Oliver Letwin’s remarks aren’t just a product of their time, they’re a product of the Conservative Party

The recently released memo revealing Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community are not a good reflection of the Conservative Party. And certainly of Letwin himself. Although while they may have been made thirty years ago, how much can we assume has actually changed about the views of Letwin and many within the Conservative Party? Well, relatively speaking, thirty years isn’t that long and given the old boys club that is the Conservative Party, probably not very much.

Letwin’s views aren’t just racist, they show the class prejudice that is at the centre of the Conservative Party. Thus, they characterise the party and its attitudes. In response to the memo, Trevor Philips said “I don’t think these remarks would have raised a single eyebrow at the time” and amongst all the mainstream parties, perhaps they wouldn’t have. What stands out though is how they could easily be the content of Conservative Party policy discussions today.

Just consider what was put forward by Letwin (along with Hartley Booth, another Tory MP at the time) regarding the Broadwater Farm riots and others that occurred at the time. It wouldn’t be amiss today from the same party it emanated from thirty years ago ­­–

"The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth 'alienation' or the lack of a middle class....Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale; in the midst of the depression, people in Brixton went out, leaving their grocery money in a bag at the front door, and expecting to see groceries there when they got back...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...[Lord] Young’s new entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade; Kenneth Baker’s refurbished council blocks will decay through vandalism combined with neglect; and people will graduate from temporary training or employment programmes into unemployment or crime."

If in years to come released papers showing policy discussions around the England riots in 2011 (which started in Tottenham, the location of Broadwater Farm) have the same sentiments, I wouldn’t be surprised. Furthermore, it would show just how little attitudes in the Conservative Party haven’t changed within contemporary history.

The undertones of racism have long been present in mainstream British politics but especially within the Conservative Party. During post-war immigration to the UK, all British political parties exhibited xenophobia but none more so than the Tories. Indeed, I’m often flummoxed by the short memories of many ethnic minority supporters of the Tory Party, who feel that the Tories will protect and further their social mobility, when they fail to reflect on the party’s history of policies and attitudes that smack of racism. After all, Margaret Thatcher, subsequent leader of the Conservative Party, referred to Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech as “strong meat”; not merely highly inflammatory racism. I doubt the many East African Asians and other immigrants arriving in the UK in the same year would have considered it in the same terms. Yet some subsequent generations of said communities are today Tories who ignorantly feel the party reflects their middle class status.

To be clear, I don’t think all Tories are racist. While I’m clearly not a Tory myself, I know many people who are and they’re undoubtedly committed to equality and positive race relations. Ideologically we just don’t agree on everything while somethings we do. I do, however, think that the party machinery of the Conservative Party hasn’t rid itself of racism, nor do I think it’s made much effort to either.

The image of the ‘nasty party’ is one that publically, the Tories have seemed to want to dispel. But returning to Letwin’s remarks, they pretty much support that perception. Letwin may have apologised, albeit with no real contrition. At the time of writing, David Cameron, as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, has made no comment let alone shown reproach in reference to the utterances of a senior and influential member of the party. And he certainly hasn’t condemned Letwin, retrospectively or otherwise. Unsurprisingly really from a man who shows little understanding of the racist and prejudiced rhetoric that has long existed within his party and indeed British history.

The right-wing media too has had little vitriol for Letwin and his remarks and there is a disheartening lack of public outcry with the same effect. Though as a figure of public life, I feel Letwin should resign. If Cameron sincerely wanted to rid his party of the tag of the nasty party, and show his commitment to leading a government where racist views had no place whatsoever, he would have requested Letwin’s resignation himself. Alas, the ‘nasty party’ image probably appeals to the section of the electorate, British society and business whose favour Cameron is keen to court.

The Letwin story should be huge news. A senior, high profile and influential member of the Conservative Party who’s made these remarks, and who is currently serving in the Cabinet, should be met with widespread censure. But as he’s a Tory, perhaps it doesn’t seem so out of place. That and his comments are directed at black and ‘lower class’ communities, groups who are seen by many as inferior to others within British society. Indeed, had comments been revealed with such prejudice toward other communities and minority groups such as the Jewish Diaspora, women or the disabled, would the response have been so lukewarm, even after thirty years? I doubt it and rightly so. Similarly, I doubt Letwin and other high profile Tories have completely rid themselves of such views either.

The Conservative Party may have tried to modernise and appeal to a broader section of British society. Nonetheless for many, they’ll continue to be the nasty party that Cameron et al have at times sought to refute. The lack of distance between Letwin’s thirty-year old remarks and many of the attitudes that are still present in the Conservative Party and some of its supporters today, proves just that.

The vulnerability of relationships

Without exception, my friends and family consider my partner to be a great person. And albeit biased, I’d wholeheartedly agree. I’m frequently told what a marvellous person she is and given constant compliments on her excellent character. All of the above is irrefutable. However, what about the side of her that others rarely, if ever, see as it’s contained within our relationship? The increasingly loud and relentless person in an argument who fails to see logic when it doesn’t support her perspective? Or her infuriatingly stubborn streak (even to her own detriment)? Not to mention the unrelenting ‘reminders’ to do something I’ve already been asked, even while I’m in the middle of doing something else? I can imagine many men and women are nodding their heads while reading this as they recognise the aforementioned in their own relationships.

I still maintain my partner’s an amazing person but it’s fair to say that her ‘less desirable’ traits are less likely to rear their head outside of our relationship. And the same is undoubtedly applicable to me. This doesn’t make either of us duplicitous or disingenuous and this experience is almost certainly reflected in every relationship and close friendship. Not to mention, just as the more frustrating aspects of one’s personality are reserved for their relationship, the same could be said for the best qualities of one’s character such as the uncompromising altruism that is kept for those closest to us.

Relationships are where polarised behaviours can not only be expected but also accepted; arguably due to the inherent vulnerability of relationships. They represent a safe place for our emotions and character, good, bad and indifferent, to be free; a place where any judgement we're subject to should be neutered by underlying affection and respect.

Vulnerability is what enables a couple to go from yelling at each other, both fuelled by indignant anger, to reconciliation with reciprocated and sincere contrition. It's what gives us the space to get frustrated and show it, rather than keep it contained as we might have to with others, but also to make amends while not constrained by bravado or one-upmanship. It allows us to our lose inhibitions to be frivolous, show and articulate our fears and innermost thoughts and have unfiltered honesty within the sanctuary or our relationship. It's the essence of what makes good and genuine relationships such incredibly honest spheres.

To be vulnerable is a feature of the human condition. Hence it being present in any relationship. Without vulnerability, we lack the capacity for fear and apprehension. We lack the capacity to motivate ourselves toward a greater good for ourselves and those around us through connection and compassion. While vulnerability has become synonymous with exposure or weakness, on reflection, it is at the very core of human existence and by no means an attribute that we should seek to erode or ignore.

Brené Brown’s brilliant TED Talk articulated the struggle of vulnerability. Yet within a relationship, that struggle is countered by the security that is provided via our connections with each other. Anxieties are alleviated with reassurances, loneliness with companionship and judgement and criticism with acceptance. Within the sphere of relationships, opposing emotions are juxtaposed and balanced, thus diminishing our vulnerability. The intrinsic nature of vulnerability within relationships means it isn’t going anywhere and on the whole, this is a good thing. Indeed, for a partner or friend to facilitate the emotional refuge of a relationship that doesn’t allow vulnerability to be a crushing albatross but rather a feature that can be accepted and managed, is testament to a great partner or friend.

As spheres of intimacy, relationships will always have the scope for one’s fragility that vulnerability threatens to expose. Although a good relationship will ensure that doesn’t become the case in providing the requisite sanctuary. But what happens when that fragility is abused and taken advantage of with vulnerability becoming a means to facilitate that very abuse?

Vulnerability presents the landscape for relationships to encompass companionship and empathy. Though the vulnerability of others can be exploited by those who feel unable to embrace their own vulnerability and rather use it as a tool to protect their own insecurities and selfishly advance only their own desires. Mental, emotional and sometimes physical abuse, bullying, control and diminishing of individuality and any modicum of independence outside of a relationship, can just as easily be facilitated via vulnerability. Just as the safety and support afforded by a healthy relationship can be too.

For some, their own weakness compels them to pounce upon the vulnerability of a partner for their own gains. Just as they wouldn’t take such an approach with others (in the knowledge that their efforts would be feeble and consequently crushed), they reserve their form of abuse for the only sphere that they feel confident in experiencing success as they prey on the vulnerability of others.

