GUBU

GUBU
An Irish woman's social, political and domestic commentary

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Basically

On RTE's News at One today, Eileen Whelan did a 3 minute report on today's Moriarty Tribunal. Apart from the fact that they keep referring to "Sir" Anthony O'Reilly, despite the fact that Irish citizens aren't supposed to have titles; she used the word 'basically' 15 times. I counted. Basically, I think journalists should stop using this word.

posted by Sarah | 20:59 0 comments

Friday, March 26, 2004

Fine Gael and Independent Newspapers

Former Fine Gael leader and Taoiseach John Bruton gave evidence at the Moriarty Tribunal this week. At the Tribunal he described a meeting he had with "Sir" Anthony O'Reilly, chairman of the powerful Independent Newspapers. For foreign readers he's also a former chairman of Heinz. In 1996 O'Reilly requested a meeting with Brutal when both were holidaying in West Cork. At the meeting O'Reilly complained bitterly about several slights against his companies by the coalition government. Heinz were trying to build some factory. Chorus, a TV wireless cable company in which O'Reilly was involved was in difficulties because illegal deflectors were providing tv channels to locals; his mining company Arcon need planning permission for a mine in the midlands and...the consortium he was associated with didn't get the 2nd GSM licence which was awarded to Denis O'Brien instead.

Brutal agreed to look into the matter and two months later his programme manager Sean Donlon met senior executives from Independent Newspapers. At that meeting the executives threatened Donlon that if the matters were not resolved to their satisfaction the coalition 'would lose INP as friends'. The government did not accede to O'Reilly's various demands and within months were facing the most extraordinary onslaught from the Independent group of newspapers which have a huge domination in the Irish market. They include the Irish Independent, Sunday Independent, Evening Herald, Daily Star, Sunday Tribune and more regional ones. The attacks were generally very personal and adopted a sneering tone towards particular individuals. Finally on polling day in 1997 the Indo published an editorial on their front page (unprecedented: never before had they put an editorial on the front page) urging people to vote for FF and the PDs. Faced with this kind of attack the coalition was duly voted out and FF have been in since.
Two interesting things to note since.

Firstly, the campaign was remarkably effective because to this day most people speak about Fine Gael in the same sneering tones which the Independent adopted at that time. You have to remember that the government at that time was actually pretty good. There was growth in the economy and with the sole exception of Lowry there were no personal scandals, so the attacks had to be personal and convince the public that the government were incompetent and inefficient. This is the view that people to this day have of FG.

Secondly, the Independent is still at it. They were furious with this government when they failed to stop the FAI (Football Association of Ireland) selling the rights to Ireland's soccer games to Sky thus depriving the aforementioned Chorus from showing the matches. The NEXT week, there was a huge huge headline "Promises, promises" on the front page on the Indo outlining the failure of the FF/PDs government to live up to various campaign commitments, and from that moment on the Indo has consistently attacked this government. Chorus has since gone bust. Last week Aengus Fanning, editor of the SINDO did a soft soft full page interview with Enda Kenny, current leader of Fine Gael. Perhaps the wheel has turned. Great if FG benefit this time, but how sinister that the commercial interests of the Indo are so blatantly pursued in their editorial.

Reinactment of Brutal's evidence here. (Vincent Browne show on RTE - click on Tuesday and forward into 24:00)

posted by Sarah | 21:10 0 comments

Thursday, March 25, 2004

Alan Clarke

Alan Clarke, Tory MP was a real shit, and yet the television adaptation of his famous diaries starring John Hurt has endeared me to him. But first his 'shit' credentials. He was a Tory minister for defence at a time when the Brits were selling attack helicopters and missiles to the Indonesians who were using them in their appalling oppression of the harmless East Timorese. Clarke was unapologetic about this and was famously interviewed by John Pilger, the left wing journalist. Pilger began by confirming with Clarke that he was a vegetarian. "Yes", Clarke replied. "And you are a vegetarian because you are deeply concerned about the manner in which animals are treated?" asked Pilger. "Yes" replied Clarke. "And yet", queried Pilger, "you don't seem concerned about the way the Indonesians are slaughtering the East Timorese?". "Quite frankly," said Clarke "what one bunch of foreigners does to another bunch of foreigners really doesn't bother me". Outstanding and vile.

