Winehouse's lesson in dissonant pleasures

I had an argument with Katy Brand recently. Which is a bit surreal to write, given that she's been one of my heroes for some time now, combining as she does progressive thinking (as evidenced on her twitter feed and in her columns) and a genial comic talent (as demonstrated in gems such as this, this and this) - or perhaps more accurate to say - a producer of views that speak to me, and comedy which I find genuinely funny.

Then she wrote this, and I felt bitterly disappointed. Because surely someone like Brand should know better, than to consider this kind of deportment innocuous or even worthy of praise. I won't go into the reasons why - when they've already been put far so poetically here by Holly McNish, for the No More Page 3 campaign. 

So disappointed did I feel in fact, that even as someone who as a rule never comments on anything no matter how violently I disagree with it, I tweeted Holly's little slam poem at Brand by way of counter-argument, and then found myself caught up in a twitter dialogue (a very stressful affair as it turns out - succinctness is not my forte, especially the instantaneous variety).

I tried to understand where she was coming from - this idea that nudity can sometimes be liberating and rebellious, rather than objectifying and stale.

A friend recently reminded me that, when you develop a filter, a way of looking at the world - that is coloured by ideological and political considerations or convictions - be it feminism, post-colonialism, anti-racism, anti-transphobia or whatever else - it becomes very difficult to switch it off. Whether its real life, politics, television, films, fiction, comedy, lyrics or music videos. It permeates your perception and reception of everything. And can often result in a certain cognitive dissonance.   

I was struck by this clip of Amy Winehouse, in which she mentions a song called "He hit me and it felt like a kiss." She points out that while many would be outraged by this kind of sentiment, and see it as sanitizing domestic violence, she knows exactly what those words mean.

Speaking for myself, I can't really say the same. This, I suppose, is partly because I've never been physically assaulted in a way that I felt somehow ambivalently about, and partly because of a conviction, or filter, I've acquired which considers domestic violence, and indeed all violence, to be abhorrent and deserving of unmitigated condemnation.  

But, with a bit of imagination and honesty, I can fathom of a circumstance in which the lyric would ring true. Even if I haven't lived it myself, I'm aware of the fundamentally irrational nature of human emotions, of the often self-destructive tendencies we adopt both alone and in relationships, and of the somewhat unstable line between pain that is completely unwelcome, and another kind.

This is where the dissonance creeps in. Is it reconcilable, then, to believe that nudity is part of an endemic and corrosive phenomenon of objectification that fuels suicides and eating disorders among teenage girls, and at the same time to enjoy a Beyonce concert - perhaps for the artistic value, perhaps because there is something aesthetically appealing about such displays and sexualized performances, for both women and men, whether you want to describe it as confidence, sexiness, or anything else.

Or is it inconsistent, then, to listen to violent misogynistic rap - as I did when I was at too tender an age to be as painfully aware as I am now of the prevalence of violence, rape and abuse, or the pernicious, all-encompassing nature of male-dominated power relations and structures. As I still do, in fact. 

To return to the original subject of discord - Ms. Cyrus's performance at the VMAs - I have to say that even if it were possible for me to flick the chip off my shoulder, even if Holly’s words were not ringing in my ears as I watched it - I don't think I would appreciate the performance much more.

Even though we do see it everywhere and seem to have become more or less desensitised to it entirely, somehow it does still seem possible to use sex and nudity in a visually interesting rather then entirely gratuitous way, although there is seldom much real originality in this direction in the mainstream, or variation in the formula (and the key thing here is that the mainstream pop culture is what many of the youngest and most impressionable members of society encounter first, and even when we consciously decided to refine our tastes and blot it out - we remain helplessly accessible for it in many daily situations.)

Although she doesn't strike me as having the emotional depth and nuance of Winehouse, Katy Brand's icon Beyonce has not shied away from productions that seemed a bit bizarre and unusual, it has to be said. But there was also something tantalizing and aesthetically intriguing in it, if not exactly ground-breaking. 