He or she who is subject to such treatment is sadly pinned down by their own vulnerability and numbed, leaving them emotionally paralysed as their own fragility is taken advantage of. With the presence of vulnerability, it’s therefore little wonder that relationships are forums for the best and worst of the human condition with either being heightened through closeness and connection.

Our struggle with vulnerability is part of our emotional experience. And within relationships, that struggle is intensified. It’s a place for the best and the worst that we have to offer in the knowledge that we escape judgement and reproach to an extent that we could not hope for outside of its parameters. At face value, this presents anxieties that rationally, we might not want to encounter. But the possibility of that vulnerability being the basis of something greater continues to lead us to relationships in the hope that just that will be achieved.

A new day in heavyweight boxing

Tyson Fury is the new WBA, IBF and WBO heavyweight champion. After beating Wladimir Klitschko in a unanimous points decision, Fury beat the odds and the man that most said was unbeatable. While I wanted to see a Fury victory and another British champion, admittedly, I didn’t call it and thought he’d lose on a points decision despite a spirited effort. It was clear that Fury was coming to fight and was probably the most live opponent Klitschko has faced in years. But beyond catching Klitschko with a clean shot (Wladimir Klitschko is notoriously chinny) and getting a stoppage, I struggled to see a Fury win in Germany, the adopted home of the Klitschko brothers. Nor could I see how Fury would get past Klitschko’s jab. Yet Fury, full of self-belief, proved me and most boxing commentators wrong.

At no point in the build-up during the fight did Fury seem fazed by the occasion or in awe of Klitschko. Even with Team Klitschko’s usual tricks that seek to unnerve an opponent and give themselves a psychological edge, Fury remained calm. The palaver over the gloves and the ring canvas couldn’t shake Fury and he remained composed throughout. Even if the result had been different, for Fury, a win was the only conclusion.

Fury was up on my scorecard but a points win for an away fighter in Germany is almost unprecedented. Klitschko initiated a clinch repeatedly and constantly turned his head, the latter for which Fury was deducted a point for hitting in the back of the head. Although at no point was Klitschko penalised. It seemed that it was a typical Klitschko show where the W was theirs even before the first bell as a blind eye was turned against all of Wladimir’s misdemeanours in the ring. As I waited for the scorecards to be read, I expected the following day’s headlines to be of Fury being cheated in Dusseldorf, not of a well-deserved victory. I guess the judges didn’t get Team Klitschko’s memo.

Not to taint Fury’s win, let’s get the negativity out of the way early doors. Firstly, the fight was a borefest. Furthermore, Father Time seemed to have caught up with Klitschko. Though that shouldn’t detract from Fury’s achievement. He’s beaten the man that no one has beaten since 2004. Fury therefore deserves all the kudos that will hopefully now be heaped upon him. And with it, it marks a new day in heavyweight boxing.

Once the most prestigious and coveted prize in sport, the heavyweight boxing championship has become a hollow title that has increasingly failed to capture the attention of those outside of boxing. In the last decade, respective heavyweight champions have largely been unknown outside of boxing circles and even with their lengthy dominance of the division, the Klitschko brothers are largely household names only in Germany and eastern Europe.

The excitement that used to characterise the heavyweight division has been lost and replaced with the boring yet effective ‘jab and grab’ style of the Klitschkos. Their safety first approach has turned even boxing fans off from the division as it’s failed to quench our thirst for knockouts and gladiatorial battle between some of the biggest and strongest athletes in sport. Although with Vitali Klitschko retired and Wladimir Klitschko defeated after an eleven-year span of not seeing an L on his record, it provides the opening for all that we love about heavyweight boxing to return. An end to the closed shop operated by the Klitschkos.

Klitschko has said he’ll exercise the rematch clause in the contract and perhaps he will. As an athlete and a former champion, defeat will be hard to swallow and a rematch provides an opportunity to address that. Not to mention his contract with German broadcaster RTL provides a sizeable revenue stream. However, it was evident from his fight with Fury that Klitschko has peaked and now provides the ideal opportunity to bow out with an honourable defeat and a solid record.

Klitschko should have no shame in defeat and should call it a day rather than fight on with each subsequent fight showing a decline in his speed and movement. But Klitschko is a fighter and an athlete; relinquishing the attitude that comes with that is always hard for any athlete at the peak of their sport. Prior to their fight in The Gloves Are Off, Klitschko remarked that it’s “better to be dead than second”, an attitude that embodies his fighter’s mentality and one that could only be understood by an athlete that has trained with the sole objective of victory. The fighter is still within him but Father Time has already begun to cast his shadow over Klitschko and now is the time to walk away as a former great champion. As one of the most intelligent men in boxing, he also has far more opportunities open to him than many of his peers once he decides to hang up his gloves.

If Klitschko doesn’t exercise the rematch clause, or if he does but faces defeat again against Fury, the heavyweight division is wide open. Brash American Deontay Wilder, the holder of the WBC heavyweight title, has already called out Fury in a fight that would finally reignite American interest in the division. David Haye has already announced his comeback and assuming he still has the speed and explosive punching power he had prior to his three and a half year layoff, he’s certainly in the mix as a title challenger and one that would beat Fury. He’s also got the psychological edge against Wilder after schooling him in sparring. The big ‘if’ is of course how good Haye still is which will be unknown until his comeback fight. Anthony Joshua is probably looking at Fury as a fast-tracked route to a world title and if he proves himself to be the real deal, the heavyweight division could soon be alive again.

Many might not have seen Tyson Fury as the boxer to resuscitate the heavyweight boxing division and it still remains to be seen if he will. Nonetheless, he’s provided the first opportunity to end the Klitschkos’ reign and to usher in a new era of the excitement that boxing fans once relished in heavyweight boxing. Hopefully heavyweight boxing is back and its unlikely saviour Tyson Fury should be applauded for opening the gate that has remained locked for well over a decade.

School support staff deserve more recognition and respect

Think of a business and its core activity. As consumers or clients, our thoughts around a respective business rarely go beyond said activity and the staff who operate directly within the roles linked to it. However, what would a business be without the staff who don’t operate at the forefront of its main activity yet play fundamental roles in the overall business? Imagine a retailer without the cleaners to maintain the cleanliness and tidiness of a store. Or without the admin staff to process orders, payments and payroll and the IT staff to maintain the EPOS till systems from which transactions can be made. Or without the stockroom staff to replenish the store’s inventory so that they actually have something to sell. Every role within a business is a cog in a machine. And if a cog is missing, the machine simply won’t work as effectively or might even come to a standstill.

Schools are no different. When you think of school, you think of the teachers. But what of the many support staff who play integral roles within the school and in the educating of the students? The TAs (Teaching Assistants) and Learning Mentors who support in the classroom academically, pastorally and in supporting behaviour management. Or the admin staff who without whom, the unwieldy bureaucracy that education is now characterised by would be impossible to navigate. These staff play significant roles in the operation of schools. Yet unfortunately, they typically don’t get the recognition and respect that they deserve.

The problem sadly starts with the ethos of schools and consequently some teachers. Inadvertently or otherwise, schools often feed teachers with the notion that support staff play a lessor role than them and it’s reflected in the way they’re treated. It’s to the extent that many support staff have assumed that principle themselves and the utterances “I’m just a TA…”, “I just work in the office…” or similar can often be heard around schools. This hardly does anything positive for morale when half of a workforce feel they’re inferior to the other half or at least made to feel that way. Schools have a lot to answer for if this is seemingly the ethos that many possess and project when it comes to support staff. Though for some teachers, the seeds for a sometimes haughty attitude toward support staff are sown even earlier during teacher training.

Particularly on graduate employment-based training courses such as School Direct and Teach First, but also those undertaking traditional PGCE courses, trainee teachers are lauded for their attainment of a place given their competitive nature and rigorous application process. Subsequently, they’re praised for their successful completion of what is an arduous programme of study and employment as a trainee teacher. And those who heap that praise upon them would be right to do so as teacher training and the NQT year are certainly gruelling.

You’re told that you are the boss of your classroom and again the tutors and mentors are right. Your classroom is your domain and you need to oversee all that goes on within it as you’ll be accountable for all that occurs. Though many trainee teachers are relatively young and enter the profession within a few years of undergraduate study. They have little experience of a professional workplace let alone managing staff. As a result, some are unable to effectively manage additional adults in the classroom due to a literal and crass interpretation of the message ‘you’re the boss’ that they’ve heard throughout their training. Indeed, some teachers actually maintain that attitude throughout their teaching careers.

