The Red Knob

We’ve got a bigger problem now?   to quote one Jello Biafra , or:

I wander thro’ each charter’d street,

Near where the charter’d Thames does flow,

And mark in every face I meet

Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every Man,

In every Infant’s cry of fear,

In every voice, in every ban,

The mind-forg’d manacles I hear.
William Blake, London

A snippet or two from Bill Bloke’s poem - an 18^th century social protest? The abandonment of the state by those most in need? A harbinger of times to come? Whither now Cool Britannia? Whither now New Jerusalem?

Tony, Gordon and the gang have long gone, the wind of social change that ruffled Britannia’s skirts has been replaced by a listless air, the situations vacant posts (not advertised in the pages of The Manchester Guardian) scripted in an Olde English text - have been filled by a different breed.“Ut. Ut, Ut!” cried the fyrdsmen of Olde England (not forgetting their Scots, Welsh and Ulster equivalents) -  “begone dour Gordon, we’ve kicked you out of the Big Brudda House, we’ve had enough of your encroachment into our lives; begone - change is what we want, freedom from the surveillance society and Big Nanny and Peter Mandelson in every home and on every bookcase   (we know you meant well, you just didn’t explain yourselves and got into too many scrapes). Let us invite the Anciene Rėgime to reign again - they will have changed their ways since the last time they ruled o’er us - it was a long time ago; if our collective dementia serves us right they can’t have been that bad. After all, their symbol is the staunch English Oak, true Blue, stout yeomen one and all.   Erm, ain’t that right Dr Parnassus? … “

And so it came to pass that the self-appointed Nasty Party and their mercenary lap dogs The Lib-damned if they did and damned if they didn’t (Owd Nick, how uncomfortable you appear in your Emperor’s new suit?), came to squat as Mammon the Usurper upon wearied Britannia’s throne. Scions of a Norman past, the Bullingdon Boys, Eton Rifles all, and Thane Clegg, grinning bearer of an old Anglo Saxon surname, a veritable Grima Wurmtongue , his fealty as assured as that of the puppet kings of 9^th century York, laid out their plans for the Harrying of the North  and the Ravaging of the South. “Ah” said they, “thanks for the invite (you gullible) folks, but we have not come to preserve the status quo, to offer succour to the humble, the weak, and the poor. Know ye that reckless Gordon opened the coffers - our coffers, for a government of public service   - and it’s time we had our lucre back in our bank. We’ve come to claim it back.  We’ve come to fix the broken society (don’t you remember, the Tory one that Blair broke?); public services? Pah! The NHS? Why within five years we’ll make the announcement that we can no longer afford free health care for all. Fie on ye - tremble if thou art a public sector worker  or thou hast a non -  job  as advertised in the pages of the Manchester Guardian (again, we shall hear that ancient call - The Guardian delenda est! - and all who read her! ) Know ye that we have returned to make momentous decisions - how we deal with these things will affect our economy, our society - indeed our whole way of life. The decisions we make will affect every single person in our country. And the effects of those decisions will stay with us for years, perhaps decades to come…this Anglo Saxon and Celtic tenure, this pre-Conquest notion of a common land held by all shall be no more. Good old Norman feudalism (trampling on ye since ‘66), ownership by the few and the tugging of the forelock by the many shall be your due. Peasants, vassals all. ”

It is ever thus. A polar breeze stirs forlorn Britannia’s skirts.  Her suitor has a different lover. But -  this cold June Moon - is it the love affair that runs out of steam before it ever gets going?  Let us pray in kirk, chapel, mosque, cirice, temple, or bay at the moon that it’s so! (Wherefore art thou Simon Hughes? A saviour? Foment, foment that rebellion in the backlands! - blood’s bound to be split!) Oh Nick, this is a feckless love  - that fellow you’ve shacked up with and his awful family, you know deep down at the bottom of your Sheffield steel  heart that he’s the wrong man for you! Leave him before you regret it. It’s no Lovers Lane he’s leading you to - it’s Murder Alley! A dreadful killing, a fearful noise, and a cry to the heavens; a sign for one to be prudent. Close the shutters and batten down the hatches me hearties - it’s going to be a rough ride… 

Fire or pyre…

“Brightly shone the moon that night, though the frost was cruel, when a poor man came in sight, gathering winter fuel…”

“And as I was standing by the edge I could see the faces of those who led pissing theirselves laughing

(and the flames grew )

Their mad eyes bulged, their flushed faces said

The weak get crushed as the strong grow stronger.

