Apparently, Harriet Harman has said something that wasn’t perfectly crafted to offend precisely nobody. As a result, someone somewhere got offended. Cue in the cries of “omgz!! The misandry!!!eleventy!”. (I’ll believe in “misandry” when Ms Word recognizes the word).
Here’s my response to Harman’s comment: I don’t care. Really, I don’t care. Could she have expressed her ideas better? Maybe. But so? Male politicians offend women with practically every word they utter, and somehow no one gets his boxers in a bunch and devotes kilometres of lines of op-eds to it. Which lays bare the real reason why Harman’s speech is dissected and analyzed to ridiculous extremes: because she’s a woman and she’s a politician and she’s saying something, as opposed to saying nothing, which is the natural order of things. If a woman (or a man) has to think and re think every word she’s about to say, she’ll end up not saying anything at all. Truth expressed imperfectly is always better than perfect, pristine truth that goes unspoken. If we demand perfection, we will get nothing. I should know. I demand perfection from myself and I end up writing nada. (Now, “nada” is a word that Ms Word recognizes).
Along with the cries of “the misandry”, Harman has had to contend with accusations of being “anti meritocratic”.
Oh, the meritocracy. Known in this blog here after as the (sh)meritocracy.
I take issue with the (sh)meritocracy from Hell for many many reasons, and I’m planning on writing a book about it the second I finish bumming around doing nothing. I don’t believe in it, I don’t like it, and I think it’s doing more harm than good. Also, it has messed up with my mind and my heart enough already, so it’s personal.
Here’s the basic, core argument against it. The (sh)meritocracy doesn’t work and cannot work because, in a world designed by rich white men for rich white men, the best person for the job which will best serve the interests of rich white men is, expectably, a rich white man. Occasionally a not rich or not white or not man may get the job in question, but only in so far as s/he best serves the interests of (you guessed it) rich white men. We know the story; we refer to them as the “honorary white” (*cof*Obama*cof*), the “honorary man” (*cof*Thatcher*cof*) or the “honorary elite born” (*cof*Blair*cof*).
All this goes back to the age old argument on whether the world should be restructured as we go along or destroyed with a bang and rebuilt from the ground up. I favour bangs, aka: revolutions. Which leads me to the reason why I keep quiet about using my “revolution is the answer” card to all possible issues, which means I end up keeping quiet about pretty much everything. The reason is that I cannot be arsed to write about it I have no idea what to do. I haven’t come up with a recipe for a big bang style revolution that will shatter patriarchy, destroy capitalism and put an end to all hierarchies in society. But the minute I do, I promise I will present the recipe to everyone in this here blog, entirely free of charge and with all the fanfare and fireworks it deserves.
In the meantime, let’s leave Harriet Harman alone. She’s pissing off the Daily Male, she must be doing something right.