That inexperience doesn’t lend itself to working with non-classroom based support staff either. Your training and observations of other schools has suggested they’re also less important. And when you get to your first school, the school ethos often supports that. It’s the beginning of an unhealthy yet perpetual relationship between teachers and support staff. Furthermore, it illustrates how and why teaching can be a profession characterised by arrogance for some practitioners who wrongly deem themselves as superior to their colleagues on the basis of length of service (which doesn’t always equate to ability) and their respective position.

It has to be said that this isn’t the case for all teachers and it would be unfair to suggest so. Nevertheless, the fact is it does exist. I’ve seen TAs spoken down to or as if they were one of the children rather than as an adult. This is despite the fact that many classroom based support staff bring with them a wealth of untapped and often ignored experience from previous careers, CPD, the local community or just life in general.

Admittedly, some TAs can undermine teachers, particularly if they’re older than the teacher they’re working with and have been at a school for a number of years. However, that’s where establishing more assertiveness in your professional relationship comes into play.

I liken the ideal relationship between teachers and additional adults in the classroom to be almost akin to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in that the Prime Minister is first amongst equals just as is the case with the teacher. The buck stops with you as the teacher and the individual with whom overall accountability in the classroom lies with. The breadth of your role, workload and accompanying stress is wider too but you’re still a team with the additional adult(s) and your working relationship should reflect this.

Support staff in the classroom are often able to establish a relationship with students that many teachers are unable to achieve. As teaching has become an overwhelmingly middle class profession, many teachers are in schools within communities that do not reflect their own socio-economic status. Hence they’re often unable to empathise with their students’ backgrounds. In schools subject to socio-economic pressures such as those within inner city and coastal communities, and those where once flourishing local economies such as mining have since been decimated, the social challenges facing students and their families are often alien to teachers. But classroom based support staff, who often have more roots in a community than the teachers, can. Thus, they can often be the difference in connecting with students.

That connection might be in effectively supporting behaviour management with a culturally nuanced approach that gets the results a teacher sometimes can’t. Alternatively, it can be showing the necessary empathy to students in cultivating an appropriate climate for learning; one where they don’t feel subject to the ignorance of a teacher who cannot appreciate the challenges facing their family and community. In this capacity, support staff often provide a cultural and social link between schools and the communities they lie within; something many teachers and senior leadership are unable to do. Although, particularly with new academies that have foisted themselves on communities, this is overlooked by many schools.

The relationship between teachers and support staff can resemble that of Ross’ museum in Friends where Joey realises that it’s convention for the scientists and the tour guides to sit separately for lunch. Nonetheless, it’s little wonder that many support staff feel there’s a divide between them and teachers. Relevant information is regularly disseminated to support staff through the grapevine or on a very ad hoc basis. Effective communication between them and the rest of the school can leave much to be desired and that hardly fosters a sense of inclusion within the school community.

Many teachers perceive support staff to be at their whim rather than playing integral roles within the school. They often fail to appreciate that the site team aren’t waiting around idly for the call to fix furniture in their classroom or that the IT staff have a long list of jobs and coming to fix their interactive whiteboard probably isn't the only task for the day. It could be argued that teachers often have a fairly insular perspective in this regard that theirs is not the only job of importance within a school.

In the UK, Graduate Teaching Assistants have started to increase their presence in the classroom (they’ve already been a feature of North American schools). This is presumably with a view to making the TA role more ‘professional’ which on one hand isn’t a bad thing if it helps to gain greater recognition for the post. Although, some schools are seeing it as a prerequisite for teacher training. Again, that isn’t necessarily a bad idea in providing trainee teachers with first-hand experience of the classroom before they embark on their training. Conversely, there is the risk that it will attract candidates that ultimately want to become teachers rather than be TAs and therefore lack the necessary attributes and attitudes that make so many TAs great at their jobs.

Schools are essentially communities but they’re often divided within their staff which can only be to detriment of the workplace ethos. Schools and teachers need to address this as they are primarily to blame in creating the two-tier system within schools that is not only unnecessary but disrespectful to fellow professionals. Schools need to give support staff the recognition they deserve for the integral role they play within a school, often in roles that teachers don’t possess the skillset or experience for, and more respect in the process.

Digital lust

Like many industries, adult entertainment has been compelled to adapt in a digital age. Only recently, Playboy, the iconic magazine and adult brand, announced that its magazine would follow suit after its website and would no longer include nudity from March 2016. Clearly the company has realised that while sex might sell, it no longer does so via the medium of print. The shift from print to television and film and latterly the internet respectively, has seen revenue streams for adult entertainers move accordingly. And in doing so, it’s changed the relationship fans of their work have with them too.

The allure of adult entertainers is arguably contributed to by the fact that they appear unreachable; individuals who operate within a fantasy and highly sexualised world. Traditionally, their fans could fantasise over them in the knowledge that their relationship is one the adult entertainer is ignorant to and therefore never subject to reciprocation of emotions or affection, lustful or otherwise. Though now, the internet has changed that.

As with any entertainers, social media has given unprecedented access to adult entertainers that alters the aforementioned relationship. Now, lustful desires or merely convivial banter or compliments can be expressed via a tweet to adult performers and perhaps even responded to. Where adult performers were once unreachable, the status quo has now been redefined.

Similarly, the digital age has changed the adult industry with premium rate chat line channels. And with it, it’s enabled men (and woman) to have even more access to adult entertainers than ever before.

For those not familiar with the format of these channels, scantily clad or semi-nude women (depending on the time of day) appear on-screen while gyrating with sexually suggestive motions while talking to callers. It’s essentially a chat line where callers can see the person they’re talking to and what they’re doing rather than relying on their imagination. Not wanting the constraints of the television regulations that restrict them to largely softcore acts, some performers on said channels have also opted to operate webcam shows online (and with it presumably charging their viewers even more than the premium rate numbers).

This isn’t anything new; for decades premium rate numbers offering the same service have been
found in the classifieds section of tabloid newspapers. Yet technology furthers the extent of what can be offered and what the consumers are afforded in their pleasure and gratification. Furthermore, it’s altered their relationship with the women they receive remote gratification from. And that’s given rise to the perception amongst some men that their relationship is more than simply transactional.

With the increased and unprecedented access to adult entertainers, many of the men calling these premium rate numbers or ‘chatting’ via webcam are under the impression that this represents a relationship of sorts. While their attraction is based on lustful desire that isn’t reciprocated beyond the façade they’re paying for, some men seemingly fail to understand this. Consequently, they’re happy to buy gifts for the women, shower them with sycophantic messages on social media and overall fail to realise the reality of their interaction as paid titillation.

I struggle to empathise with the rationale of these men. Firstly, and bizarrely, they’re paying for adult entertainment at a premium rate when the internet is awash with a plethora of adult entertainment that’s absolutely free. Not to mention, the internet typically offers much more risqué material than anything they’re paying for. But they’re also going beyond their transaction in buying gifts for the women; an act typically reserved for actual friendships or relationships of which these certainly aren’t.

So why do the men do it? Loneliness? Delusion? Does it make them feel that they could actually have a genuine relationship with these women? With their access to adult entertainers, perhaps they’ve decided to abandon the pursuit of relationships in the real world (which would suggest yet another erosion of social interaction that the internet has brought about). Whatever it is they think they might achieve, it certainly won’t be a relationship that isn’t commercial.

One caller to a chat line channel racked up a bill of £91,000 on account of the women he spoke to sympathising with him following a breakup with his ex-partner. He’s probably not the only person to find themselves in such a situation either. Although did the premium rate numbers not indicate to him that they weren’t providing a counselling service or seeking his friendship? Men like this are blinded by the fact that their access to these women represents little more than a financial opportunity that exploits their naivety, inability to identify the features of a friendship or relationship, delusion and loneliness.

It’s easy to drift between derision and pity for these men but certainly not empathy. To pay to watch a women gyrate on a screen when there’s free adult entertainment online just doesn’t seem to be a decision based upon logic. Alas, lust can deny people of sound perspective.

Speaking objectively, one can’t knock the hustle of the women. And it isn’t just limited to webcam and chat line performers but also traditional adult entertainment actresses. Their social media presence facilitates the interaction the men crave. Furthermore, their online shopping wish lists enable these men to frequently buy the attention (mistakenly taken for affection) of their favourite performers.

There is arguably an intimacy that is established for the men paying to ‘chat’ but arguably not reciprocated by the performers who are separated by a phone line, television screen or computer. Thus, they limit much of the vulnerability of traditional sex work. And presumably, are getting reasonably well paid for it in the process with gifts and money from their fans to boot. If there were to be a perception of the relationship between the women and their callers being imbalanced, in most cases it would seem it isn’t the women that are losing out.

Nonetheless, the digital age has reduced the extent to which adult performers are able to separate their personal and professional life with the increased access they grant. No longer are their fans faceless readers and viewers of films but individuals who they’ve spoken to and in some cases seen via webcam. As a result, they’re providing more intimacy in the relationship between performer and the public and reducing the personal sphere for performers. Given the stigma around adult entertainment, this shift has likely limited their ability to keep the spheres of their personal and professional lives as separate as they once were.

Like many industries, the digital age has changed the adult industry and with it, it’s changed the perception of relationships and friendship for some men who aren’t able to distinguish between paid entertainment and reality. It’s an enigma when juxtaposed with traditional notions of relationships and how we define friendship. But hopefully not one that sets a precedent for the features of human interaction that the human condition craves. Indeed, perhaps that craving, but the inability to fulfil it for said men, is what led to their unrequited affections for adult entertainers in the first instance.

Travel broadens the mind

Recently, I was fortunate to travel throughout Central America and the Caribbean. There was much I learned about the cultures of the respective countries I visited and each experience undoubtedly added to my awareness of the world. While travelling, I met several travellers who sought to do the same; to enlighten themselves with broader experiences and an appreciation of the lives of others. Though this isn’t a viewpoint that is universally shared and for some it can be very much to the contrary.

Travelling is an activity that is met with mixed perceptions. For some, it’s an opportunity to expose themselves to new experiences and cultures in an environment void of everyday stresses. For others, travel offers little benefit. Instead, it’s a pointless and often expensive exercise of inconvenience in being taken out of one's comfort zone; one where familiarity is unnecessarily eroded with no discernible rationale or benefit. Indeed, even for some who do welcome travelling, they seek to avoid as much of that unfamiliarity as possible.

I would place myself very much within the former category. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I seek to travel. Whether it be domestically or abroad, experiencing different cultures and broadening one’s awareness is something that I would promote. It widens our perspective of the world and our appreciation of just how diverse the world is. For this to be something that one would be averse to is therefore a stance that some would struggle to understand. For many, rather than this being something that is rejected, travel isn’t an opportunity they’re afforded.

Speak to many inner city youth in deprived areas and you’ll be astounded at how insular their world is. They know their immediate community and the surrounding areas but they’ve rarely ventured beyond it. The same goes for travelling outside of their respective city let alone abroad. If their family are originally from another country where some of their extended family still reside, they may have made trips there. Otherwise, their world is incredibly small and consequently one of ignorance when it comes to being remotely worldly but this isn’t their fault. Travel isn’t an inexpensive activity and when your existence and that of your family is concerned with the here and now, going abroad is very much secondary. With airlines increasing the price of airfare during school holidays, for many families exposing their children to new places is therefore impossible (hence the number of parents who consider a fine for taking their children out of school during term time to be more favourable than paying peak fares).

Broadly speaking, I shared the aforementioned perspective in my own youth. Before going to university, some of my friends took a gap year. Yet that was largely to work and save money for the subsequent year when they would attend university themselves. Taking a gap year to travel was deemed a middle class activity that I couldn’t identify with. Not to mention, I felt doing so was something that wasn’t financially viable with other commitments. But the reality is, at the time I didn't possess the worldliness or maturity to appreciate what such a trip might afford me. Thus, it was never really up for consideration.

An opportunity to discover new places and cultures, to meet and interact with locals and fellow travellers alike and to remove myself from familiar surroundings that arguably moulded a somewhat narrow perspective at the time, is one that the more mature me laments at not having seized. Not doing so is something I long regretted and still do. In fairness, I have since attempted to make up for this by travelling whenever possible in a quest to create a gap year experience of sorts that is punctuated by annual leave and subject to the commitments of adult life.

The cost of travel is certainly a valid barrier for many. Taking a gap year to travel before university is often restricted to those from middle class backgrounds where their parents are able to bankroll the trip or at least mitigate the concern of spending what can be a huge amount of money. Alternatively, some decide to take a career break to travel where they've been afforded the opportunity to accumulate the necessary funds once working. In both instances the opportunity to travel is subject to socio-economic circumstances which creates an unfair access to the diverse experiences travel can afford. Furthermore, this merely allows the experiences and worldliness within middle class communities to blossom while within the working classes it remains narrow and stagnant. It's all the more reason why travel is so important, particularly for those whose perspective is already restricted by circumstance. Although even without the focus on the cost of travel, some would still question the validity of travelling.

I recall discussing the popularity of gap years in the UK and Europe with some American family for whom the purpose was completely lost upon. Instead of an opportunity to broaden one's mind, it was perceived as an expensive, prolonged and unnecessary ‘vacation’ that merely added to the debt that most leaving university or college are straddled with. Many would opine this to be an attitude inherent to American society given the aversion of many Americans to travel even beyond their respective state and consequently the insular perspectives of so many Americans. That said, I know worldly Americans who do refute this but it does highlight the varied appreciation of travel and how this can differ between class and culture.

Despite the popularity of travelling, for many it represents escapism from regular life that is nonetheless void of the experiences unique to the location of their respective destination. Essentially, their aim is to replicate familiar circumstances such as food and culture, albeit in different surroundings that perhaps provide a more favourable climate. It's an approach that irks me and I find somewhat offensive.

To travel to another country, with its culture awaiting to be immersed within, is a great opportunity and privilege. Nevertheless, many will reject this and would prefer to stay on a resort while declining the opportunity to interact with locals, eating local food and experiencing a culture other than their own. To go abroad and seek cuisine of your own country, rather than sample that of where you’re visiting, seems absolutely pointless but it’s a common observation. Sadly, this is something many tourist industries have cottoned on to and it’s regrettably something they’re catering for.

During my aforementioned trip, I spent time in Jamaica and opted to stay in an all-inclusive resort. The beach and overall resort was beautiful and every bit as picturesque as has been promised by the images on the website. Similarly, the service was impeccable. However, being of the Jamaican diaspora, it didn’t sit well with me that the experience being offered was one that sought to overly cater to European and North American guests in lieu of providing a quintessentially Jamaican experience. There was also a whiff of colonialism in the attempted relationship between staff and guests such as my partner and other women being referred to as “m’lady”.

It was also noticeable that guests would rarely leave the resort and opportunities to interact with locals were largely advised against by the resort staff. Conversely, a highlight of our trip for my partner, who isn’t of the Jamaican diaspora, was when I took her downtown to see the ‘real’ Jamaica with its rich vibrancy. It begs the question if tourists seek these somewhat sterile holidays. Though based on the popularity of such resorts, sadly the answer is probably yes.

To travel is to broaden one’s mind. Although it’s sadly a privilege that many aren’t able to access. But with the cultural diversity within the world, the more exposure to these experiences, the less homogenous perspectives become and the more our appreciation of the world around us is heightened. Nonetheless, the benefit of this is one that is often and regrettably overlooked by those unable to appreciate its value.

The effrontery of David Cameron's visit to Jamaica

David Cameron’s recent visit to Jamaica was the first for a British Prime Minister in 14 years. Cameron claimed that his visit was with the aim of restoring and renewing the relationship between Jamaica and the UK; a relationship that was born out of the British Empire and latterly the Commonwealth. In both instances, there is still a reciprocated affinity between some sections of the respective nations. Though for many, this is a relationship characterised by slavery, pillaging and a legacy of disdainful colonial attitudes that have permeated the diaspora and beyond.

Slavery and colonial empires will always be considered with contention and contempt by the nations that were subject to it and the subsequent generations of colonial oppressors. On the latter, this has been the basis for much of the reluctance for reparations to be paid for slavery so long after the system was abolished. After all, can generations that are indirectly connected with the ills of several generations ago be expected to atone for their ancestors? And if so, where does the recrimination stop? Looking at contemporary history, how would post-Apartheid black South Africans or the post-war Jewish Diaspora have begun the process of healing and reconciliation had they continued to seek atonement in perpetuity? Arguably, they wouldn’t be able to. However, the difference is the respective groups have received reparations and unreserved apologies from the governments of the day for the plights that have been inflicted upon them.

In 2003 Thabo Mbeki, then President of South Africa, announced that the families of Apartheid victims would receive the equivalent of $3,900. Similarly, in addition to the culturally inherent contrition many Germans hold for their country’s role in the war and the Holocaust, the German government has made reparations towards Israel and Holocaust victims, most recently €772 million for the care of elderly Holocaust survivors.

Reparations and apologies do not erase the pages of history. Nonetheless, with sincerity and acknowledgment of a country’s role in heinous transgressions, they go some way to beginning the healing process and progress for all concerned. It begins to draw a line under such events while attempting to address wrongdoings in the here and now. Alas, this seems to be something lost on David Cameron as evidenced on his visit to Jamaica.

In addressing MPs in Jamaica’s Parliament, Cameron made clear that while slavery was a regrettable event in history, the British government was unwilling to pay reparations nor make a formal apology for the UK’s role in the slave trade. But it was his language that was most telling about how unempathetic he is when it comes to the legacy of slavery –

“That the Caribbean has emerged from the long shadow it cast is testament to the resilience and spirit of its people. I acknowledge that these wounds run very deep indeed. But I do hope that, as friends who have gone through so much together since those darkest of times, we can move on from this painful legacy and continue to build for the future.”

Without context, his utterances read as if he were referring to a playground falling out between two youths. One had got the better of the other in a largely one-sided fight and subsequently their relationship was characterised by undertones of bitterness that needed to be put behind them. Yet this was all without any meaningful restorative conversations or acknowledgment that their fracas left one black and bruised with permanent injuries. While the other went home with the other’s lunch money and unscathed beyond a slight dent to their image based on a perceived lack of ethics. And that is exactly how Cameron sees slavery.

The rhetoric of “move on” was most suggestive and indicative of how removed Cameron and his Conservative government are from the issue of slavery and how it continues to permeate the black diaspora worldwide. ‘Move on’ suggests there’s nothing to dwell on or reason to continue with a respective conversation as it’s run its course. Although would anyone expect the Jewish Diaspora to ‘move on’ from the Holocaust and its legacy? Absolutely not. Were anyone to suggest so, it would be met with anger and vitriol. Therefore why should the nations that were victim to a policy from which the scars are still present ‘move on’?

Perhaps the issue of an apology and reparations for slavery is too close to home for Cameron. Indeed, both his family and that of his wife are known to have been slave owners who were handsomely compensated for their former ‘property’ when slavery was abolished in 1833. And given both come from ‘old money’, one can make of it what they will about how much those payments indirectly contributed to their current status within Britain’s elite and privileged.

One of the legacies of slavery is the negative impact on a nation’s social progress. That can be manifested in education, economic growth and democracy amongst other factors due to the vacuum that slavery and colonialism left. In turn, that leads to crime, debt and societies of restricted growth of which Jamaica is subject to. It’s therefore ironic that Cameron announced £25 million of British aid (that’s right, aid) would be used to build a prison for Jamaican criminals in the UK to be transferred to.

Given the money is coming from the British aid budget, surely a better (and more importantly appropriate) use of aid would be to build a school, a library, a hospital or even cancel debt. But instead, it’s being used to build a prison. Not only does this illustrate how blind Cameron is to the legacy of slavery that the UK has found itself home to Jamaican criminals (just as it’s found itself as home to criminals from non-black nations but the right wing media won’t suggest that), but it’s also lost on him that there was enough imprisonment during slavery. Spending British aid money on something else would have provided an opportunity to move away from a marred feature of the historical relationship between the two countries.

Cameron also announced a £300 million development package for infrastructure in Jamaica. This was probably announced within the same visit to take the sting out the colonial undertones of ‘here’s some aid to build a prison to take your criminals’. Consequently, the Jamaican government has not been as vocal as it could be on the issue of reparations and an official apology. CARICOM has established a reparations commission to push the issue of addressing the legacy of empire – something Cameron has made plainly clear isn’t on his agenda.

Reparations, apologies and resetting of ties don’t undo the legacy and the ills of slavery and empire but it’s a start in addressing them. André Wright, comment editor of the Gleaner, wrote in the Guardian that Jamaica, as is the case for other former colonies, cannot solely place blame for its misfortune at the feet of the British or their respective former colonial powers. He’s right but it’s not as simple as that.

Being of the Jamaican diaspora and the wider black diaspora, I’m acutely aware of the mismanagement of economies, acceptance of polarised wealth, corruption and neglect of education and socio-economic standards since independence in Jamaica and many former colonies. And without the necessary caveats, many would argue that it is a bed we’ve made for ourselves so we must now lie in it. While we must make the necessary efforts to address it ourselves, we cannot forget the foundation of this predicament and it squarely sits with the respective former colonial powers. Can one shoddily raise a child, neglecting and abusing it as it grows while taking what riches it has, only to abandon it when this flawed custody is no longer tenable and expect the child to do much more than survive let alone prosper? The situation is no different for the former colonies that several decades later are still struggling to fully shake off the shackles of their oppression.

David Cameron has shown on countless occasions that he is out of touch with most of the British public and now also his awareness of British history and its legacy. His perception and lack of realisation of how deep the scars of slavery run shows just that. Although his chutzpah in ‘addressing’ them suggests he either doesn’t care or is even more ignorant to the sentiments around the matter than might have previously been assumed.

Boxing needs to rein in the hype around Anthony Joshua until he's had an actual test

Most boxing fans would agree that inside and out of the ring, Anthony Joshua is a fine heavyweight prospect. He clearly grafts in the gym and seemingly doesn’t cut corners when it comes to his strength and conditioning. Despite the brevity of his professional bouts to date affording him little opportunity to showcase it, he’s shown himself to have good movement. And as fans of combat sports relish in a fighter, he’s got a nasty streak in the ring with explosive power. Outside the ring, he’s surrounded by a good promotional team, comes across as hugely personable and has certainly taken heed of his media training. The makings of a great fighter, ambassador for the sport and overall star are all there. But let’s not get carried away before Joshua has actually done anything to warrant the hype that is already being laden upon him.

Following every Joshua fight, the boxing media, Joshua’s promotional team, casual fans and even some hardcore ones, heap praise upon him. They declare him ready to beat any heavyweight in the world and deftly so (although with the current lacklustre state of heavyweight boxing, that isn’t the claim it might once have been). They pay no regard for the fact that Joshua hasn’t experienced a single test in any of his opponents as a professional.

I like Joshua and I’m optimistic for his future in the sport. Though the assessment many have of his current attainment in the sport is much exaggerated in contrast to reality.

Joshua has fought 14 professional fights, each one wining by way of KO or TKO. It’s an achievement that can’t be denied but one that needs to be put in context of who he’s fought. With no disrespect to Joshua’s opponents, to date he’s not fought anyone in what has been a 50/50 fight. For all intents and purposes, they’ve served the purpose of keeping Joshua active (thus keeping his promoter and broadcaster happy as they build his profile), padding his record and demonstrating his undeniably ferocious power. What they don’t provide is the slightest challenge. And to be candid, none have turned up to fight or shown any confidence that they can get the W, let alone survive the first few rounds, through anything other than luck. It’s not an attitude that can be credited. Therefore neither can Joshua’s record at 14-0 be given the acclaim many wish to bestow upon it. For Joshua’s opponents, Joshua merely represents a nice payday and a negligible puncher’s chance of derailing the hype train.

Joshua’s future opponent, Dillian Whyte, presents something different. While he’s still an underdog, as amateurs, Whyte handed Joshua an L and even a knockdown in the process. As a result, Whyte’s confidence is high and he doesn’t seem to fear Joshua or see his own defeat as a routine occurrence. It should make for a good fight with genuine needle which has already manifested itself in accompanying pre-fight friction between the two. Joshua was admittedly raw when they met as amateurs but it won’t change the fact that he’s tasted defeat at the hands of Whyte. I still expect a Joshua win but it’ll make for a different dynamic and hopefully a longer fight and a sterner test for Joshua.

Objectively speaking, some of the hysteria around Anthony Joshua is understandable. While his opponents haven’t turned up to fight, some have promised durability which was considered a test and a gauge for Joshua’s power. Yet he remains a juggernaut regardless of how teak tough the opposition has been billed as. Kevin Johnson went 12 rounds with Vitali Klitschko while Joshua despatched him in two rounds. Admittedly, Johnson’s fight with Klitschko was in 2009 and the former’s punch resistance can be expected to have taken a hit (no pun intended) since. However, power alone doesn’t maketh the boxer.