Yet the diaries show fascinating accounts of how open he was about lying. What I mean is that some liars will spend a lot of time convincing themselves and others that they are not really lying at all. Clarke just told outright lies and knew it. Furthermore his arrogance didn't translate into confidence. Every time he screwed up he fully expected to be fired, wondered should he resign, he anxiously awaited word of his forgiveness, was openly disappointed when he would fail to be promoted and despite all his outrageous affairs and philandering (he fancied Margaret Thatcher and his descriptions of her are hilariously at odds with one's normal perceptions) its obvious he really loved his wife. I can't help liking him. Very odd. Perhaps its comforting to witness others richer and apparently more intelligent and succesful than myself walk themselves into trouble and sweat in their discomfort. Or it the Tony (Soprano) syndrome. We love to see frailty in the strong.

One final note. Describing his first appearance on Question Time he admitted that Sue Lawley the presenter didn't like him because she realised that while he was lecherous he didn't fancy her. Double offence! Some other notes here and some must read quoteshere.

posted by Sarah | 15:02 0 comments

Saturday, March 20, 2004

Death in childbirth

Scary 3rd world stuff in today's NYT.

posted by Sarah | 14:43 0 comments

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Career breakthrough

Have become overnight journalistic sensation ;-). My SATC article is published in today's Irish Independent. (reg. reqd but you never know). Article discussed on Ryan Tubridy show on 2FM and am doing The Last Word and BeatFM later.

Only blip: byline not given on web version of Indo :-( but very clear in print edition)

posted by Sarah | 10:41 0 comments

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Madrid

A quote from Paddy Woolworth's article in today's IT. Its long but on the same theme as my previous post.

"In fact, however, the argument that terrorism will increasingly condition democratic decisions cuts both ways. It is quite obvious that terrorist acts force us to make a response, but the reality is that we always have a choice as to what that response should be. And that is where the Iraq issue kicks in again, but on another level.

"The paradox of terrorism," the El País journalist Patxo Unzueta wrote some years ago, is that "by itself it is impotent to overthrow the democratic state. But a mistaken response by that same state can seriously destabilise the system." He was writing about the terrorism of Eta, but the point also applies to the international conflict heralded by the September 11th attacks.

So far, the response of the democratic powers to the real and now terribly present danger of Islamist terror attacks has been to counter-attack. They have often chosen targets, and methods, which many democrats believe to be mistaken and even illegal.

Iraq and the Guantánamo Bay internment camp are two cases in point.

They have also paid precious little attention, and fewer resources, to the conditions which make terrorism an attractive, even morally compelling, option for many Muslims today.

In this context, I was struck by something Paul Reiderman, an EU official from Javier Solana's office, said to an American foreign affairs forum in Iowa last September.

"No cause can justify terrorism," he said, "but nothing justifies ignoring the causes of terrorism." But the most disturbing thing about the leading warriors in the so-called war against terrorism is their undemocratic contempt for open and constructive debate. "Those who are not with us are against us, and therefore wittingly or unwittingly in the terrorist camp," is a fair summary of the attitude of George Bush to his critics. It also characterised the attitude of the outgoing Spanish prime minister, José María Aznar, a man who saw a world without shades of grey, in which he was a white knight."

posted by Sarah | 15:26 0 comments

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Madrid

Here is a lesson which the British government in Northern Ireland only learned in the past 10 years. It's a lesson that the US clearly has to learn and a lesson that Blair needs to remember (coming as he did into a peace process in NI that was well on its way).

When you try to fight terrorism illegally you only help it. The terrorists are the ones who must remain in the wrong; legally and morally. As soon as the legitimate governments step outside the law in an attempt to beat the terrorists all they do is ensure that recruitment into said terrorists groups is increased. Exponentially.

There were several classic cases of this in Ireland. In 1916 after the Easter Rising, the rebels were despised by Dubliners and had rotten fruit thrown at them as they were being brought into Mount Joy jail. Within one week, as they had been executed one by one, including James Connolly who, due to this injuries, had to be tied to a chair to be shot, they became instant heroes of Irish Freedom and martyrs to the cause. In more recent times we had the recurrence of the 'Troubles' in NI. The British government responded with Internment: the wholescale rounding up young men of dubious background and detained without trial. They queued up to join the IRA. The refusal to negotiate with the Hunger Strikers (in which 13 men starved themselves to death) was an even bigger mistake and saw a marginalised terror group become part of the mainstream within the 6 counties. This does not mean that you do not deal with terrorists through security measures; you just make sure you do it legally and without handing over the moral highground so that the appeal of the group spreads beyond the original few nutters.

