Parallel Universe of Politicians

It is a well-known observation that an elephant simply cannot understand the daily struggles of an ant. The difference in size will never allow an elephant to empathise with the ant. The ant is required daily to move swiftly from wall to wall in order to avoid feeling the wrath of a newspaper adapted by its reader to squish the life out of it to ensure its destruction. The elephant faces no such threat. In a similar manner, the ant will never be able to understand fully the struggles of an Asian elephant tamed in captivity and used for wholly unnatural purposes. The example of which appears to me analogous to the state of politics at present.

Put simply according to the definition given by the fountain of all knowledge in the 21 century, ‘Google,’ democracy is ‘a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.’ If you’re a Google sceptic then the definition given by Aristotle in 1995 is also sound. Aristotle notes in a democratic society, ‘the people [demos] are sovereign. . . .(it is) when the masses govern the city with a view to the common interest.’  What we must draw on here is that, in both definitions the people are sovereign.  Either through the medium of direct democracy whereby the whole population governs or indirectly through ‘elected representatives.’ Focusing on the latter in the case of the UK, democracy works by the people electing representatives who share the common interests of the people. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the elected representatives and the people seem to be much like the elephant and the ant. Neither seems to share an understanding of the other’s lives and those that believe they do, seem to be grossly misinformed.  

There has been a surge in the popularity of UKIP which could be a consequence of the party’s anti-immigration rhetoric and the failure of Prime Minister David Cameron’s election promise to cut immigration down to ‘tens of thousands.’ According to YouGov poll the electorate’s main priorities are immigration and the economy with 52 per cent of respondents listing it as a priority. However, many of UKIPs most recent supporters should understand that UKIPS members are, like all the party members, POLITICIANS. They are politicians who appear no different to their Conservative and Labour counter-parts who are much like ants unable to understand the grievance of the elephants.

Recently, I attended a talk by former Conservative MP turned UKIPPER Douglas Carswell, at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall. The event took place at the clubs opulent Princess Marie Louise Room with other UKIP members, politicians, journalists and the odd student in attendance. Once I had eventually snapped out of being bewitched by the enormous chandelier hanging above and the aloof feeling of being in a scene from one of Charlotte Bronte’s novels had left me. It dawned on me how grossly out of touch the speaker and indeed some of the guests were with the rest of society. The grandeur of this elite club and the discussion was a complete parallel to that of the realities of life in Britain today.

Rather ironically, Douglas Carswell spoke of how unrepresentative Parliament was today and advocated re-calling MPs which would allow the people to vote in a by-election whenever an issue such as ‘Cash for Access’ arose and MPs where found to be acting contrary to their code of practice. Whilst this sounds great it is the same spiel Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith has been advocating since 2010, the result of which was an idea MPs rejected by 340 to 166 following a free vote in the Commons. When Carswell was questioned by journalist about his party leader blaming immigrants for causing traffic on the M4, his cheeks flushed red and the embarrassment on his face said more than his response, which was like all good politicians, simply avoiding the direct the question and move swiftly on to a topic more suited to his own agenda.

Thus far, it is no wonder Russell Brand is calling for society to abstain from voting in the 2015 general election altogether, politicians are seriously out of touch with the people. Labour rather patronisingly feel as though pink buses are what female voters want.  While, David Cameron and his cronies have decided to dangle an election carrot in the form of pledging to build 200,000 cut price homes in order to help first time buyers under 40 who are plagued with masses of student debt, extortionate travel fares and increased living expenses. The proposals of which critics argue are incredibly ambitious. -A euphemism for a load of sh*t.  

'Dont Kill Your Wives, Let Us Do It!'

Ordinarily, while in the car with my mum I tend to nod off and consequently miss anything particularly eventful going on in the world outside. However, the other day amidst the usual blaring of my brother’s music (which differs substantially from my personal taste in music), comical remarks on how he’d make an excellent driving instructor and my sister singing at the top of her voice in a strange accent which she believed to be similar to that of Beyoncé. I noticed a sign which read ‘don’t kill your wives, let us do it’ to my utter relief it was not an advertisement for those who wished to hire a hit man to kill their wives (though it may well have been since it was so degrading!) – Instead it was an advertisement for a laundrette.  My brother found it hilarious. My mother did not really seem shocked about it, but I, I WAS HORRIFIED! What was most horrifying was the owners of the laundrette genuinely believed the advertisement would entice customers into visiting the laundrette, for want of saving their wives from death resulting from exhaustion due to all of the laundry she does! The pun used by the laundrette reinforces the negative stereotypes of women that we are all familiar with. The blatant disregard for female achievement and accomplishment is evident. Whilst, I recognise the pun to many is JUST a comical and light-hearted advertisement. It is in my view a gender stereotype which is representative of a darker issue underlying society today.

Throughout the 21st century we have seen middle-class feminists criticise and challenge gender stereotypes. Highlighting the ‘glass ceiling’ which exists in the work place or reiterating anecdotes of the sexist comments they have fallen victim to. So why are gender stereotypes such a bad thing? They are not only counter-productive reinforcing to women that they are merely beautiful objects of domestic machinery. Gender stereotypes create what I refer to as a ‘destructive cycle’. To illustrate this destructive cycle I shall give you an example, take the common view that women are merely there to perform domestic tasks and remain subservient. If a women adheres to this, which many in society do (believe it or not) then she is likely to favour these menial tasks over of education. Not only then does this women become bitter over time, having seen nothing more to life than that of her daily tasks, she will also become narrow minded, ignorant and de-valued. By favouring menial tasks over education she will be prevented from looking beyond the constraints of society, to develop and evolve. Surely, when the Suffragettes fought for universal franchise they did so, because they had hoped opinionated, well informed women would vote and potentially enter parliament?

Moreover, the counter-productive stereotype will create a woman of ignorance, who will fragment the unity of females as a whole, as she will be unable to empathise with females who do not wish to conform.  Please, do not get me wrong, I am an advocate of self-help. Truly, I believe that it is only when one becomes reliant on their own ability that they will be able to progress successfully through life. However, how is it that a female who, due to a lack of education, who has become narrow minded and ignorant, able to realise her own potential? She will not. Consequently, the feminist movement will never progress as it should, as women who conform to these counter- productive stereotypes will look upon other women with jealousy, resentment and dislike. There will be no solidarity. This leads me further to my next point on the devaluing nature of gender stereotypes.

Lastly, and perhaps most seriously, gender stereotypes, are not only a surface level problem which is degrading and discouraging. – Reinforcing that a female is merely there to be tasked with domestic chores. It can also be incredibly destructive, as Dr Pillay, speaking for Amnesty International at a conference in Afghanistan emphasises ‘violence against women is endemic’; across the world, not only third world countries but also in the developed western world.  Violence against females is rife. To illustrate this point I am reluctant to quote any statistics as I am certain it will not reflect the true picture. Many women simply do not have a sense of self-worth; domestic violence goes largely unreported as a result of this. Women feel as though by speaking out they will be acting contrary to the stereotypes, their narrow-mindedness leads them to believe perhaps that they are deserving of such treatment or that it is entirely normal. All of which will create a bitter cycle as many of these women will have daughters, they will teach their daughters to conform to these stereotypes and the cycle will continue.

On a brighter note, the issue of gender stereotypes has not fallen beneath the waist line and we are making headway. With the help of celebrity endorsement I am certain society will overcome this ill. Below is a picture of Angelina Jolie in a tailored suit at the BAFTA awards, Jolie unlike other female celebrities opted for a suit – arguably quite a masculine look. Despite the masculine tailoring, Jolie looks chic, feminine and stylish without wearing a dress! - Kudos to her.