 In the funeral pyre

We’ll watch the flames grow higher…  “

(Messrs Weller, Foxton, Buckler)

So folks, what are we saying? Life is about to get difficult ( but you knew that already) - or putting it another way, sequestered in the now mythical Red Knob Coal Bunker (sale forced upon sitting tenant), The Red Knob ( public sector supporters and musketeers all)  is concerned about the affect the new administration is going to have on the public sector and public sector work -  in terms of the fear and anxiety ( not to mention the cost of mental distress and ill health this will undoubtedly cause) the cuts and changes being enforced will generate amongst a workforce who have mostly given their all to train, study, work towards supporting others  - and the subsequent impact on that work - whether it’s nursing and medical staff watching their wards or units  torn in half and beds go - or delivered without employee choice into the hands of waiting ‘asset-stripping’ organisations,  public health workers being potentially hived off to the employ of district councils ( do we hear cases of “I didn’t make an ethical decision to work for the NHS to be employed by a district council - or third sector employer? “No disrespect to those organisations btw), valued colleagues in Education supporting health work in schools on the guillotine or already despatched , youth workers under the cosh, the bureaucracy of the previous administration reviled and condemned; Police numbers clobbered, smaller charities left wondering where funding will come from as they seek to maintain work…and our armed forces coming home…to what?…and work with young men, oh pleeease -  the list will grow.  The public sector is fed up to the back teeth of ‘change’ - of whatever hue administration considers it necessary to ‘tamper with it  just one more time’ before previous changes get embedded.  This new administration - with an ideological zeal worthy of their Norman ganger thug antecedents doesn’t appear to want a public sector at all - or at least a policy of slash and burn will leave it battered, gasping and reduced to a pale and bloodless imitation of its former self.  Whither now the poor, the needy, and the desperate? Fend for yourself - or pay for it ( if you can on a Job Seekers Allowance) seems to be the coming new order of the day.

And sexual health work? Larger third sector organisations and charities involved in sexual health work  (are you listening Messrs Brook  and THT? We like you as brothers  - and not paymasters…) may  - or may not,  be rubbing their hands with relish at the opportunities this offers ( as yet not a sound can be heard from those directions…but there may be other eyes considering the fiefdoms of sexual health?) yet their potential hostile incursion ( where previously sexual health worked in partnership and not  ‘takeover’) into territories currently occupied by statutory health and social care professionals may threaten those NHS and other professionals livelihoods ( guess what Mr Lansley. Some people are proud to work for the monolithic NHS! They made  a choice - they don’t wish to work for anyone else), their sense of professional integrity as NHS professionals, not to mention their pensions and other rights. Despite the tabloid outcry about monied public sector managers, most public sector staff earn modest wages - what do you want Mr Lansley? To reduce them to penury and a return to the Workhouse? Sales in Dickens to rise? Gruel to make a comeback? They are trained to do a job - by removing those jobs you are de-skilling a tranche of the population - what else can they do? Build solar panels for a braver new world of green economies? The suppressing sneer of ‘well, who else will they work for?’ belies a murderous intent - give the work to the third sector or international companies - whoever.   It’ll cost less and we’ll re-employ NHS and other statutory staff on lower wages. The loveable George Galloway was spotted on this week’s Question Time  indicating these folk as potential benefactors of the coming new order - Tribal  - never heard of ‘em…? Mr Galloway thinks we may hear more - who knows…The suggestion of an ideologically driven, stealthy dismantling of the NHS ( “that we cannot afford” comes the echo from the future) and increasingly privatised healthcare  is one we’re sure to hear more of.