This is where the Bush/Bliar axis failed the victims of 9/11 and now Madrid. Let us not forget that after 9/11, the Afghans offered to hand Bin Laden over for trial to a neutral country if the US could provide any shred of evidence that he had some connection with 9/11. That's a standard legal requirement for extradition. In fact, the perfect place to try Bin Laden would have been in the International Criminal Court which the US still refuses to endorse. Instead, Bush bombed Afghanistan back into the Stone Age and claims credit for liberating the people from the dreaded Taliban; the oppressive regime the West were quite happy to leave in power as long is it was only women they were oppressing. How did bombing the miserable inhabitants of that country do anything to stop Al Qaeda?All it did was provide a cause for more militants to join.

Then they proceeded to invade Iraq against all international opinion and the clear will of the people so that the neo-con's dreams of taking the balance of power from the Saudis would be realised. Their motives were so transparent and their evidence so flimsy that it is astonishing that Bliar still claims that 'history will vindicate him'. In the meantime, fundamentalists arrive in Iraq on a daily basis to kill Iraqis who take jobs from Americans.

In Spain previous governments tried to fight the so-called 'dirty war' against ETA and simply got themselves into trouble. It wasn't until Asnars ruthless, but legal campaign against ETA coupled with some pretty major political concessions, that ETA became a spent force. It's repeated over and over again all over the world. You must fight terrorists by legal means.

posted by Sarah | 22:22 0 comments

Madrid

The spinning and sophistry over the catastrophe in Spain is quite extraordinary. John Waters takes a preposterous line but one quite consistent with the rest of the VRWC. I'll quote here at length from his column in the IT since they require a subscription

"to propose that we should not act on principle because of what others may do in retaliation is to say: lie down and the monster will not hurt you. The West is plagued with such thinking, exacerbating the growing danger. At a time when, as Tony Blair said last week, resolve is what is needed to safeguard our people from the evil without, our leaders must instead defend themselves against naivete from within.

The greatest threat to democracy may not arise from the evil of Islamic extremism, but from the virus of pacifism that attacks our best hopes of self-defence. The perpetrators of recent horrors, demonstrating an acute understanding of Western culture, are clearly intent upon exploiting the West's weakened resolve....

Notwithstanding that their pithiness fails to inspire the pitiless, such ideas are engrained now in the culture of the West, placing us in mortal danger. We stand, following the paralysing discussion about Iraq, at a point where the leaders, Bush, Blair, Aznar, who were forced to take a stand are at risk of being replaced by others who would pander to the general woolly belief that everything becomes possible with a little peace, love and understanding."

This argument and others like it maintains that the Spanish people 'gave in' to terrorism by electing an anti-war governent. No one has a right to tell the Spanish people that they gave into terrorism. They had supported the PP's extremely tough line on ETA and it was that line that would have helped re-elect them. What they have demanded in this election is that the mistakes their previous government made with regard to Bush/Bliar are reversed. That is quite reasonable.

The Spanish people's outrage at the PP was twofold.

1. Aznar took a spectacularly pro-Bush/Blair line despite the fact that 90% of Spaniards were opposed to the war. Millions marched against it on the international day of action. They didn't do that because they were afraid of becoming targets; but because the knew the war was so bogus. Anyone, except those relying on Cheney and Fox news for information, knew that Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq because Saddam, secularist to the end, had thrown them out. Of course, now that thanks to the war Al Qaeda has managed to associate its cause with Iraq, Spain did become a target and why wouldn't the people be extremely pissed off that their government's appalling error of judgement has walked them into this tragedy?

2. The final outrage was the government's pathetic efforts to blame it on ETA despite a denial from Batasuna and an admission from Al Qaeda!

The Spanish are well able to be 'tough on terrorism' as they have proved in the near elimination of ETA so to portray them as cowards who have given in to violence is really insulting. More later.

posted by Sarah | 19:00 0 comments

Sunday, March 14, 2004

Westlife

WARNING - soppy and humour free post. My musical taste has never been what you might call 'happening'. It's not that I object to cool music - I just can't keep up. I rely on my hippier friends to introduce me to the best stuff but am usually lagging behind. When I finally catch on to something really good you can be sure it's on the way out. The careers of Fat Boy Slim and Moby were doomed when word got out I'd purchased their CDs. With this warning in mind, I can't let the week go by without noting the defection of Bryan McFadden from Westlife.

I've never been one to slag off Westlife, despite their obviously manufactured provenance, the fact that they're managed by greedy guts Louis Walsh and the preponderance of BIG ballads in their repertoire. In fact, I really admire their total professionalism. These guys work really really hard, they can sing and they are very articulate. Fatty McFadden (as he was known in school) always did seem the least interested and this week he announced his departure from the band and I believe him when he says he wants to spend more time with his family. The boys were off on a world tour and he just couldn't leave his lovely kids and the lovelier Kerry, formerly of Atomic Kitten and recent popular winner of I'm a Celebrity Get me out of here! She was fantastic on that show; got more beautiful every day while the other women fell to pieces, was funny, vulnerable and didn't take any shit from anyone. It's obvious that they are truly in love with each other and couldn't bear to be apart for the tour. So I say, Brian - you are a model for the post-modern man. Sarah wishes you well. Isn't it nice to have something nice in the world.......(ok, that's enough of the sop)

posted by Sarah | 23:06 0 comments

LUAS

Very busy week so apologies for absence.