While Cyrus, who decided to engage in a bit of underdressed cultural misappropriation next to a fully-clothed (and rather odious) male, fell completely flat, as far as I'm concerned. Much as I admire Brand, I still don't really buy her argument. If anything, Miley failed to do her justice.

As for Winehouse, who would have turned 30 tomorrow, at least Brand and I are both in agreement that there was much to be praised and celebrated there, not least the way her music spoke to our deepest and darkest natures, with an irresistible fluency that made it easy to throw off the weight of the normative, political and historical, in favour of the simply human. 

Steps and Stones

Ali Ismail Korkmaz is not unique. He was among 5 people who lost their lives during the Gezi Park protests. The fate of some others has yet to be determined, for example Berk Elvan – the 14-year-old who was hit in the head by a tear-gas canister while out buying bread on June 15, and has been in a coma ever since.

But the way Korkmaz was killed was uniquely horrifying. As the footage below this article shows – he was deliberately trapped by a number of individuals while running away from police and subsequently beaten. He was able to get up and go home in the aftermath of the attack, but when he woke up the next morning, he couldn’t speak. He later died of a brain haemorrhage, after a lengthy period in a coma.

As the same article discusses, about a week ago there was a coordinated and no doubt calculated outpouring of twitter-grief from key figures in Turkey’s ruling party, on the subject of Korkmaz’s death. This was rather astonishing, not least because Korkmaz died on July 10, and had entered a coma over a month earlier.

EU Minister Egemen Bağış, responsible for some of the most alarmingly loony statements during the protests, went in with the following: “I condemn the wild creatures who attacked 19-year-old Ali İsmail Korkmaz. It is impossible to understand or explain such cruel images.”

Is it really, though? Is it impossible to understand people behaving in this way when, as was later claimed by one of those arrested for the attack, the police allegedly asked unsympathetic bystanders to trap protesters so that they could beat them?

And even if this request was not explicitly made – is it so hard to fathom this taking place when the rhetoric against the protesters was so virulent – denouncing them as looters, trouble-makers & coup-plotters. And in a climate where violence was being incited and even condoned – as when a man attacking protesters with a machete was said to have been acting “within the framework of the law” by a senior government member.

Well, no. It's entirely logical.

But Bağış & the others' professions of shock and horror are not only offensive for their inconsistency and disingenuousness. The total & utter insincerity is made even starker by what has been happening since then – in terms of the witch hunts being carried out in schools & universities, where students have been told to denounce each other & their teachers, the crackdowns on all areas where protests are likely to take place such as football stadiums & universities, to pre-empt any further resistance & stifle any stirrings of organised dissent.

One night, around the same time as these statements were made, I walked through Gezi Park on my way home. I stopped at a patch of grass where some paving stones had been laid – five, to be precise – each one bearing the name of one of the victims who lost their lives during the protests (one of whom was a police officer).  

These symbolic headstones have been the object of a tug-of-war between the protesters and authorities, who appear to find them highly objectionable and a threat to the peace & order of the place – as they have removed & disposed of them each time they have appeared, and reappeared.

It's a battle of the symbols similar to that which is currently going on over the painting and repainting of steps – first in rainbow colours – then back to grey – and then back again to multi-colours. It strikes me as such a waste of time and energy, to attempt to police the symbolic in this way. So pointless to focus on something so innocuous as colours or memorials to the dead. So unedifying and unflattering in that it makes Turkey seem like far more of a security-mad police state than it actually is. And above all so futile – because the battle of symbols is one that can never be won. There will always be someone who shows up in the middle of the night to place the stones, or to paint the steps, even if they have to resort to using kerbstones because the larger paving stones are nowhere to be found, as was the case for two of the stones when I came across them that night. At least – I hope it cannot be won, and that someone will.  

I stood there for a while, and while I was standing some boys came over with some flowers they'd cut from the beds nearby – meticulously planted by municipality workers during the period when the park was shut down – and began to arrange them in various formations around the stones.

One of them asked me if I was Turkish. I said no and told him where I was from. When I directed the question at him he also said no, and told me he was Kurdish.

