Yet more memes: a political slant

Until a week ago, I had never even heard of a meme. Now they’re plastered all over Facebook, clogging up my newsfeed with their wittiness. Are they anything more than the latest Facebook fad? The answer lies in the politics.

Liberal democracies pride themselves on allowing citizens to make rational, informed choices based on the world around them. For this to happen, there must exist a free press with the ability to scrutinise the vehicles of the state.

But the recent scandal at News International – revealing the nexus between a media elite and our politicians – has shown this to be little more than a cosy fiction. Rupert Murdoch, along with a cabal of media tycoons, have been allowed to set the political agenda, determining what is talked about and even shaping the way people approach certain issues.

Memes are hardly about to solve this problem overnight. Yet they are symptomatic of a wider trend: the rise of social media, a forum where users generate their own content and where information is disseminated more widely. The result is a more meaningful dialogue, one that more accurately reflects the hopes and fears of people, rather than simply a function of whatever News International decides to publish.

What memes contribute to this dialogue is their simplicity. A cursory glance at one, and you understand why they work: you chuckle both at the parody itself and the realisation that someone else feels the same way about an issue. Until now, this solidarity has been the preserve of literature and cartoons. But crafting and reading an article take time; depicting David Cameron in a condom isn’t easy either. Memes, by contrast, are both straightforward to make and easy to understand. Any person from any walk of life can enter quickmeme.com and conjure a scathing 5-word critique of the coalition government’s planned reforms of the NHS.

In other words, memes hold the power of literature condensed into a single graphic. They can elicit norm-defying responses, prompting people to challenge their staid conceptions of power. Or, you know, they can just be funny.

Booting gender myths into touch

In response:

You may be mistaking correlation for causation in your reading of the statistics. The fact that men express a higher interest with sport is more likely to be the result of socialisation rather than an inherent interest in sporting activities.

It is easy to see how this arises. Gender stereotyping happens even before children are born. Baby boys are handed squishy footballs and told that manly men take an interest in football, while their sisters are handed dolls and told that sport is a manly activity. So the first explanation for the statistics may simply be that they are conditioned away from sport from a young age.

But even if conditioning does not change women's internal attitudes towards sport, social pressure may shape the one they are willing to voice in public. As in, when the interviewer asks whether they like football, they feel obliged to give the womanly answer since that is what is expected from them.

So yeah, the whole 'interest' thing is a bit spurious, particularly since the study was probably conducted in a biased way by men to trying to prove a point.

(Charlotte is probably also right about the unrepresentative nature of the data sample, by the by.)

Women? Play football? You must be joking.

Below is a (fairly self-explanatory) transcript of what my friend wrote:

Dear Mischa,

You invited me to provide you with some evidence to prove the theory that men are more interested in sport than women (a point which few reasonable people would disagree with). Consider the following:

39% of the UK’s men say that they take an interest in the Premier League, as opposed to 13% of the nation’s women (pg. 36/7 of the Ofcom report).

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/38173/38173_104_7.pdf

Furthermore if we consider the stated levels of interest in sport, we find a strong positive correlation between the strength of interest and the proportion of men. Even if we amalgamate the ‘passionate’ and ‘strong’ sections, we still find that, taking an average, 84.5% of these fans are men (more than 5 times the number of women) (pg. 41). In addition, men form 78% of the Premier League’s fans (pg. 43).

Moving on to cricket, and broadening the notion of ‘interest’, let us consider the following report from Cricket Australia (bear in mind that Australia has a good record of gender equality in sport and a number of its female teams are successful):

89.55% of cricket players nationwide are male. On the basis of Cricket Australia’s mission statement, ‘to give all young people a ‘fair go’ regardless of their gender’ (pg. 80) it would be inaccurate and unscientific to assert that the relative paucity of women and girls in cricket is due to a lack of opportunities.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/whats_the_score/pdf/cricket.pdf

The same story emerges when you look at rugby. It’s understandable that participation among women is low (5% in Australian rugby league) given the physical nature of the game, but in terms of fans, it transpired in a New Zealand study that 73% of rugby union’s crowd capacity were male (pg. 5). http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V15/MB_V15_A3_Garland.pdf

I could continue but my enthusiasm to continue proving a self-evident point is waning. I hope the veracity of my research satisfies you as to the truth of the matter.