Both coalition parties responsible for this  - including yours Thane Clegg( it didn’t have to be this way - there was an alternative roadmap; these are the real lives of real people you’re playing with folks - bean counters we are not) are the inheritors of Churchill. Yet these are not Churchillian broad sunlit uplands we move towards - this a tumble from the precipice backwards into a chasm dank, dark and dread - the potential collapse into social unrest and the territory of 1926  and all that.  A banished spectre? Think back to the last time this lot entered power and what happened in the early 1980s .   Britains burning dial 999? Or given a few years possibly 118 118 and ask for whatever privatised security force/ new party army you can afford.

And whilst we’re at it - the Big Society? Much as we’d all like to think that this ideal can be realised, long-term cynicism dictates that it’s about as realistic a coat hanger as John ‘Wisden’ Major’s  Back to Basics campaign (getting down to Edwina’s never even got a mention… ) - an ideological  fob, a duplicitous flim-flam by any other public schoolboy  term cooked up on the playing fields and dormi-tories of Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse et al.  Thuggery, buggery - a  thousand years of wrong and woe, and still we’re all under the virtual ‘Norman yoke’. If there’s just one English Oak that is worthy of Sudden Oak Death   then it’s the one on that banner embedded Britannia’s chest. And as for that bunch of bankers…

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell

Social change? Don’t let that other Georgie O and co rewrite history.

We’re The Red Knob.  Rise - advance Britannia!

Filed under: Op Ed | No Comments »

Hey Kids – The Dick here. Long time no speak. How’s it going out there? Feelin’ a bit different since last time we were on the case? Well, here we are post election, if ya could call it that. Hangin’ chads ? Chicken feed. As usual, all promises will be revoked. The modern human race? Hey, you  gotta  love them for being so gullible and complacent. So does it matter that so many promises are withdrawn? Not unless it leaves deposits of semen in places where it costs. But I am Private Dick – sleuth, revalator, and exponent of the truth.

My teeth are long – as in this Dick is 1920s old enough to remember the last depression. Dontchamean  recession I hear ya say?  Huh, ‘fraid not, this Dick comes from a differnt  world. Yep, I do mean DEPRESSION folks, cause that’s what we’re in despite the hype from the men in Number 10 and Whitehall, the cat fat bankers ( bailed out by  you – the public, you schmucks)  and fat cat Councillors bossin’ the workers, Councillors who’ve been lickin’ up da cream. Hell schmucks, a few of these users earn more than the PM – and you get the rap.

In the last Great Depression folk milled about sure  - but they helped each other. Condom sales soared  ‘cause in those days people had a sense of moral duty and knew that there was no fall back… if you had kids, then you had to feed ‘em, protect ‘em and clothe ‘em. If you had too many mouths to feed, then you would starve yerself, before the kids. It figures – or it did – once upon a time.

And in the here and now in merry olde Englandshire?  The Dick’s view is that over time governments -  Liberal, Conservative, Labour -  promised  each generation a failsafe, a fallback. “Peoples”, they said, “we will look after you whatever the situation”. Your Labour Party for example and their New Jerusalem huh. So where is it? They ain’t built it yet. Stuck in plannin’ after 60 years? Promises, let down, betrayed. Government huh.  Yer Post-War Britain was encouraged to go forth and multiply. Like after the Ark and the Flood. Biblical huh? After about 30 years it became what you and everyone else did – the norm. If you wanted a house, then being in the family way would accelerate your chances; being single, no father maybe  better still. Or so it would be spelt out in yer tabloid newssheets. But the failsafe was there. So successive families multiplied, reinforcing the belief without being conscious that if one day if it wasn’t there, then someone else would pick up the pieces. But times change. We’re on a different block, one we no longer recognise, we don’t know what goes here, what works  - where the rules are different. A case of ‘not anymore’ with yer new leadership – “ yer humble, yer poor, yer needy, yer weak – tuff – fend fer yerself.” Coalition? What does it mean? Huh? The word on the street is” Cut Costs” anywhere , at any level. Undo the fail-safes and let those who cannot afford it pay for it. We’re all paying for it with stealth taxes way on up past our eyeballs peeps. Sleepin’ on the line? Remember that – a revival from the Great Depression comin’ your way again sooner than later.