Then a man came over, perhaps the father of one, and we spoke briefly, him asking me the usual questions I so often get asked as a foreigner in this county. Among which - "Do you like living in Turkey," to which I answered, "yes, very much." An answer given mainly out of honesty, and partially out of diplomacy to please to asker. I needn't have bothered this time though, as he responded by saying, "I don't."

When I passed through Gezi Park again two nights ago, the stones were nowhere to be seen. 

Troll wack-a-mole is a losing game

With the latest discussion about the need for a “report abuse” button on twitter, the discussion about how to combat online bullying and abuse rumbles on.

A month or so ago these discussions were largely focused around misogynistic content on facebook.  Emer O'Toole described this kind of content as “an opportunity for feminists”. I would tend to regard it more as an unfortunate distraction.  

While I admire the noble attempts to get every last piece of violently misogynistic/pro-rape content off of facebook & twitter, I cant help feeling that it's a futile exercise which can only do further damage by drawing extra attention to this content. Personally, I had not encountered any of the groups mentioned in the above article & others similar to it, until their well-intentioned authors brought them to my attention. Of course, I imagined they were probably out there, but the internet is full of deeply disturbing content, and we cannot expect to police this in the same way as the images and messages we are exposed to in say, the public space in the form of advertising, or the mainstream media. 

The point is that the facebook or twitter censorship battle cannot be won. Anymore than the battle of the likes or comments can be won on youtube. At least, not without radically changing the nature of all these platforms.

There is no engaging with people determined to provoke. They are by nature irrational and uncooperative. Similar content is bound to reappear instantly. By either condemning them & demanding they be silenced, or by simply pointing others in their general direction, we are giving this online scourge the oxygen that it needs & seeks out in order to thrive and justify its own existence. We ought instead to make them feel as if they are in an echo chamber. And those who make direct, personal threats should be shamed and stigmatized, as was so effectively done to this lowlife, resulting in a most unedifying, and yet somehow not remotely satisfying, crawl-back.  

As for the ladies, I think our time would be better spent producing and focusing on our own content. 

The trolls* may be relentless, but if we multiply the counter-voices we can more than hold our own. I suppose this is what I'm trying to do right now. And this is exactly what Laura Bates, the creator of the everday sexism project, has done. The format is elegant and simple - not leaving any space for comments, arguments or trolls, simply giving a voice to girls (and sometimes men) to express something which in wider society is often invisible or taboo.

But Bates's ground-breaking exercise has also exposed her to a massive outpouring of misogyny - not only in the form of anecdotes, but also web content. I read recently that she had to undergo therapy after seeing close-up footage of a woman being beheaded with a knife. Exposing ourselves to this is both damaging (even though we may feel the damage has already been done) and pointless.

There is something slightly perverse about trawling social media for content that makes one's blood boil, purely to demand its removal. Not to claim of course, that I've never done so myself.

There are two options - troll them, the way male idiots so often troll feminist blogs and articles, or ignore it in favour of other content.

Of course it happens to stumble across this kind of content when one is not looking for it, but I think this is primarily an issue of concern when it comes to children. If I was a parent, even if facebook were to make solid assurances to remove all objectionable content, I'd still regard it as madness to allow my children to surf the internet without any restrictions in place. Young minds (especially female) can be deeply affected by this kind of thing, but perhaps the eventual encounter is inevitable. Loss of innocence is unfortantely, a sad reality hard to avoid forever. But for those of us who wish to continue to protect our own as far as possible, the answer is to just dismiss is as gratuitous provocation, and click away.

I am not saying that these groups are not extremely problematic and potentially harmful, but their reach is not comparable to the more normalized and insidious sexist discourses - such as those vehiculed by politicians, religious figures, or media and advertisers who objectify women all day every day, in public spaces that none of us can avoid. The more "real-world" feminist campaigns - like the banknote and anti-page 3 campaigns in the UK, or the pro-choice movement in Ireland, take on forms of sexism that are widely accepted and deeply entrenched in our societies. If we accept that there is a finite supply of resources and energy within the feminist movement, I'd far sooner see it put towards these efforts - that is, where a tangible goal can be fought for & eventually acheived. With online content that goal is always going to be elusive.

Many of those who engage in crude humour and make rape jokes know better in real life and would never dream of allowing this crude "humour" to manifest itself in their actual interactions, as with so much internet troll-itude. And we should not kid ourselves, the ones who film themselves beheading their girlfriends, even the most stringent facebook moderation can do nothing for.

Tanya Gold has it exactly right when she says, “I deplore rape jokes but I would not think of banning them. I would rather the comics who make them played to empty theatres – and eventually, the solitary mirror. Can our consciences not be our policemen? I have been a journalist for 15 years. I have learned to ignore – even welcome – the hatred. It comes from men who will never be on banknotes, and who publish anonymously..”

Rape threats, and other forms of online misogyny, are a pathetic and cowardly means of trying to assert power by those who evidently do not really have any. We should take this as a sign that things are moving in the right direction.

* I'm aware that points have been raised recently expressing that a distinction exists between a troll (someone who is deliberately and insincerely inflammatory, or who just strings someone else along in a debate for the sake of it) and someone sending violent threats directly to another person. I agree, but for lack of a better word, and because the misrepresentation of trolls is not high on my list of concerns, I'm lumping them together for now. 

Let's hear it for the boys.

I woke up on saturday to find my social media feeds awash with feminism. This is always heartening. But it was especially heartening this time in that there seemed to be so many men on the case. Essentially, the recent discussions have centered around the absolutely shocking abuse and relentless rape threats targeting Caroline Criado-Perez, who is also part of the everyday sexism project - a tumblr that is so depressing and so close to the bone that I'm barely able to read it, at least not without vowing to myself that I will never, ever bring a daughter into this world.

Each in their own way, Sunny Hundal, Owen Jones & Charlie Brooker have been giving boys (and girls) across the UK & beyond a masterclass in real-world feminism lately.

Hundal has been excellent in highlighting the problem of misogynistic abuse on social media & the internet in general on his blog and has been very vocal in campaigning for better safeguards on social media to report abuse.

Jones has too, and I was particularly impressed with this tweet of his from Sunday.

Turned down media requests about the twitter abuse situation because the debate really needs to be dominated by women. Come on producers!
— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) July 28, 2013

Feminism is, on the whole, not so popular with men. Nor is it with women for that matter, many of whom describe it as "extreme". But a uniquely aggressive brand of hostility (even among men I would regard as very politically progressive) is reserved for the suggestion that if men want to do women a favour they could stand to pipe down occasionally. This is often regarded as akin to censorship for men, and as patronizing to women.

But when you see panels on television and conferences everywhere that are entirely dominated by men, when you see the same male pundits over and over again, when you sit back in a room and observe how much the men are speaking versus the women (even when women are the majority) you start to think maybe things need a little nudge in the right direction. In the case of public appearances, perhaps it simply did not occur to the producers/organizers to ask a woman who may have equal (or superior) expertise and experience on an issue (especially if that issue concerns women directly!) and simply chose someone with a higher profile out of sheer lack of imagination.

In the case of sitting in a room and realising that women outnumber men 2 to 1 but are only speaking for 20% of the time, yes - here the ladies do need to take a measure of responsibility. It may well be (in fact it is) that we've been socialized into speaking more concisely than men and are more reluctant to come forward on the whole, especially if we doubt our knowledge on an issue, but we need to somehow override this default setting if the balance is ever to be rectified. It cannot just be a few confident and outspoken ladies doing all the legwork to fix the ratios. We all need to speak up, no matter how hard it might be.

But the men sitting in the same room also have a role to play. I've witnessed firsthand the rather disturbing outrage that the suggestion that men should sometimes hold back and listen a bit more is generally met with. But Jones shows us how it's done. Giving up a platform isn't some kind of dishonourable show of cowardice or self-censorship. If you really want to change things, sometimes it's necessary. In the case of suggesting a female colleague to speak in one's place on an issue because she would simply be a better choice - it's also just a fair and sensible thing to do.

