I can’t remember exactly who said it but it’s bound to be some American clever clogs or other who quipped that the problem with being British is you’re only allowed to find out about current affairs 30 years after they take place. Recent examples of the political past being illuminated for today’s news junkies contrast in their respect for the UK’s venerable 30-year rule which is applied to civil service documents. Sometimes it feels the past has been pored over with almost indecent haste. At others we have been reminded of anachronisms of a bygone age that feel out of kilter with today’s less deferential politics.
Although somewhat buried by Tony Blair’s testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry as a news story, private papers released last weekend by the Thatcher Foundation give an insight into Mrs T’s early tenure of No 10 and even her diet during the 1979 general election. Apparently she told Jimmy Carter in her first post-election phone call to the White House that her high octane activity rate had prevented her from getting any rest and she was prescribed a strict diet of 28 eggs a week punctuated by lettuce and steak on the campaign trail. I am reminded of the Spitting Image sketch in which she was dining with cabinet colleagues and ordering similar fare. When the waiter replied “And the vegetables?” her reply was: “They’ll have the same as me.” Among the scraps now released in their entirety for all to see are her handwritten notes to herself in a 1979 Economist diary. The private collection was bequeathed to Churchill College, Cambridge, perhaps partly as a consequence of Baroness Thatcher’s snubbing by Oxford for an honorary degree.
The psyche of another fallen leader, Britain’s most electorally successful Labour prime minister ever, Tony Blair, was subject of column inches recently as he gave his long-awaited evidence to the latest Iraq Inquiry. In the 24-hour news culture, which he himself once called the “feral beast”, television channels had a field day: even body language experts were called in to interpret the meaning of dry-voiced tremors at the beginning, to his owning of the space by the end, with a hand-on-heart type gesture as he finished by telling us with customary unswerving conviction how he had, to his mind, done the right thing. The whole thing was utterly predictable. It was remarked that Fern Britton got more out of Blair than the Chilcot inquisitors. People who cry “whitewash” will nonetheless demand as many inquiries as possible until they get the result they want. I’m the sort who usually never says never but seven years on, after Hutton et al, Tony Blair’s head on a plate branded ‘war criminal’ will, in all likelihood, never occur.
What bearing Chilcot will have on the outcome of the 2010 general election is questionable. Despite suffering some losses, Labour won in 2005 in the more immediate aftermath of the invasion, so at this point of the conflict Iraq’s impact as a dealbreaker will be likely lessened with other issues supplanting it. More relevant are the damaging utterances of Peter Watt, the former Labour party general secretary who, depending on how you look at it, was either wronged or just plain incompetent. The ex-party staffer has taken his vengeance publicly all over the news channels with a book published by Tory blogger Iain Dale and serialised by the arch-Conservative Daily Mail group, two sources keen to spread anti-Labour poison at this point of the cycle. No 30-year rule here. Despite his protestations that he only wanted to clear his name, the currency of his claims and, presumably, the size of his advance/ serialisation cheque would substantially lessen the other side of the election if the Tories win. The chance to inflict maximum damage now to Labour is a gift for the Tory press. The scramble for the dumped, and the dumped-upon, official to blurt out all looks, to an outsider, to be financially motivated.
Postmodernist sociologists have long talked of “accelerated time” where the past catches up with us at a dizzying pace. When Channel 4 fictionalised Blair/Brown friction in their drama ‘The Deal’ it was odd to be dramatising the living. Since then Stephen Frears’ box office smash The Queen has positively normalised such portrayals. Last weekend alone saw similar treatments of Winnie Mandela and Mo Mowlam on the box. We live in an age of hyper-reality where fiction and reality are blurring all the time.
After all the media circus that came with Chilcot let us hope that lessons are learned in the final report’s conclusion so that past mistakes aren’t repeated. As for the general election, whenever it may be, this must come down to the real choices now facing the country: whether to chuck away all that has been achieved in the past 12 years for a bunch of airheads who think airbrushing is a proper strategy. A lot can happen between now and polling day. Harold Wilson famously quipped that a week is a long time in politics. As Macmillan, the other postwar PM named Harold said in politics the key driver is always “events, dear boy, events.”