Cast your minds back a few years and David Price was being afforded a similar status, albeit not to the same lofty heights as is currently given to Joshua, and every opponent became a victim. Still, I recall remarking in the Matt Skelton fight that Price was caught a few times and didn’t react comfortably when in receipt of what seemed like fairly modest shots. That was proven in his subsequent two fights with Tony Thompson and his most recent fight with Erkan Teper. For everything his potent right hand was and probably still is, Price couldn’t take a shot and upon that being realised, mentally he’s not been the same fighter since.

Hopefully that won’t be the case for Joshua. But until we’ve seen he can take a shot, trade in a war and keep his mettle when the pressure is on, we only have one piece of the puzzle that is how complete a fighter Anthony Joshua is. Anthony Joshua could arguably stop any fighter given a clean shot. Nonetheless, in the heavyweight division, where there’s in excess of 200lbs behind a shot, most fighters could. The question is how they respond when taking a shot themselves.

The heavyweight division has always been considered the premier division within the sport. It appeals to our primal desire for gladiatorial battle between the biggest and strongest fighters with the most knockouts and knockdowns anticipated due to the sheer weight behind each punch thrown. Yet in recent years, the division has provided us with a plethora of borefests with so-called fighters who show little conditioning, mettle and athleticism and even less excitement. Every time a new prospect is able to rack up a few consecutive wins via fairly impressive knockouts, they’re therefore touted as a potential future star of the division. Although the desperation for a saviour of heavyweight boxing isn’t new. Indeed, the March 2004 issue of The Ring Magazine gave the cover to Audley Harrison, Dominick Guinn and Joe Mesi with the headline ‘who will replace Lewis, Tyson & Holyfield’.

In contrast to the current crop of heavyweight boxers, Anthony Joshua’s achievements are greatly overstated in a currently largely moribund division. Assuming he is the total package, which I think he will be, there are few heavyweights that wouldn’t be underdogs going into fights with him and even fewer that could overturn their underdog status within the fight. Wladimir Klitschko and a pre-layoff David Haye are probably the only two heavyweight fighters in recent years that many would opine to be able to able to wrest the W from Joshua. Like or loathe him, Tyson Fury would come to fight as would Deontay Wilder. Otherwise, most opponents in the division would probably go the same way as Joshua’s previous opponents. Before his defeat to Erkan Teper, David Price was touted as a potential live opponent for Joshua in a fight that would undoubtedly see someone knocked out (and early) with two huge punchers. Alas, given Price’s confidence is surely at rock bottom, and with the exposure of him seemingly being chinny, he’d likely crumble upon Joshua’s first clean landing shot. As a result, that fight’s now dead in the water.

Joshua needs to bank rounds, experience and credible tests via live opponents on his record before we can place him on the pedestal so many have already hoisted him upon amidst all the fanfare. Hopefully the Dillian Whyte fight will be the first to achieve that with an opponent that doesn’t seem to fear Joshua.

Given time, Johsua certainly has the attributes to eventually fulfil the hype many have accorded him. Boxing just needs to stop getting carried away before time and allow Joshua to build himself as the complete fighter many have prematurely declared him to be.

Life thru an Instagram lens

Recently over dinner with some friends, a mutual acquaintance came up in conversation as we enquired as to whether anyone had made recent contact with them. None of us had, but it quickly became apparent that our only awareness of said acquaintance’s life was through Facebook. We also realised that their posts assumed a very obvious trend of constant and crass humblebrags - casually made statements with the sole intention of really saying 'look how awesome and better than you I am; I'm so awesome that I'm practically nonchalant in telling you about it'. Indeed, most of their posts would be a blatant attempt to suggest that they’re living the most glamourous of lifestyles that are void of the mundane or regularity that most of us experience in our day-to-day lives.

Celebratory posts are an appropriate part of the social media experience and rightly so. After all, those who choose to should be able to upload photos from a great holiday or share news and achievements without it generating unwarranted resentment or disdain. However, this individual would periodically upload selective photos of holiday destinations captioned with a humblebrag that pleads for a comment of envy. Similarly, their attendance at an event or function that might support their purported ‘fabulous life’, would be captured by photos accompanied with cringeworthy captions with the same aim.

Given what I do know of said individual, they aren’t a member of the cast of Made in Chelsea or living a Kardashian-esque life. So one has to assume that their life isn’t the perfection they would have their online audience believe. But that’s just what they’re doing – creating a deliberate and highly selective portrayal of their life, void of any monotonies let alone negativity. And it’s all in the name of creating a character and a life that suggests they’re someone they’re not. What’s more, in an age of social media such depictions often can’t be refuted which is exactly what said individual is banking on. Conversely, those who know differently based on reality, are more likely to think they're just an attention seeking, pretentious braggart.

Such posts certainly aren’t limited to said individual; they’re actually widespread on social networks. They serve only to depict an individual in the way that they feel affords them laudable credibility, drip feeding us nuggets of their alleged lives in the hope that we'll use them to create a picture that they deem desirable. It's akin to an identity makeover that social media permits with the distance it facilitates us from reality and further into the realm of a digital world.

Social media allows users to project an image of themselves that doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. Sometimes that can be to selectively omit facts that we may not want to share with the wider world and there isn’t anything wrong with that. If anything, having some filter on what we project of ourselves online, where once it’s uploaded or posted is eternally in the ether as part of our digital footprint, is advice many social media users could learn from before sharing intimate details with all and sundry. Though that’s very different from creating a persona that’s merely a big lie. Yet the internet allows us to do this and successfully so. The internet has enabled us to negate reality to an extent that hasn’t been possible or with such ease in previous generations. Consequently, the term living a lie (in the online sense) is something that is reality (no pun intended) for many.

Take cyber bullies or trolls hide who behind the internet in the knowledge that their identity is safe and so are they (although as Curtis Woodhouse showed his troll, that isn’t always the case). Or those who choose to catfish others with the opportunity for deceit that the internet affords them. For all the advances that the internet has brought modern society, it’s also brought further opportunity for deception, disingenuousness and reinvention that isn’t mirrored by reality. On the latter, there’s the also the ever-present risk of the portrayals and lifestyles we see online creating a gauge of success that, unbeknownst to us, is a lie - and in most cases untenable.

Considering the human condition and the propensity for individuals to compare themselves to others in society, this also presents concerns within a mental health context. With the constant access and exposure so many of us have to social media, never before have we been faced with images of so-called success with such regularity. And for those who are unable to take what they see on online with a pinch of salt, it can be unsettling for one to feel that their life is below par or inferior in comparison. For the millennials who spend more time on social media than in their interaction with the real world, this surely has a damaging effect on a generation’s self-esteem and self-perception when considered in the context of wider society.

For millennials, the notion of creating their online persona as something they aren’t is an experience that wasn’t shared with generations before. Previously, reinvention for someone in their teens usually came with leaving school or college when they’d have a new and unwitting audience who couldn’t refute the credibility of a personality or backstory due to an ignorance of one’s past. Now, it only takes a new profile, selectively uploaded photos and the creation of an online presence that meets one’s desire for their reinvented self.

The ease and frequency of internet users claiming they’re someone they’re not is a casualty of the progress the internet has provided us. It’s also essentially given rise to a denial culture of who we are with the ability to dismiss any reminders of our identity on a whim, simply because we might not deem it credible to our online audience.

The advent of social media has brought with it a great and welcome opportunity to effortlessly share moments and appropriate aspects of our lives with those we chose to connect with. Births, birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, holiday photos, new jobs and other experiences and life milestones can all be shared using social media with ease. Although that needn't be with a pretentious and ostentatious post with the underlying message of 'I'm better than you or at least that's what I want you to think'. Nor does it need to be with the denial of one’s identity. Otherwise, we risk a society that blurs the lines between reality and the online world more than it already has. Not to mention, it merely promotes the steady erosion of self-worth as reality is eschewed for online reinventions and greatly embellished depictions of life.

Should a woman have to change her surname once married?

As a man, there’s little that I anticipate changing in my identity throughout my life. Regardless of my marital status, my title will remain as ‘Mr’ and my surname will remain unchanged (unless I choose to change it by deed poll). Although, for women, both identifiers are typically subject to change for those who subscribe to the tradition of doing so once married.

For some women, not changing their surname once married is unthinkable given their connection, willing or otherwise, to tradition or indeed their respective culture. On the other hand, there are an increasing number of women who retain their maiden name and not doing so is non-negotiable. But the majority of married women do decide to change their surname almost as a matter of course. Moreover, some women even relish changing their surname as a hollow (and foolish) badge of ‘success’ in being married.