Personally I'm looking forward to Dublin's light rail system but apart from gross overspending, bizarre incompatibilities on two different rails, works causing dreadful accidents and the ruination of businesses on the construction route, Kevin sends this link to an NYT article on light rail systems in general. Here are the highlights.

...."There is a desire named streetcar among planners," said James Dunn, a political scientist at Rutgers who studies public transit. But if lightly traveled rail lines do little to serve transportation needs, that is almost beside the point for the politicians who want to build them, he said.
In the political sphere, "it's a benefits regime" that distributes jobs, contracts and influence, Professor Dunn said. "The costs are the benefits."....

...The project has cost about three times more than the earliest estimates. Since 1996, the state has paid $476 million for the contract to design and build the system and $100 million for consultants. In borrowing to keep the project afloat, the state paid outside bond underwriters and lawyers, although those costs are minuscule in comparison to the $48 million a year to be paid in debt service....

....Clifford Winston, an economist at the Brookings Institution, argues that public ownership of transit is governed by political - and therefore hugely expensive - spending decisions, and that planners routinely overestimate demand for new projects. "I do mind how much these things cost," Mr. Winston said, "but I mind more when no one uses them." ...

....Like many transportation experts, Mr. Pucher said areas like South Jersey, where development is scattered, are much better and more cheaply served by buses. But bus service is notoriously hard to sell, he added. "Even the Federal Transit Administration has said that the main problem with buses is they don't look like trains."

posted by Sarah | 22:42 0 comments

Saturday, March 06, 2004

In praise of Miranda

We're on 'Splat' here in Ireland. That means there are 2 episodes left to Sex and the City. Regular readers will know that I seriously question the show's credibility in relation to its claimed feminist agenda but to be fair Miranda's character is holding firm in the face of the clownish developments in the others' lives. It is perfectly obvious that Alexander is a pretentious shit who consistently demands that Carrie is at his beck and call. Carrie is lapping it up even tho' she is so uneasy in his presence; even when he's being nice to her. It's very similar to the 'good behaviour' she always had to emulate when the self righteous Aidan was on the scene. Miranda called her on it last night. So fair dues. She proved herself a real friend.

Which does bring me to the show's only redeeming feature (in sociological terms; for entertainment purposes it is first class). The show is classic backlash stuff and getting more overt by the week: Candice Bergman's character was pitiful last night begging for and accepting any male company. Both she and the Bitsy character were totally over the top. Between Samantha's breast cancer, Charlotte's infertility and Miranda's obvious happiness in her imperfect husband and move to shockhorror Brooklyn, there is no doubting the core message: SETTLE, FOR ANYONE, QUICK!

However, the one female virtue which is definitely being displayed accurately is friendship. I don't mean all the vulgar talk, but rather the sympathy, confessions and the occasional conflicts. Miranda's reaction last night ("Alexander is pretentious; why would you leave your life and throw yourself on his mercy in a foreign country...) was very real. Other outstanding episodes were the abortion confessions; the time Charlotte gave Carrie the ring for her deposit having judged her previously on her spendthrift ways, Carrie's reaction when Samantha told her about the cancer and there was another episode when Miranda and Carrie had a row on the phone. In fact, when I look at the list, its the rows that have the most authenticity not the so-called fun. Because, we do row! And they are really painful. And we do judge each other and try not to. And eventually its all declared and there's a shouting match and a make up. I've never seen guys behave in friendships the way women do.

Anyway, I am just sooooo glad Big is coming back. The only one she could truly be herself with. All hail happy endings.

posted by Sarah | 20:31 0 comments

Housework and men

The housework debate of course does make it extremely obvious that despite the goals of the feminist movement, men never have done their fair share, so I think its time to move on to noting their amazing ability to get out of the housework. Here are some initial observations as to why women are still the principal houseworkers (even if there are foreign domestics to do the hard stuff):

1. Men postpone a job so long women just end up doing it themselves. Its easier than nagging. If you do keep up the nagging then you realise you've become a nag and are turning into your mother so you just go ahead and do it.
(Of course, then you've become a martyr in which case you've also turned into your mother - which reminds me of the one about how many Irish mothers it takes to change a light bulb. None. Its ok, I'll just sit here in the dark....)

2. Men do the job so badly, you have to do it again anyway. At which point he can then accuse you of being Monica. So not only are you doing the job but he gets to dismiss you as a freak.

3. This one is really clever. Not only will they not do the job themselves but they don't want you to do it in their presence. It's 'do you have to do that now?' They want to watch telly or something and the mere act of you doing chores in their presence is ruining their fun because they feel guilty. So they complain and you stop and wait until they're out of the house so you can do it in peace.

Now, not only have they avoided the guilt but they can also pretend that the work never actually happens at all. This all comes out when the housework row takes place every few months and they can claim that they do half the housework because they don't know that 90% of it even exists. And you've conspired in helping them believe this. So not only are you doing most of the work, which you might not even resent doing, (some people do actually find satisfaction in it), but you are not entitled to any acknowledgement, never mind gratitude for doing it at all!

Lest anyone should assume that these observations are specific to my own domestic situation I would like to stress that I've compared notes with my peers and its all the exact same. In fact, many have noted that because women are no longer acknowledged as being queens in their kitchens, the men get to criticise the women's standards, which in their parents' houses never happens.

So the sad conclusion for my friends is that housework has not just lost status, but its actually a guilty secret.

For those who do despise washing up etc, some advice from the East: make these tasks a prayer. I do this. Thank you God for the fact that I have nice dishes to wash. I am so lucky to have food to wash off them. Thank you for giving me a beautiful bath which I relaxed in last night to scrub. Thank you for giving me carpets to vacum.

Admittedly this does look a bit freaky in writing but I swear it works.

posted by Sarah | 17:12 0 comments

Last word on hoi polloi

As Tom basks in triumph I award Sara the last word;principally because it's funny. "Reading THE Le Monde this morning, about the tragic fire at THE La Fenice, I was interrupted by reports of THE El Nino on TV."

posted by Sarah | 16:41 0 comments

Friday, March 05, 2004

More on housework

I've been reflecting on Kevin's comments and I've a few more words on the housework issue. Not all coherent, but anyway.

1. I read somewhere recently (a letter in The Irish Times no doubt) that Ireland is almost exclusively discussed in terms of an economy rather than a society. So obviously it is better for the economy that women work and employ maids or nannies. The more work being done, the more money swishing around, all the better to drive the economy. My approach is more concerned with the social consequences of the working mother - for both mother and child. I firmly believe that mothers and children are happier if mother is at home to raise them - no guilt for Mom and better everything for children.

2. But but but, I am not denying that there are major downsides for Mom. Housework is crap and repetitive and HARD. Doing the weekly shop is HARD. Minding demanding children is HARD. But it's also really important and this is why it deserves respect. We do have brains and we do get frustrated so it would really help if we weren't told that it was worthless work that should be fobbed off onto other poor women.

3. Intensive child care is only required for a few years. So what I am saying is that a woman can have it all. She just can't have it all at the same time. I see my life as split into decades. Twenties were for partying, spending my money on myself and being a corporate slave. I want to devote my thirties to having babies, minding them and being free from the constant pursuit of cool clothes. In my forties I want to have the career I always really wanted - journalism/broadcasting etc. In my fifties I want to go back to college (altho' if hubby has croaked it I'm keeping in my mind that I'll probably have to keep working to pay for the kids to go to college instead). That leaves my sixties and seventies to be a mad eccentric, churning out the odd column, enjoying the grandchildren and passing on my pearls of wisdom to anyone who'll listen. So if all goes according to plan I will have it all - I just won't have run myself ragged in my thirties trying to everything right and getting everything wrong.

4. The economist tells me that the flaw in my plan (leaving pension requirements aside) is that my earning power will be damaged due to my absence from the workplace and this will account for the fact that men will always earn more than me. Just this week I read yet another article which said that new women graduates are still consistently being paid less than male graduates because they are very bad at bargaining. I would go further and say that because traditional women's work has alway been undervalued, women continue to undervalue themselves at everything they do and fail to demand top salaries from employers. Further, if housework and child rearing got the respect I believe it deserves (and lets face it, managing a household budget is not easy and the smaller it is the harder the job) then those 'absent' years would not be simply written off by employers but rather taken as being part of valuable life experience that can be brought to the job. Isn't there an argument to be made that managing children and managing office workers isn't that radically different? The multi-tasking required to clean, cook and change a nappy at the same would be very useful in a busy office. And as for that pension, why shouldn't a woman who stays home have some kind of recognition from the state through the award of social insurance stamps for her future state pension?

5. Finally, our assumption so far has been that the women being discussed are the professional ones who can afford home help (albeit of the cheapest type available;poor immigrants), and who have aspirations to find appropriate channels for their intellectual abilities. To be fair, the children at question here will only have the problems of the affluent. The real question is what happens to the families whose mothers absolutely must work? The office cleaning lady is not able to pay for any help even if it is cheap and foreign. Again, if the government would officially recognise the importance of raising children properly we would see more money being spent on subsidised child care centers. For those are the children (that is, the ones with no one to mind them while their overworked mother is out to get some cash - any cash) that will have the most difficulties in the future.

posted by Sarah | 22:01 0 comments

Hoi hoi polloi

It goes on. An outraged Tom has provided this history:

"Hoi polloi'' began to be used in English in the early 19th century, a time when having a good education meant mastering Greek and Latin. Yet when we look at early examples of the term in use, we find that the educated writers of the time, who knew the meaning of "hoi'' full well, did not hesitate to precede the term with "the.'' Both John Dryden and Lord Byron, for example, used "the'' with "hoi polloi,'' which they wrote using the Greek letters. As the transliterated form became more common in the 1800s, it was usually preceded by "the.''

The issue did not become a subject of controversy until 1926, when H. W. Fowler described "hoi polloi'' and other Greek terms like it as "uncomfortable.'' Fowler recommended avoiding "hoi polloi'' entirely, and other commentators followed suit. The term hung on, however, and in the last quarter of the 20th century we found commentators recommending only that people not use "the'' with "hoi polloi.''

But if using "the'' before "hoi polloi'' creates an undesirable redundancy, why did the like of John Dryden and Lord Byron find the usage unobjectionable? Perhaps it is because they understood that English and Greek are two different languages, and that whatever its literal meaning in Greek, "hoi'' does not mean "the'' in English.

There is, in fact, no independent word "hoi'' in English, but only the term "hoi polloi,'' meaning "commoners'' or "rabble.'' It is really no more redundant in English to say "the hoi polloi'' than it is to say "the rabble.''

In current English, "hoi polloi'' can be correctly used both with and without the article "the,'' but use with "the'' continues to be significantly more common. Use without "the'' appears now to be more common in British English than in American English."

As a final authority I consulted Darren, who sides with Tom since as he points out "While it may not be correct, it's in common
usage that way. Common use has a way of winning out over the grammarians". I think this tips the balance in favour of using the definite article.

I was going to mention that since language is evolutionary we should acknowledge that common usage should be our guide: but then I thought that as (the) hoi polloi's use of certain words is often incorrect that perhaps we should not bow to their common (mis)use. For example, I am soooo tired of hearing 'presently' being used instead of 'currently'. I don't care how many people get it wrong; they are still wrong. And what about all those done's instead of did's and bizarrely placed apostrophes? The rule of thumb appears to be that we can follow common [mis]use as long as it's been going on for a hundred years. Anything less than 20 and we can release our pedantry to the unsuspecting masses.

A final word: Perhaps this Fowler chap mentioned above had the right idea - use of foreign terms is 'uncomfortable'.

posted by Sarah | 20:18 0 comments

Hoi Polloi

Amazing. I address issues of global importance each day but the debate over hoi polloi continues.

Sara says "Just because hoi polloi choose to butcher the language, it doesn't mean that we must do the same."

Tom retorts with this reference and claims he has others.

If I'm to adjudicate; Sara is correct, whereas Tom's usage is definitely acceptable. Personally I favour correctness over acceptability.

posted by Sarah | 09:28 0 comments

Thursday, March 04, 2004

Housework and the economy

The economists are ganging up on me. Kevin writes
"My response is that your attitude to David should be, to borrow from a certain high profile movie -- "Forgive him, for he knows not what he does" -- being an economist. Because the truth is, I essentially agree with him. Even we economists recognise that unpaid housework ("home production") is one of the biggest omissions from the GDP numbers. If you pay a nanny to do it, it's in GDP, if the housewife does it, it's not. Clearly an anomaly.

And indeed the budget calculations for having a nanny are brutal -- the couple is trying to pay a nanny a pre-tax salary out of their post-tax income, so the tax wedge is getting them both ways even before you factor in the other guilt expenses that you talk about it. But it's also a fact that the economic statistics don't lie -- a big reason why women earn less than men in any given job is that they have less employment experience, one source of which can be the decision to stay at home. The longer-term issue is perhaps even more serious -- the kids don't need the intensive care for ever. That's a lot of hours in the day that could be spent doing something else, which has the makings of a mid-life crisis if not fulfilled.
Ireland is unusual because it had its demographic transition so much later than other countries -- basically our cohort was the last of the large families. Once the 2.2 kid family becomes the norm, that's a lot more potential hours in the labour market for the housewives. And cheap furrin nannies are the way to exercise that time. With open immigration for nannies, the price should stay relatively low, but the skills acquired by women in the labour market will cause their salaries to rise, so over time it becomes a better proposition than it might seem at the start.

And things may not be so bad for those nannies themselves -- remember that an increasingly accepted explanation for "how the Irish became white" in America is that the 19th century immigrant women saw how the other half lived by looking after their kids, earned a steady income and saw the tricks of being a respectable household. A couple of generations later, it's the descendants of those Irish nannies in Boston looking for nannies.

Now there's a fundamental sense in which you are right. Countries have to choose where they want to be on the employment -- leisure tradeoff. If we make a decision that we want women in the labour force, as per the
Lisbon target (which really is an incredibly stupid thing to target), that's equivalent to a decision that as a society we are going to have less downtime for the parents and kids. And the costs of that should be recognised, with the US as the leading example -- Happy Meals, stretched school budgets (as the school becomes the de facto day care), and the
more difficult to quantify things like how well socialised the kids really are.

A society that decided to put an economic value on being a housewife could indeed be a happier one -- but it would also have higher taxes to meet the payments to these housewives. And the smaller the working population, the more difficult it is for the society to provide for everyone's retirement.
What's the solution to the latter problem? -- bring in more immigrants to generate a larger (tax-paying) labour force. So in fact the economic logic is that the immigrants are coming, it's only a question of when -- to wipe baby noses now, or to work in our factories (and wipe retirement home noses) 40 years from now. I think the economist view would be the former choice, while perhaps a tad cynical, is the right one."

posted by Sarah | 21:48 0 comments

More pedantry

OK, Tom is this month's Lord of the Pedants. HE says " “The hoi polloi” is perfectly acceptable English according to any authority you wish to refer to. In fact dropping the “The” is a modern affectation.

Sara, (original corrector); any defence for your affectation?

posted by Sarah | 21:44 0 comments

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

Pedant's Corner

I should acknowledge recent corrections.

From my last e-voting post I've been told that I shouldn't say 'the hoi polloi' since hoi is greek for the. I've always bitterly regretted my lack of a classical education. Still my Irish education didn't do much good either because Paddy tells me that I shouldn't use babog for baby since it means doll; instead I should use leanbh. (for non-irish readers that's pronounced lanev).

Nice to see you're all picking up on the important stuff...

However, I should also note that my recent post on breast feeding was worthwhile since I got some very nice notes, especially from Collette and Scott. Hope you're all well.

posted by Sarah | 23:01 0 comments

Housework

Seriously long post. Settle in for this one. David Mcwilliams wrote this article last week in the Sunday Business Post. I did a review of the papers on Newstalk on Tuesday and we argued the point. I wrote this and sent it to the Post in the hope that they'd publish it. Can you believe they've decided not to and ask that I send in a short letter instead. Outrageous. ;-)

Anyway, here's my article.

In his column last week David McWilliams made a radical case for welcoming immigrants. He argued that liberated women working outside the home, having to juggle office and housework, can reduce their workload and assuage their guilt by paying poor immigrant women to do what he called the ‘shit’ work; that is wiping Johnny’s nose and cleaning the loo.

His argument has all the appearance of facing practicalities and providing an unpalatable solution for mothers in a certain predicament. The real truth is that his thesis is based on a whole set of generally accepted misconceptions about feminism, equality and the working mother.

One huge assumption is that feminism as originally conceived has succeeded because women are now liberated from the drudgery of housework and are flocking to offices to do proper work. He does acknowledge that some work out of economic necessity as well as a desire for what Maslow famously described as ‘self-actualisation’. Instead of immediately skipping to the conclusion that the only solution is to outsource the menial housework to other women perhaps there are some other hard questions that should be answered.

Firstly, lets look at a woman with two children living in the suburbs. When she takes home her salary at the end of the month, where does it go? Creche fees for two children can cost between €1500 and €1800 per month. By the time you tax and insure a second car, buy nice clothes for the office, lunch every day, expensive convenience food and treats for the kids to make up for the guilt of not being around; exactly how much money does a woman need to earn just to pay the costs of having the job in the first place? There are a lot of couples who should probably sit down and figure out the actual economic cost of a dual income household. They could find that they might not be that badly off if the woman decided to stay at home and mind the children and do the housework herself.

But women will baulk at this proposition because they know that this is, as David described, the shit work and if they confine themselves to it they’ll feel like and be seen as failures. They will have neither status nor respect, because housework and childcare has neither. It’s the work that despite talk of equality, men still refuse to do. The result is that men use their weekends for sport and leisure and women use their weekends to catch up on the ironing. Cleaning the house and being at home when the children come in from school has no status in today’s world and that’s why it’s being outsourced at such little cost to poor immigrants.

Why does this essential work have so little value placed upon it? Indeed, why does all the essential work in our society have the lowest value placed upon it? Collecting rubbish is absolutely essential; without it our streets would be cesspits of filth and disease; but street sweeping is one of lowest forms of work in the economy. The world would get on very well and probably better without spin doctors, but they’re amongst the highest paid. So at a time when our children are beating each other to a pulp, has the time not come to place a value on stay at home mothers and respect that decision instead of denigrating them openly in the media?

Of course this is nothing new. The housewife is openly disrespected now, whereas in the past she was simply ignored to the point where her existence was not even acknowledged. My mother is a typical example of the country housewife who has worked extremely hard all her life enabling the education and success of five children who are all full participants in the celtic tiger economy. Yet recently when she applied for an RSI number, the state’s refusal to acknowledge her contribution to the economy is such that she had to provide for identification not just her own birth certificate but her mother’s birth certificate. This astonishing insult is evident everywhere. In David’s article last week he made reference to the EU’s Lisbon Agenda which has set targets for women’s labour force participation rates. Of course, when they say labour, they don’t mean all that labour inside the home, only outside it. Yet any economist worth his salt would recognise the value to an economy of unpaid housework.

Women themselves, seeing that society has no respect for housework, actively collude in maintaining the war on housewives. I know one professional woman who has her hair coiffured in an expensive salon every Saturday at a cost of €85 each time. She pays her au pair €65 per week. The hair gets a bigger investment than her children. This is the status we accord the job of child rearing in Ireland.

When, on the occasion of the Clintons’ first visit to Ireland, Finola Bruton dared to raise her voice in support of stay at home mothers, arguing that they should be cherished as much as career women, she was attacked hysterically. Mary Robinson had an easier time, aided possibly by her indisputable liberal credentials, when she said that “perpetuating the low status accorded to women in the home perpetuates their oppression".

The solution, therefore David, is not simply to pass on this lowly work to lowly women immigrants but to demand that housework and childcare be given the respect it deserves. For those who sigh wearily at this impossible aspiration there are other solutions.

To start with, one could actually reduce the amount of housework done. Isn’t it odd that the invention of labour saving domestic appliances didn’t save any labour at all? They just enabled the creation of more work. Washing machines and tumble driers resulted in the acquisition of more clothes which we wash more often. The consequence of having great toilet cleaner was the installation of four toilets in the house instead of one and the waging of a continual and mythical war on germs. The better the cleaning products, the more we have to clean. Isn’t it funny that men like David who, sick of listening to their wives complain about housework just suggest outsourcing the problem instead of agreeing that less housework is an option?

Finally, David warns that the problem of getting someone to do the housework is going to get worse and feminists (not men) will have to come up with a solution. This is because women are going to have to work longer and harder in the real workplace as Enterprise Ireland implements our unique strategy of moving Ireland up the value chain. He makes no mention of women being welcomed back in to the workplace when her work at home is done or doing part-time work. Is it not a more obvious solution, for all workers, men and women, to simply refuse to work long hours and demand family friendly schedules. Achieving a work-life balance should be the goal for all of us instead of accepting that we are of no worth to society unless we are full time corporate slaves. That’s a real solution.

posted by Sarah | 16:34 0 comments

Monday, March 01, 2004

Sopranos

"The function of an hour drama is to reassure the American people that it's O.K. to go out and buy stuff. It's all about flattering the audience, making them feel as if all the authority figures have our best interests at heart. Doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists: sure, they have their little foibles, some of them are grouchy, but by God, they care. " From today's NYT by David Chase; creator, writer, producer and everything else of The Sopranos. The 5th season starts this week on HBO.

When The Sopranos first started I felt I couldn't make the commitment to watching it as I'd so much other stuff going on but my recent acquisition of a DVD player coupled with 7 nights of the week sitting in with the babog changed all that. I watched all 3 seasons in the past 4 weeks. That's 39 hours of Tony in one month. I've been dreaming about him. I've been trying to figure out the attraction. I think it's all that humanity. The domestic scenes, the therapy, the hassle his 'families' give him. Tony spends all his time making management decisions. It's just like real life! With just one scene of gratuitous violence per episode.

posted by Sarah | 17:52 0 comments