Then there is Brooker, whose recent Guardian column not only draws attention to the plight of female writers, but also expresses why he himself does not wish to continue to occupy a platform when he feels he does not have something particularly valuable to contribute. This is not necessarily just about women of course. It's a sentiment which is admirable for a range of reasons. Realizing that you have enough profile, and taking a step back - is just a very decent and humble thing to do, whether or not that space is likely to be taken up by someone from any group less well represented than heterosexual white men.

This is what it means to check your (in this case male) privilege. But it's also just about showing empathy towards other human beings.

So - let's give the boys a hand.

Deaf to the streets - The Discourse of Erdogan & co

Yesterday it was announced that the EU would indeed open a new chapter with Turkey as planned, despite Merkel's electioneering and the reluctance of many European politicians to provide a boost to a government that in recent weeks has licensed its security forces to use any means necessary to suppress peaceful protests.

Mixed feelings abound.

I have long been fervently in favour of Turkish accession, and until recently, my sympathy for those embroiled in the no doubt tortuous negotiations on the Turkish side was unmitigated.

The EU has been inconsistent, and failed to make good on its pronouncements and promises. It has shown cowardice and prejudice, and continued to treat Turks as second-class citizens. It has allowed the discussion to focus on Islam, detracting attention from the fact that countries such as Bulgaria and Romania acceded when much work remained to be done in terms of rooting out corruption, raising standards of democracy, legal reforms, and so on.

After witnessing the astonishing events in recent weeks, however, and the comments and rhetoric which have accompanied them (as far as I can glean with my still severely limited grasp of Turkish), I have had to reconsider this position.  Perhaps the EU negotiators also deserve a measure of sympathy. They are, after all, apparently dealing with some of the most uncompromising, arrogant, insincere politicians to be found in the ranks of any ruling class in Europe today (stiff competition, admittedly).   

For those blissfully unfamiliar, here's a quick intro to some of the main characters in the motley crew...

First of all – the king of the hill, numero uno – Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The list of outrageous, untrue, inflammatory, polarizing, and slanderous statements he has made since the protests began would take all day to get through. So here’s a recent example. Despite the many shocking and unprovoked incidents of police brutality during the protests (here’s a taste), which have been well documented by both the protesters themselves and the press (who were often targeted themselves), Erdoğan, not big on nuance or sensitivity, attended a graduation ceremony at Ankara’s police academy on Monday and described their actions as “heroic.”

Then there is Egemen Bağış, the EU Minister. Who routinely makes statements which sound kind of reasonable, before adding something totally insane. For instance, the time when he made the perfectly legitimate point that Merkel ought not to use Turkey to score points at home, followed by an absolutely absurd threat, typical of the kind of delusional neo-Ottoman overconfidence displayed by the whole gang.

"If Ms. Merkel is looking for domestic political material for her elections, that material should not be Turkey," Bagis told reporters on Thursday. "If Ms. Merkel takes a closer look, she will see that those who mess about with Turkey do not find an auspicious end." (read full article here)

But wait – there’s more. Mr. Bağış also shared this absolutely mental video – in which an ominous and incredibly dishonest voiceover contends that a humble Belgrade-based NGO which provides information about non-violent resistance is single-handedly toppling regimes for – well, just for the sake of it apparently. Entertaining viewing, until you remember that Bağış posted it beside the following tweet: "An enlightening documentary on international chaos merchants who disguise themselves as "revolutionaries."" Hashtag terrifying. 

As a bonus, this is also the guy who said everyone who set foot in Taksim Square after crackdown #3 would be treated as a terrorist. 

Next up, Melih Gökçek, Mayor of Ankara. In fairness, I’d been well warned about this one before. A well-known “character” – read crackpot – he seems unanimously despised and yet has been the mayor of the capital for as long as it’s existed – or thereabouts. Gökçek is a keen twitter user, and likes to use it to share his wacky ideas and to slander people and put their safety at risk by inciting others against them – or at least that’s what happened last week when he singled out BBC Turkish report Selen Girit and accused her of being – get this – a spy and an agent for England. In response, the BBC issued a statement expressing concern about the intimidation of its journalists in Turkey. Gökçek was undeterred, and then turned his tweeting crusade to CNN. Wired to the moon, or just stuck in the 1960s – I leave it up to the reader to decide.