The issue of a woman changing her surname is a relevant one for me as my partner falls into the group of women who feel an unease with the social expectation of adopting their partner’s surname once married. And initially, I was in agreement with her. In fact, I probably articulated my opposition to her changing her surname to mine more than she did.

It's tradition within my partner’s culture that when a child is born their middle name is that of their father’s first name. For example, if their father’s name is Joe Bloggs, their full name is X Joe Bloggs. For women though, that changes once they’re married when their middle name (being their father’s first name) is replaced with their husband’s first name. And as with western culture, their surname is also replaced so that it’s shared with their husband. Given the historical context of marriage and gender relations within my partner’s culture, I perceived this as hugely patriarchal.

While some may argue this is reading too much into a tradition, it can be perceived that where a woman (once ‘owned’ and labelled with the name of her father) is married, her ‘ownership’ is transferred from her father to her new husband. She consequently becomes the property of, and is accordingly labelled with the name of, her husband.

Conversely, it has to be recognised that there is an aspect of the tradition reflecting the woman being welcomed into and embraced by her husband’s family by assuming his surname. Although, with my awareness of my partner’s culture and its often still antiquated and misogynistic perception of women, it didn’t sit well with me. Hence I was nonchalant when it came to the idea of her taking my surname once married.

However, my stance eventually had a fairly sharp change. When my partner was questioned by a relative of hers who asked if she’d change her surname when married, her response was a firm “no”. She elaborated on this by explaining that she was “a [her current surname] and not a [my surname]” and her identity was that of a [her surname]. She also returned with her own question of “why should a woman have to change her surname when a man doesn’t?”. On the latter, I agreed with her. Yet on the former, my stance on the matter went from indifference to a burgeoning feeling of rejection toward the idea of a shared identity via my surname. I didn’t perceive it as a rejection of my family per se, but a rejection of the notion of establishing a unit with me that would, by default, share my surname.

As we spoke about this further, she explained that particularly in an interracial relationship, preserving her cultural identify both for herself and within our relationship, was hugely important. To lose her surname, which bears cultural significance for her, would be to relinquish some of that identity and she felt it was important that her surname reflected who she was. And in spite of any resentment I held toward her stance, I had to acknowledge that she made a valid point with regard to her identity; one that as a man I could not fully empathise with. Being a man, my surname, and the reflection of my identity within it, would remain intact in marriage. Furthermore, tradition and society suggests that any assumption of culture and identity in marriage would by default be her assuming mine. While it wasn’t by my design, the status quo was certainly in my favour for who would need to make any cultural compromises.

From my androcentric perspective, I argued that her culture was already visible within our relationship as both of us valued and immersed ourselves in our own and each other’s culture. I also felt that as I had integrated myself into her family to an extent that no claim could be made of me stifling or even diluting her culture within our relationship. But regardless of this, her most personal identifier, her name, wouldn’t reflect that and this was an experience that I would never be able to fully appreciate.

So should women have to change their surnames once married? It’s a tradition within marriage that has broadly endured along with women receiving a diamond engagement ring to signal their impending marriage. The latter isn’t rejected by many women – but it isn’t one that reflects their identity or lack of. The undertones of patriarchy behind women changing their surnames is also undeniable. Society preserves this in many relationships where a woman assuming her husband’s surname is merely a subtle indicator of the subservience and unequal status she may be subject to.

For a woman to change her surname can be a relinquishing of her identity and the trappings of said identity such as her culture or apparent ties to her family and community. Being known as Miss or Ms X, particularly in a professional context, and to suddenly be known as Ms or Mrs Y is also a shift of varying degrees depending on the change in surname. Nor is it a change men are subject to. Despite her rationale, it further explains the indignation of my partner on the matter.

In a modern context, the tradition of a woman taking her husband’s surname as her own needn’t be seen as patriarchal. Rather, it can be seen as the husband welcoming her to his family. Or, as I see it, creating a new entity comprising the couple that share a surname as their shared identity. Many would counter that by saying why not instead take the woman’s surname, a double-barrelled surname comprising both those of the man and woman or even a completely new name? To that, I can only offer the illogicality of tradition as explanation.

Despite my jesting with her, I have returned to my earlier nonchalance on my partner changing her surname. I continue to acknowledge the patriarchal roots of the tradition and how unwittingly or otherwise, these have undoubtedly been used as a vehicle for misogyny throughout the ages. In addition, the relinquishing and dilution of identify in changing one’s surname is one that I can appreciate if not fully empathise with as a man. Where a surname has cultural significance, the loss of identity is even more prevalent when the new surname erodes that. This therefore has further connotations that probably can’t be appreciated when changing a Greene for a Brown or a Clarke for a Jones compared to changing a Yeboah or an Ibrahim for a Williams or an Edwards. As a result, it’s arguably more of an issue for some women than others.

There is an unfairness that must be admitted in the status quo where society has not only expected women to change their surnames but social conditioning has also made it a default position. Though regardless of one’s stance on the matter, there should be a social and cultural debate on the validity and fairness of such an enduring tradition.

Can a British rap act break America?

With Krept & Konan having signed to Def Jam in America, it signals another UK rap act hoping to make their mark in the nation that birthed the genre. Despite The Long Way Home being their debut major label album (it’s been released by Virgin EMI in the UK), the duo has already garnered a growing fan base that has seen an increasing rise since their earlier Gipset days. Consequently, releasing their music in America is a sound decision given their momentum to date.

Krept & Konan present a viable act for success in America. Credibility, compounded by a harrowing backstory involving Konan, highly proficient rappers and a cross section of support in the UK amongst their fans and industry peers alike, all point towards the basis for success outside their own territory. Furthermore, the American collaborations on The Long Way Home suggest a burgeoning welcome from those American rappers who stay abreast with rap outside of their own country.

Krept & Konan aren't the first British rap act to attempt to conquer the US. However, few have had an impact on par with their American counterparts. Slick Rick, Monie Love and Derek B are exceptions but they're a minority and similar success hasn't been seen in the last 20 years.

Tinie Tempah gained some attention, largely due to Written in the Stars being picked up by WWE for Wrestlemania, but it's not close to anything achieved by Slick Rick. Similarly, Chip sought to break America under TI's Hustle Gang label but to no avail. He’s since returned to the grime scene in the UK with little impact having been made in America. Dizzee Rascal, albeit not originating from the rap scene, has had an impact in America but it's been less associated with rap and more the alternative scene that appreciates his often leftfield production and rapid, skippy flow that American rap audiences typically aren't accustomed to. On reflection, a UK rap act hasn't really made its mark on America for the best part of two decades. But with a better product typically coming from the UK in contrast to American rap, it's hard to see why.

In the early days of UK rap, it was always destined to fall short as an imitation of the US scene. Not to mention, as a relatively insular nation, Americans were (and largely still are) reluctant to embrace much that was unfamiliar. For UK rap, that meant unfamiliar accents (that perhaps didn't seem suited to rap) and unfamiliar colloquialisms and cadences. Though it could still be argued that a non-American accent still isn't wholly accepted by American audiences. Indeed, despite her commercial popularity, Australian rapper Iggy Azalea has still felt the need to don a faux southern accent in place of her own (which is more than apparent in her speaking voice). And given her popularity, she might argue it's paid off.

The unfamiliarity of British colloquialisms and vernacular could have contributed to American audiences being unable to embrace UK rap. Although looking at it from a non-American perspective, rap audiences around the world have managed to understand American rappers for decades. Many American colloquialisms have even managed to permeate the vernacular of other territories through the medium of rap. Therefore it's difficult to wholly accept this as a valid explanation. After all, hearing British vernacular from British rappers surely adds to the authenticity of what is being listened to. The same goes for the British accent that has found its voice within rap and no longer sounds awkward and out of place. Instead, it’s credible and quintessentially inner-city British.

The aforementioned insularity of many Americans also questioned the credibility of British rappers through the idea that the 'hood' only existed in America and couldn't possibly exist in the UK let alone anywhere else. Rather, many Americans erroneously thought (and many still do) we all speak the Queen's English and spend our days eating scones and drinking cups of Earl Grey with our pinky fingers at a suitably quaint angle. The idea of social deprivation, and the social ills that accompany it, existing in the UK was unthinkable to American audiences.