Yours in cordial friendship,

Schmates

Memory lane

Zagreb was a mistake. I mean, who would choose to spend time there? But what followed was unforgettable.

It happened that last summer we had a day to kill in Zagreb. Originally, the plan was that we would have flown back a day earlier, wherein Zagreb's only function was as our airport. As ever, I'd got the details wrong - on the morning of our flight, we checked the details, only to discover that our plane left the next day. Hardly the end of the world, you might say. Zagreb is a capital city. All capitals breed culture and politics.

You'd be wrong. Zagreb is the European Sahara, a cultural desert, void of anything remotely worthwhile. But we had to do something with ourselves. So we slouched into town, hoping that something might turn up. After a few hours in which we drifted into a state of perpetual under-whelmedness, we decided to visit the main museum. After all, museums are the cathedrals of modernity, apparently.

We arrived, only to be swamped by clusters of canapé. The temptation was too much. So we gorged, notwithstanding the men in dark suits trawling the perimeter, watchfully gazing upon the guests. At some point, someone grew wise to our free-riding, and we were booted out. As it later turned out, we had attended the presidential function, for which the elaborate canapé (by this point, firmly embedded in my stomach) were the first course.

Bizarrely, we found ourselves jettisoned into another clump of people, hovering outside, and staring intently at someone. There were also cameras. And more suited men. Trying to find out more, we jumped up, looked around, pulled some faces and left.

Later that day and back at the hostel, we were watching the news. And there we were, guffawing on live TV, shocked that we had appeared on camera. Turned out that the press release was a fairly important one, too, jointly given by the prime minister and president of Croatia on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

From this I have learnt that if you are going to gate-crash presidential banquets and butt into live broadcasts featuring the two most important people in a country, it is worth looking dignified rather than bewildered and bedraggled. But you've got to start somewhere, I suppose.

The enclosed link is the video footage of what I have just described (http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/ako-je-bilo-onih-koji-su-uzimali-novac-za-to-moraju-odgovarati.html)

Settlements

Apparently this lapse in sanity cannot be slept off: I am here to stay, or so it seems. As of yet, the only problem with this new-found addiction is the displacement; instead of reading and absorbing, I am now writing and pontificating, the result being that I feel politically under-nourished. This coming from a current-affairs-junkie.

That aside, I am going to spout some more. This time, more specifically, I will address settlements and their simmering tensions. Mention 'settlements', and people on all sides will rant about their illegality and how they present an obstacle to peace. In this, though, I will concentrate on their potential to be a flashpoint, possibly sparking a third intifada in the worst-case scenario.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, and most obviously, in geographical terms they are on the front line. Indeed, by some estimates, they are beyond the 'front line' and have encroached well into 'enemy' territory (depending on the perspective you share). Moreover and often for religious reasons, their inhabitants refuse to erect borders or physical defences. Rather, to defend themselves, they turn to M-16s and other live rounds. Until now, this has not presented a serious problem (though, since 2007, there has been an uptick in settler violence inflicted on Palestinians and IDF soldiers), not least because there has been little provocation. But if there is an upstart in violence, they are a proximate and vulnerable target.

Second, as was mentioned earlier, settlements have become a popular target for the ire of the international community. Those who seek to 'delegitimise' Israel point chiefly to these communities which, they claim, are built upon 'occupied territories', something in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international law, as ruled by the International Court of Justice. Palestinians, rightly or wrongly, feel that this is their land. Added to that, they have the sympathies of the world. They might reason, then, that attacks on these settlements would be more justified than elsewhere, and even help promote their cause, either by raising publicity or forcing a temporary settler withdrawal.

Of course, all this is all speculation; more populous targets are generally preferred, and the gratuitous violence would probably alienate their western supporters. Still, I would not want to live there after the UN vote flops.

Back to business

I know what you are thinking. He doesn't post for over a year and then, suddenly, he goes crazy, posting on multiple occasions during a single afternoon. Well, I'm all about consistency; consistent inconsistency, that is.

The tone of this post (and hopefully the content too), though, is set to be more serious. But rather than jumping in at the deep end with the big story, I thought that I'd ease me in with a gentler dose of punditry: party conference season.

