Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

sensitive

there i was listening to the radio when vicky simister came on, she has started the london anti-street harassment campaign or lash (not quite sure why it isn’t lashc, well i am lash is a word, lashc isn’t).

the main thrust of her campaign is one that everyone can get behind, as stated in their goals “ultimately, we want street harassment to simply be socially unacceptable”, of course this harassment is just one way: men towards women (and transsexuals, because lash is inclusive). i am not disputing that there is a problem; i live in an area where the local young males have extra macho flakes for their breakfasts.
i do have issues with some of the research quoted and the easy way that an american based informal survey of a small group of people can be applied to london, and given the status of fact.
lash does mention two british based reports, containing disturbing details such as around 10,000 women are sexually assaulted every week or that the london ambulance service is called to 450 rapes/sexual assaults a year. instead of highlighting this lash prefers to concentrate on things such as the fact that some women have experienced leering or extended staring.
(oh ok i know i am getting worked up about this aspect of it because i am a bit of a lech.)

where i really took umbrage at ms simister (who i would describe as a bit of alright if i wasn’t scared i would be accused of harassment) is the easy way she described harassment as being very much in the eye of the receiver – so for someone a smile would be enough to cause offence – the question of where to draw the line being one that remained unanswered).

just as i thought that ms simister was guilty of being far too sensitive i see that a union leader is up in arms and demanding an apology.
recently pim de lange, boss of the ferry company stena line, described britons as “quite fat and covered in tattoos”. most sane people would have a chuckle, say “arsehole” and move on.
not steve todd, head of maritime at the rmt union. nope mr. todd is mortified and says that mr. de lange’s remarks were an “"appalling, abusive and derogatory" attack.”
de lange has done the usual ‘comments taken out of context’ and issued an apology, of sorts.
todd, as is usual in this cases, says it is not enough and “is demanding a full retraction of all the statements he has made and a full apology to all british seafarers for his behavior”
personally i would like to think that british seafarers are built of sterner stuff and are not crying themselves to sleep at night because they have been described as tattooed and fat.
oddly the rmt are balloting its workers for industrial action over claims that stena line were planning to hire filipino workers on rates of £2.20 an hour. if i were in mr. todd’s shoes i wouldn’t be worried about the hurt feelings of a few of his members, though i am sure his concern plays well to them, but concentrate on making sure that the issue of low pay was firmly in the public arena and that it was the central problem that the rmt was concerned about. instead demanding an apology for an imagined hurt just means the real meat and potatoes of their compliant is lost in the mix.

while i might think that ms simister picks the wrong examples to highlight her cause, at least she can argue that ‘light’ harassment can grow into a serious problem. all mr. todd has done is paint british seafarers as milquetoasts. mr. todd would be better off using his union’s power to get behind ms. simister’s campaign to stop harassment, at least then he would be contributing to something that is trying to resolve a real and serious problem rather than trying to score points with his members.

now that you have read my guff head on over to the lash website and sign up.

No comments: