Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Defrocked



“Typical of a man-woman - any guy would know exactly what their car is. Only women don't.” said in a slightly dropped voice as an aside to the other bloke in the room: a shared confidence of a knowing between real men. So it starts, the separating off, the marking you out. The labelling. You’re different, and that difference is now flagged up between the reals. You feel the undertow of condescension. Your right to be fully human — a member of the man-club — is no longer there.

A chance to reprieve yourself is proffered. OK. You have replaced your car. So how many miles had the old one done? The question is asked.
“I don’t know” I reply, honestly, falling straight into the elephant trap.
Another aside - audible, but only just, and knowing looks exchanged between real men:
“Just what you would expect from a man-woman; men always know how many miles their cars have done!”

I am caught out. Defrocked. A sinking feeling of disappointment — I had hoped for more — some tolerance, if not acceptance — and now I have that feeling of a yawning gap opening — a knowing inside that my difference has been spotlighted — that it matters, that it can’t simply be accepted — that it cannot be left uncommented on. It needs to be drawn to attention: the real men closing ranks.

I can’t help being me, and I know that my difference is always likely to be on the radar, but I hope on hope that it does not matter, that it will pass unremarked, just accepted, like differences in height, or the pitch of voices, or signs of ageing, or the colour of eyes. I would love people to think “That’s how you are — OK — fine — no problem, after all we are all different.”

But then something confuses, something is not acceptable, something cannot be left to pass. It discomforts. I can hear the thinking: “This seeming man — are you really a man? Or do we switch into reacting to a woman mode? Definitely not — you seem to be mostly a man — so maybe your a gay? Or perhaps your a trans? Your not giving out gay man signals, so perhaps you a mix up - a man-woman – a transsexual – or whatever the freaks call themselves. So how do we react to you? Your not a woman so we can't react that way. You do not seem to be gay, so we don't need to fear you coming on to us, and we don't need to give you big put-downs, or think of beating you up. So what do we do? – because you are not completely a bloke, whatever you are.”

It would be so much simpler if I were clearly a woman. They’re different in men’s minds. They are the other. They do not function the same. They are the ones you ogle, the ones you pass comment on as to their ‘fitness’ — that is, their shaggability; or comment on the strangeness of their minds — so utterly unfathomable — that inability to even understand what seems so self-evident, so simple and so important — like how the wires go in a plug, or how to change the oil in a car. No one needs telling those things, no one needs to be shown, not once they are a bloke. It is just understood that you know. You learned as you grew up - just absorbed it. You watched other guys and that’s that. From then on you know. But women, you tell them, you show them, and then you have to tell them again! Yes again! Unbelievable! It like they don’t want to remember - or can’t remember — even simple things, like what is the right order for turning on the heating, or for setting the security alarm. And they stick together, think in harmony, gang up on you with glances and looks to each other; and then on goes the disapproval. And they are emotional time bombs. You are never quite sure what is going to freak one out — and then an utter torrent of accusation and blame — and whatever you say is simply shredded. No, women you handle with safety gloves. You make forays with sexual teasing – just in case they are game – will she, wont she flirt? – is she up for it? That is if she is not a minger, or a moose – but who would with one of those? Or at least who would admit to with one of those? Well you have to sometimes – but never let the boys know. As for the old trouts – the wrinklies and crinklies – humour them or patronise them – but keep well clear. And then when you are safely with the other guys, disparage and belittle the whole tribe with a few shared demeaning remarks and shrugs of agreement as to their incomprehensibility: a shared distain. Its OK, women are not actually fully human, not like men; they are not lords of the earth – they are not part of the man-army. They cannot march with the guys. They have to be set apart, set aside, confined.