Whether you are yellow, red or blue, the time has come to spend a week in a claustrophobic town with over-ambitious hacks. For some, that is the ideal holiday. For others, it is a nightmare. Those who thrive in that environment, I always feel, are cut out for the realpolitik of party life. Those who don't are more likely to be consigned to the oblivion of backbench-life, far away from the limelight of government. (Not that this is a dishonourable vocation, but do people still enter politics to be the 'local champions' of old? Do they not all have more grandiose ambitions?).

But for all that, these are not make-or-break events. Most speeches are immediately forgotten, though that it is not to underplay their importance. Sometimes it is because they do not attract unwanted attention that they are successful. (Think Nick Clegg's speech to conference over the past two years, both attempting to diffuse coalition tensions and persuade the party that they had made the correct choice). Some will temporarily revive political fortunes. Gordon Brown's speech (or, more specifically, his wife, Sarah's) to the Labour Party Conference raised his political stock for a while, yet was unable to change the unerring, downward trajectory of his career. Others may serve as a shot to the arm, injecting new ideas into a stale discourse, notably the Conservative Party Conference in 2009 where he discussed the parlous state of public finances and the deficit reduction it would have to entail. Crucially, though, this was not a game-changer on its own. It took commentators and politicians of all hues to cotton onto these ideas (and even then a further year) for the narrative to become an economic one.

Perhaps, then, I understate their potential. What I mean is that they seldom strike a direct connection with voters. Instead, they appeal to opinion-shapers - the political class, the journalists, and those who, ultimately, do play a significant role in determining the way we vote.

Read, yellow or blue, they should be listened to, this time by you (not the bloke who 'translates' their statements).

Political Representation

Should our political leaders mirror the society they govern? Should they be made to reflect the demographics of gender, and race, to make them a more accurate representation of who we are?

Up to ten percent of our population are left-handed, so should 10 percent of our political representatives also be left handed. This seems ridiculous, but is there something significantly different about gender or race that justifies a quota when it would be absurd for left handers?Does the gender or race of a political leader matter, or is what matters their views and competence? After all, a progressive male may be more supportive of say, childcare than a reactionary female.

Nowadays, society is too large- in terms of civilian population- to sustain a participatory democracy whereby everyone congregates to make important decisions as a single unit. This system has been replaced by political representation, where others are selected to represent us on our behalf. Forgetting accountability, it is important that these decision-makers, are an accurate reflection of society at large. But in what sense are they truly representative. We tend to think that they are representative if they roughly correspond to voting patterns for political parties. But to what extent are they representative in terms of gender and race?

Essentially it is a question of ideas and presence. Currently, the determining factors are based around whether representatives share our policy priorities, or the key features on the political agenda. However, some would say that fair representation demands equality of presence as well. They claim that quotas are needed to ensure that the playing field for those entering the sphere of politics is level. This is based on the idea that women for example have different experiences to males, and have a unique insight into society. By this logic, it is imperative that they are involved in the political process, so that this segment of society is accurately represented.

Most would not beg to differ on this topic. But when it comes to quotas- an apparatus for guaranteeing that a certain group can attain a minimum proportion of positions- they become more sceptical. They see quotas as a warped target- something inherently anti-meritocratic- which has no objective value. Yet gender inequality still exists. It does so, because often the established circles are exclusive, and can be a men's club. Women accordingly find it difficult to find a foothold on the ladder of progress, and are instead stuck languishing in the realms of underachievement. In addition, a formal prompt (in the form of a quota) can be required to offer the extra persuasion that discrimination of this sort no longer exists. Quotas are only one example of affirmative action, but their use has been met with unmitigated success. Norway have implemented a quota mandating a minimum of 40 percent women on all boards of management. This has radically changed the appearance of these previously-chauvinistic territories, leading to increased female participation and application.

Quotas are not designed to discriminate against white-middle-class males, but rather to offer a helping hand to those who would otherwise not find themselves with equality of opportunity. There is nothing stipulating that they must be a permanent fixture. On the contrast, they can be temporary, and removed as soon as they have achieved their objective.

Admittedly, there are dangers. Namely the beneficiaries of the quota system become free-riders, knowing that their very presence meets a target. Alternatively, the recipients feel degraded at having been chosen simply on the basis of their skin colour or sex. although, studies have shown these concerns have not materialised.

Quotas conform to the principle of gender balance. It argues for a fair and equal distribution that gives access to power and influence. The argument that quotas act to distort reality lacks a sense of history. If equality really matters, then it is our duty to take action so that it is more than an ideological whim.