaged.

God knows what we are going to do over the next ten years. I'm in a position personally where it feels like we've just got to "hold the line".

I live in an area which is perhaps some what unique because it retains a lot of that civic duty stuff, and it is passing to a younger generation to a certain degree.

That said its still massively dominated by men locally. There is a gender divide and there is an authority gap going on.

The local parish council in particular is dying, whereas other groups are continuing to thrive. It is dominated by three men who do what they want and force their agenda and don't let others get a say. There have been local complaints about them bullying and harassing (I've been a victim of one). As it stands a number of people have resigned from the council and those who remain found it increasingly difficult to get anyone to replace them. I suspect come the next round of local elections there may not be enough candidates to spark an election, and it will just be people who they can co-opt on. Its depressing. I know of four people who would be prepared to do it, but don't want to because of those currently serving and because they don't want to tie themselves to parties because they think its bullshit and not in the interests of the local area.

One of the main problems with the parish council has is its older men who are rampantly sexist. They refuse to acknowledge that evening in person meetings massively disadvantage women with children and prevent them from participating in local politics. This group are the most underrepresented group in politics at any level for the obvious reason. And at local level I'd argue its getting worse.

A generation ago, women did a lot more volunteering and got a lot more involved in community issues, because many more were SAHM at least for a while. Women's paid working hours, made that much harder and put more stresses on them. I think there are less women coming through via grassroots than there were. Those who do come through, do so for a career and thus are there to serve themselves rather than an area.

I've also seen a lot of issues with generational domination. There hasn't been a natural succession and there hasn't been planning to facilitate it where it has happened. In the past there would have been a gentle handover over time as the load was spread. The pattern there has been has been there has been no one to hand over to, power has been concerntrated in individuals who age and then when people have come along with fresh ideas and a willingness to take over, they've been shut out initally and when its come to the crunch and things have HAD to be handed over they've been roundly dumped on. Our district scouts has has a big issue with this, and there was a crunch point where the old guard decided to give it up over covid. This has exposed the cluster fuck of poor management thats gone before, which has made it even harder for new people coming in, who were unfamiliar things to begin with as they've had to deal with all the shit left behind because there was a lack of oversight and accountability for so long.

I also think there is a generation shift below this driven by economic issues. Younger people have been forced to leave provisional towns and villages to find work and housing at a level not seen before. Previously, you could stay in the area you grew up in. Thats fundamentally changed. That means you are seeing polarisation in the age of populations rather a healthy mix. It means you get polarisation in political views too and a lack of understanding of the needs of different areas. Policy makers life in cities, and are more likely to live in London. The obvious example of where this plays out is in public transport - the need for public transport is clearly understood in London, but money isn't given to other areas and we've ended up with massive dependency on cars outside London and public transport which is so expensive no one uses it (Interesting to see that Manchester is looking to increase viability of public transport by driving the cost down to produce a massive increase in the volume of users).

Around here, I know two pubs you can still go into and just end up randomly talking to whoever is next to you - with a massive age spread. Its a really interesting thing and the topics of conversation that come up and the differences of experience are incredibly important and enlightening. But for the most part there are few and few places where you get this mix between generations and online echo chambers are even worse.

There are lots of things at play and its (again) something I have huge amount of interest in.

Torunette · 08/11/2022 13:23

RedToothBrush,

Everything you have just written, I recognise in one way or another. I suspect, in the past, women who had stopped going out to work when they had children kept huge amounts of the basic civic infrastructure going, largely unnoticed and unrecognised.

But what concerns me, particularly in an age where local news reporting no longer exists, is how the capacity for corruption and misuse of public funds is expanding and expanding. And how we are seeing younger political types, in these broken institutions, think that such things are normal.

Over the last couple of years, images from The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists keep popping into my head. I read it years ago, but I am starting to see examples jump from its pages into my own civic life all over. And Tressell was writing about the years before the First World War, ffs: the very time when working class life was arguably at the worst it had ever been with the effects of mass urbanisation and industrialisation wreaking havoc.

I fear we are going back to those times, that the post war period was just an anomaly, a blip. It also worries me that there's no consideration for the implications nor any forward planning for many political positions people hold, and so many issues are lost in the great furious showboating.

EdithStourton · 08/11/2022 13:50

MangyInseam · 08/11/2022 10:29

Yes yes, I think that is precisely right.

I've wondered if this is not behind some of the rural urban divide too. I've seen many rural areas seem to have kept more of that old social infrastructure, whereas cities seem much more atomic.

Yes, I agree with this analysis.

I live in a fairly rural area, where the idea of civic duty is not yet dead, and where new organisations still come into being. What does happen now, though, is that anyone who puts their head above the parapet is likely to get it blown off on FB. Fortunately the community is small enough that people will stand up for each other, and are also able to move discussion on in person in a constructive way. I'm not sure how that would work in a large town or a city.

I think that the atomisation of society has a lot to answer for. I really value how I am able to live, in a still remarkably cohesive community which gives me social connections to people of very different backgrounds to my own. It keeps me constantly aware of the fact that I have a bloody cushy life compared to many, and prompts me to do my own civic duty.