But I am not a woman — but then neither am I totally a man. I’m a blend, a cut-and-shut job - dropped by nature to be somewhere between in that no-man’s-land that is neither fully the one nor the other. I don’t trigger that “react to a woman mode” that blokes fall into, somewhere between condescension and allure. Neither do I trigger the “it’s OK, he’s one of us and he is not gay” which lets you into the club. No. First the tacit acceptance, then, slowly, some puzzlement. Something doesn’t fit, something discomforts. The reactions are just wrong. The movements not wholly manly. Then it’s the reaching for another label - the man-woman sticker - the she-male; and you can feel the caution and the distance, and, most obviously, the contempt and the pity. It oozes, unspoken.

Tuesday, 2 October 2012

Not seeing the wood for the trees


I thought I understood this so familiar, so well known, everyday expression, first learned in childhood, in Primary school in fact. We used to have tests, questions to answer, in our English exercise books. “What does 'A stitch in time saves nine' mean?” or “What does 'A rolling stone gathers no moss' mean?” Proverbs and sayings that were so much part of the currency of everyday speech, or at least what was regarded as part of correct, polite, “nice” speech in those days – oh how my teachers hated the word “nice”. “It does not mean 'pleasant' it means 'exact'!” they would parrot. Well, exactly what it meant in our mouths was 'pleasing' and we were sticking to it resolutely, come what may. 

And our speech was not always 'polite' or 'correct' and contained, from time to time, when we dared, when we were very, very sure that we were not being listened to, when we could risk using some of those words we heard on the lips of SOME adults; adults who did hard jobs; adults who came out of the pub drunk; adults who spiced what they said with lots of words beginning with F or B and who we were told not to listen to; adults who were 'hushed” at and from whose words our ears were covered. Adults like I'll, so called because on pay night he would come reeling up the road, staggering and shouting “I'll …” followed by lots of threats of what he would do to his poor wife, although we never quite knew what he would do as all the threats were in Welsh. Repute had it that she would greet him at the front door with a rolling pin, or a frying pan, and made very sure that he did not do what ever it was he was so threatening to do. The only words of I'll's that we knew were those very English words starting with F or B with which his tirade was peppered. The Welsh we did not know, but, Welsh having no swear words, he made great use of those English words that did as well; and we knew these were very bad words. Words that were so bad that instant punishment would follow if you were ever heard uttering them, even at a whisper. I was too scared ever to use them. Well, almost. I did once say “ruddy” which gained me instant retribution, and once I did say “bloody” which almost caused the sky to fall on me – well my mother's instant ire at any rate. Never again did I risk those words.

But to the subject. “Not seeing the wood for the trees”. I had always, at least since I first began to understand it, took it to mean 'Not seeing the woodland for the trees', that is taking the word 'wood' to refer to woodlands, coppices, stands of trees, forests; understanding the expression to mean not seeing the wider picture because of being so fixed on seeing the particular, the individual, the “trees”. I was a little taken aback when someone began taking about that so familiar expression, but meaning 'wood' to refer to the material from which the trees were made.

I was disorientated. How could this be? Had I spent an lifetime misunderstanding the words? Had my answer, given with such confidence at the age of ten as to what it meant had been quite wrong, quite focussed in an incorrect direction? How typical of me not to have quite got it right, not to have heard or understood it properly. No wonder I was sat at the back of the class with the other dimmies, those of us who were never going to be destined for the great heights of passing the Eleven-plus. Those elevated souls, the ones who were worth investing the time in on the part of our school, they sat at the front, those ones who might be destined for Grammar school and for an elevated life ever after. Our job was to be still, to be quiet and to be docile so as not to impede the progress of those elect. If we were lucky we might be able to read by the time we left school, or to count correctly, at least enough to measure and weigh, as our lot in life would be in workshop or field, or behind a counter or under-stairs. The understanding of the complex ideas embodied in 'seeing the wood from the trees' was, after all, beyond us, as my complete misunderstanding of the expression clearly demonstrated.

So – not seeing what something is made out of because of being too focussed on what it is. Now I have it, but a lifetime too late.