Then there’s world champion liar, president of the lying society of filthy liars, pathological and compulsive teller of untruths Istanbul Governor Hüseyin Avni Mutlu. He says things like: the police would “never touch Gezi Park and the protesters,” before sending police into the park.

Or things like: Those people in white coats helping injured people are not real doctors (I’m paraphrasing, but barely.) 

Special mention to Mehmet Simsek who said that not a single journalist was in prison for doing journalism, but that they were murderers and bank robbers (let’s remind ourselves that this is country with the most journalists in prison in the world, and with a press freedom record that lags behind russia’s)

All the above examples seem too much like political satire to be believed, yet it’s just a small sample of what we’ve seen in recent weeks.

This rhetoric is not only shockingly unsatisfactory as a response to the clear demands laid out by the protesters, it's also irresponsible and dangerous. Lying about what the police will do makes people unable to make clear decisions about the risks they’re willing to take. Singling individuals out as traitors puts their lives at risk. Stoking up tensions between people in society with different opinions is bound to cause friction and violence. It is no surprise at all that during the recent “peoples' assemblies” (at which people have gathered in parks across the city to discuss the protests and share ideas), on several occasions armed groups of thugs have showed up to cause trouble and attack those gathered. There have also been cases of such gangs of vigilantes roaming the streets, targeting people who look like protesters.    

The discourse being wheeled out by the prime minister, unabashedly using an “us” and “them” dichotomy, leads to the kind of polarization Turkey has seen before, when people were killing each other in street for being rightist or leftist, for drinking at the wrong coffee-house, or any such nonsense, after the military coups of the last few decades.

If these tensions boil over into outright violence that causes serious harm or loss of life, Erdoğan will have everything to answer for.

Aside from these immediate risks, it is the discourse of a leadership that is failing woefully the aspirations of many Turks, who are open-minded, multi-lingual, enthusiastic and fully qualified to become fully-fledged European citizens

In a recent interview with HDN, MEP Andrew Duff, for someone in favour of Turkish accession on the whole and with a head more or less screwed on correctly - made some pretty amazing and depressing comments and the prospects for Turkish membership, including that it had gone more or less as far as it could go under the current leadership, questioning Egemen Bagis's motivations, and even saying that Erdogan did not really understand what the EU actually is. 

Though these points may all be accurate, it would be totally unjustifiable to punish the Turkish citizens as a whole for the obstinacy of their leaders.  The EU process is, and always has been, about compromise and mutual engagement. So it was absolutely right to open the chapter, though of course the fact that Erdoğan is likely to take it as an endorsement is a bit of a tough one to swallow. 

And yet there is something strangely familiar about Erdoğan’s discourse, trying to drive a wedge between the protestors and the rest of society who stays at home, who aren't personally affected and might not be too sure what to make of it all. I've heard this somewhere before. I heard it in 2003, when around a million people marched through central London in an attempt to get the government to back down from its plans to invade Iraq. The main message, carried on placard after placard, was “not in our name.” Following this mass mobilisation, Tony Blair appeared on the news saying “when you see those people in the streets, remember that something something something.” I soon forgot his actual message. But I will never forget the casual and confident way in which he shrugged off a million citizens who cared enough about something to trudge through the streets, in an attempt to influence a decision they would not be consulted about. Nor the way he addressed the people watching him on television as if the people in the streets were outsiders, as if they were illegitimate, and somehow threatening and manipulative. When in fact they were us. 

As far as commendable reactions to protests go – the recent unrest in Brazil have provided a shining example from the country’s President Dilma Roussef, who said:

“The streets are telling us that the country wants quality public services, more effective measures to combat corruption... and responsive political representation, [...] We all must, without exception, understand these signals with humility and accuracy.”

Perfect. But it remains to be seen of course, whether this message from the streets will be acted upon, once it has been heard.