While it certainly isn’t something to glamourise, many American rappers and their entourages, bragging of their so-called 'hood' credentials, have toured and visited the UK and mainland Europe only to return home having found themselves involved in physical altercations and relieved of their jewellery and other possessions. And it’s been as a result of running into guys that really are from the 'hood' - and not the cinematic one that so many commercial American rappers seemingly originate from. If the street credibility of the UK and its rappers was once questioned by American audiences, it really shouldn't be now. Nonetheless, it's been an obstacle to American audiences embracing British rappers as credible acts.

There have been contemporary British rappers who have seemingly been able to address all the answers to a British rap act succeeding in America. Since Slick Rick et al, perhaps none more so than SAS. With huge street and rap credibility in the US and the UK, their success should have been a given. Their Hot 97 Special Delivery freestyle was subject to huge acclaim and subsequently they were affiliated with Rocafella and Diplomats but neither relationship ever came to fruition in the form of mainstream success . Even with widespread critical acclaim from many American rappers, it never seemed to translate into a situation that could take them to new levels of commercial success.

More recently, K Koke was signed to Roc Nation/RCA. Similarly to SAS, his street and rap credibility was undeniable and the label stuck with him even while he spent 7 months in prison on a murder charge that he was later cleared of. Alas, he was subsequently dropped from the label and his relationship with Roc Nation/RCA never came to anything by way of his debut album which is still yet to be released. Despite both acts being an A&R and marketing dream in breaking the American market, it's yet to be realised. If acts like SAS and K Koke haven't broken the American market, or at least haven't been given the platform to do so, it could be deemed questionable if other acts can.

Krept & Konan signing to Def Jam isn't a sure fire route to success in America and Def Jam isn’t the label it was during hip hop’s golden eras. Yet Krept & Konan present the attributes that a UK rap act would need to break America. Moreover, in contrast with the experiences of UK rap acts before them, the American rap scene is paying more attention to the UK rap and grime scene than ever before which is likely to bode well for their stateside endorsement. Only recently at Wireless did Drake (albeit a Canadian) bring out Skepta to perform Shutdown and French Montana featured on Krept & Konan's Don't Waste My Time as does Rick Ross on Certified.

The lack of stateside success for British rappers has been largely inexplicable of late. With broadly speaking better rappers, original content, credibility and a British swagger that most should find refreshing in contrast to the hackneyed and formulaic American approach, their success is seemingly overdue. Though as American labels and American rappers begin to pay more attention to the UK, and as the internet rapidly makes the British rap scene and its acts accessible to American audiences, it remains to be seen if the tide can finally turn for British rappers' commercial and critical acclaim in America.

The black barbershop and hairdresser experience

A few years ago, my brother-in-law got married. In the preceding days, it had been a hectic week at work for me. Travelling to different parts of the country and long hours meant getting to the barbers during the week was therefore proving near impossible. Consequently, I made a calculated risk and went against a principle that I’ve always kept. I decided to go to the barbers on a Saturday morning, the very morning of the wedding.

On the Saturday morning I woke up early, with several hours to spare before needing to depart for the wedding, and went to my barber. Others had had a similar intention and there were a small number of customers ahead of me. However, this woefully and illogically equated to hours of waiting for my respective barber (fortunately I lived locally to the barbershop and was able to return home and continue with my pre-wedding preparation before my haircut). This wasn’t due to the number of customers ahead of me, but the lackadaisical attitude of my barber.

As time passed and the shop began to fill with customers seeking an early Saturday morning haircut, there was no sense of urgency whatsoever. Haircuts would be punctuated by long pauses for jokes, animated and gesticulated conversation that didn’t permit multitasking of simultaneously cutting hair, personal calls and smoking breaks. Not to mention, the complete lack of an appointment system meant if like me you needed a haircut as a matter of urgency, you were subject to the fate of when you arrived. Fortunately I managed to get my haircut and make the wedding but I was underwhelmed to say the least.

I expect this is a story that resonates with many black men. A simple activity such as a haircut is complicated by a flawed and inefficient business model that exudes unprofessionalism. I’ll often call my barber before planning a visit to advise that I’ll be coming and to gauge how busy it is. But it’s no appointment system. I find myself strategically planning my haircuts to ensure I can be in and out within an hour – inclusive of any waiting time. Do I have a day off? Will I be able to leave work at a reasonable hour? Can I avoid a Friday and Saturday if I need a haircut for a function or event? All this for a haircut. I used to have slight envy for my non-black colleagues who, having made an appointment, or just not expecting an excessive wait because of lollygagging barbers, would often go for a haircut during their lunchbreak. In contrast, the unreliability of black barbershops would typically not present that as a viable option.

For black hairdressers, the experience is similar if not worse. Black female friends and family succumb to the fact that time is typically not an entity that is observed at the hairdressers. Indeed, when I had corn rows, my hairdresser would have no concept of time, no urgency and little professionalism. Initially, I would naively make an appointment but that wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. And given how long some black hair treatments can take, the experience at black hairdressers simply compounds how much of their time customers are expected to give up and unnecessarily so.

So why do we as the black community accept this and how has this situation managed to present itself as such a widespread feature of black barbers and hairdressers?

As black people, we have traditionally taken much pride in our appearance and have very high regard for grooming. And hair is probably at the forefront of this. Just look at old photos of post-war black immigrants arriving in the UK. Not an unkempt man or woman amongst them. Although this high regard has perhaps resulted in us accepting the aforementioned experience as a necessary obstacle to maintaining our appearance.

Within the black community, our attitude is effectively ‘if I have to wait hours and plan my day around a trip to the barbershop or hairdressers, then so be it. As long as it results in my hair looking good then that’s just the price I’ll have to pay’. It’s ridiculous and we’ve made a rod for our own back by accepting it. Furthermore, it’s now become ingrained in the experience of many within the black diaspora. Pass most black barbershops on a Saturday and they’ll be rammed. But the countenances of customers are more those of acceptance than frustration and annoyance.

There’s also our reluctance to move away from our regular establishment because of a belief that our barber or hairdresser is the best or the one that ‘knows our hair’. As a result, a good haircut in exchange for a few hours out of our schedule irrationally seems like a fair deal. And just as people are reluctant to change their bank accounts or the political party they vote for, we’re seemingly reluctant to change our barber or hairdresser. Whenever I’ve changed barbers, the decision has admittedly always been long overdue and at the expense of hours upon hours of wasted time.

Black barbershops and hairdressers are also of cultural significance. The banter, the atmosphere and a source for local going-ons are all valued features that should be enjoyed and preserved. Popular sitcom Desmond’s illustrated all the aspects of the black barbershop experience that should be celebrated. Yet the experience needs to be measured and in keeping with modern society. And that includes a drive on professionalism. In few industries would it be acceptable for someone to take or make personal calls while with a customer or interrupt their jobs because the banter meant they couldn’t multitask. My previous barbershop would also seemingly operate ad hoc hours which made it difficult to plan a trip to the barbers. On occasions, I would even find them closed despite every other shop on the high street still open for at least a few more hours. It’s actually embarrassing that there are black businesses in the form of black barbershops and hairdressers that are run like this.

I’m certainly not suggesting that black barbershops and hairdressers should imitate or reflect that of those found in other communities. I like the banter and atmosphere of the barbershop. I just want it within an environment that is befitting of modern society. That means appointments that are kept to, more professionalism and barbers who don’t take their sweet time as if their customers have nothing better to do than sit in their chair all day. People have commitments that don’t permit such a strain on their time and schedules and that needs to be reflected in how black barbershops and hairdressers are run.

There is a counter argument to appointment systems that customers, in their own tardiness, may not keep to them, thus perpetuating the situation we currently have. That says much about the black community and how we have fed the status quo ourselves. Within a modern society, a lack of an appointment system portrays us as backwards and reflects a microcosm of a community that has no regard for time.

My criticisms aren’t widespread and there are some black barbershops and hairdressers that have moved towards more professionalism and a sensible business model. Though regrettably, they’re in a minority and the black diaspora cannot continue with such a poor representation for the majority. It’s not befitting of where we are as a community and it’s embarrassing that many black barbershops and hairdressers don’t seem to see anything wrong with their representation and projections of the diaspora.

I don’t want to see the banter and atmosphere disappear from black barbershops and hairdressers but nor do I want the palaver that getting a haircut can sometimes involve. And when it’s simply because some black barbershops and hairdressers can’t bring themselves to have a professional and modern attitude in running their establishments, it doesn’t seem like a valid obstacle at all.