There is a problem with the women in this culture. Yes, I know, there are problems with men, too. Believe me, I have heard about them for the last forty years. Some of it true and fair, much of it neither. It was a necessary dialogue just the same. So is this. To understand this we need a brief look at history. Women, in the past, were denied voting rights, couldn’t own land and didn’t have much access to employment that would give them the freedom to make it on their own. This needed to change, and of course, did, as can be confirmed with a cursory glance at the world around you. I laud those changes. But the problem was in how we got here. The reality is that the gender roles of our history were traps for both men and women. Women were relegated to home and children; men to sacrificial roles as protectors and providers. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was just a matter of survival, and for many thousands of years it worked quite well to that end. But once men made the environment safe enough for women to metaphorically “leave the cave,” it was only natural and right that men change and allow that to happen. And ladies, we did. This is the simple but accurate truth of the matter. Men and women developed gender roles that facilitated the survival of the species. And once those roles were not necessary, they did begin the often complicated path to change. The problem here is that your knowledge of these historical events is largely shaped, convoluted rather, by feminism. Feminists taught you that your history with men was of unremitting evil; that you were chattel, slaves to men who held all power and shut you out with extreme intent. They even gave it a name. Patriarchy. It is a word that has become synonymous with oppression. But feminists were loathe to remind you that “Women and children first,” was the patriarchal mantra, and that much of the social norms, even when misguided, were a product of a code adopted for the sole purpose of preserving your life. It wasn’t always fair, but the unfairness wasn’t always yours. Men died by that code, and trained their sons to do the same. The fact that we still do is the subject for another essay. So what happened? As feminist distortions were increasingly embraced, and intertwined with the legitimate need for change, men did what they usually do. They reacted to the message and not the messenger and unblocked the entrance to that cave. Many of you spit on us on the way out. Many of you still do. It has to stop. This isn’t just about decency. And it is not just about the chasm of mistrust that separates us from each other, or the legions of the walking wounded from this godforsaken gender war. It is about our future. The vilification of men that you have accepted as appropriate now translates to catastrophe for our sons, for your sons. The problem is that what we say, think and feel about people invariably translates into what we actually do to them. Nowhere is this more evident than with our sons, in the here and now. If you take an honest look at the academic environment to which our boys are subjected, you will see that their masculinity itself is under attack with ideology that teaches them they are inherently flawed. Christina Hoff Sommers documented this in her highly recommended book “The War Against Boys.” She writes, “The pedagogy is designed to valorize females, such as teaching history in a woman-centered way. Boys are to be inspired to revere Anita Hill and to “enjoy” quilting. At the same time, schools discourage activities that are natural and traditional to boys, such as playing ball together.” She goes on to say, with sad accuracy, “Most parents have no idea what their children are facing in the gender-charged atmosphere of the public schools.” What Sommers didn’t add to that but I will is the fact that most parents have no idea about this because they choose not to. As girls and girls programs increasingly flourish, boys are falling to the sidelines in ever growing numbers. The results of that are chilling. Boys are more likely than ever to drop out of school and engage in delinquency and other problems. They are representing less college graduates every year. With this diminishing education and wholesale marginalization, they are on a fast track to being the “second sex,” that position that so many feminists touted as the greatest evil of human history when they claimed it applied to women. This is the lasting legacy of spitting on men. Your sons will not be the exception. Young men now grow up to be destroyed in corrupt family court systems where women are encouraged to and even praised for using children, their children, like pawns in order to drain the father of assets. And those same children also have their badly needed connection to their fathers severed in the process. When those exploited, abused children start quite naturally to act out and get in trouble, we blame the father who was removed against his will, for of all things, being absent. And the “freedom” women gained on this frenzied path of vengeance and victimization? It doesn’t appear to have settled well. Women are growing increasingly violent. They are matching men in domestic violence, blow for blow, and they are causing the lions share of injury and death to children in the home. But we don’t speak of these things. We are not supposed to. In your position as the identified victim, and mine as the identified perpetrator, there is supposed to be an indelible silence on these matters. For the most part, there is. That silence is destroying us. And it is a silence that is maintained with the collusion of shallow, weak men and misguided, self-serving women, which is to say most of the culture. The only answer I can think of is for men, and for women, to change. Perhaps you will consider this before concluding that men’s rights activists are whiners or woman haters or products of bad mothers. You might actually decide that most men’s rights activists are men who above all else, seek justice. For their children, for themselves, and ultimately for you. I hope that a few of you will read this and consider it the next time you hear someone say “men are pigs,” or when you hear a woman refer to her first born child as “the insurance policy,” or before you nod your head in unconsidered agreement with whatever negatives about men happen to be making the rounds. All of this will be visited on your sons, and their sons. I hope too, that some of you look at your sons and think, and ask yourself what kind of world in which you really want them to live. When your sons choose wives and marry, I hope you consider the agony they will go through when “taken to the cleaners” and robbed of their children in the family courts. You will be forced to stand by powerlessly and watch them have their hearts ripped out. As always, it will look much different to you when the system you help maintain with your silence crushes your son, and not just some obscure, unknown male whom you quietly think is getting what he deserves. It will happen to more than half of them. The best prevention for this last one is to teach our sons to choose carefully; to scrutinize a woman before committing his life and work to her; to evaluate her morals and values as a woman prior to putting a ring on her finger. or even whether it is wise any more to marry in the first place. But how can we do this if we keep teaching them that such evaluations are the stuff of misogyny? Indeed, how can we do this if scrutinizing women at all is such a taboo? And therein lies the rub, ladies. It is indeed time, just as it was for men, for women to be held to scrutiny, and to account. More importantly, it is time for women to do this on their own. I’ll do my best to provide a fair and compassionate mirror in my writings. It is always up to you whether that mirror is a place you want to look.