So, thinkin’ about a Limey fella from my timeline, one Mr George Orwell and his predictions, let’s predict the future from the past. Given that this coalition wants to reduce costs, reduce support and agree to a minimum wage of £2.50 whatever, then a greater divide will occur.  It’s inevitable guv. The rich will become richer and the poorer – well they’ll just become -  poorer. Two inevitable consequences follow; this generation don’t have the same moral resolve as our grandparents -  stern stuff? With all the consequences entailed ; and those who can’t afford their families will resort to crime. You don’t believe me? Read into that what you will. But hey, that’s society and only the business-minded will make profit from the New World Order (and that’s a partly familiar phrase) . You decide whether prevention is more cost effective than cure.

Private Dick signing off ( or on - if this Detective Agency doesn’t come up with da goods…)

Filed under: Blog, Op Ed | No Comments »

Or to slightly misquote Prendergast’s work - “it’s not just a discourse of pinks and blues”

Whether or not they are aware, practitioners who work around young men’s sexual health issues are encumbered by a theoretical debate which lies at the root of all health work with men: do we attempt to challenge and change men in order for them to reconsider the masculine behaviours which impact upon their heath - or do we work with men ‘as they are’ and make use of male cultures to address men’s health behaviours? Pinks and blues? A feminist and sociology inspired ‘ critical studies on men camp’ and a social marketing, public health based ‘men’s health studies’ camp? Take your pick.

In The Red Knob bunker, surrounded as we are by the arcane research literature of both sides of the argument, and several decades worth of experience between the Knobsters, we happen to think it should be a bit of both - that practitioners need to have a flexible base of practice in order to address needs. What is problematic is that hegemony of practice guidance on work with young men currently lies with the feminist inspired camp that seeks to challenge and change men, to enable men to reconsider aspects of their masculinity. ( At this point it’s worth stating that we have nothing against feminism - indeed we recommend  feminist approaches - where appropriate.) This pioneering guidance was produced around 10 years ago and has provided the basis for work with young men since then ( if you’ve seen it that is… which is another issue…)

This is great where it works - and it does work - but not with all young men. Erudite chaps such as Simon Forrest have written that this may well be because of the lack of skills of some practitioners  - which may well be the case, and addressing that is another blog posting and a whole lot more, but there may well be other factors at work which the theoretical basis of current guidance, sociology and Connell’s ‘masculinities’ does not address - because it is not recognised in sociologist and feminist  literature except in terms of criticism and disagreement. The science is never settled – or at least not in this instance. A ‘factor’ which is criticised by sociologists is that of an evolutionary psychological basis for some of men’s behaviours - an anathema in sociological and feminist terms (McCaughey’s Caveman Mystique provides a good example of this sort of reprobation – for a response take a look at Buss’s The Evolution of Desire).

Whilst this is all grist to the mill in terms of academic argument it is not helpful to practitioners. Let’s say it again - practitioners require a flexible base of practice! To address the ‘how’ we work with young men – we need to know the ‘why’ of why they act as they do. The research points to both sociological and cultural factors, and evolutionary psychological/biological factors as having an influence on men’s health behaviours; this is a concern for sociologists and some schools of feminist thought  - the 2007 Sociology paper  by Jackson and Rees, The Appalling Appeal of Nature: The Popular Influence of Evolutionary Psychology as a Problem for Sociology provides evidence of this stance – a stance against “simplified evolutionary accounts of human nature”. Thus the argument continues with two valid areas of research at variance – and the impact on men’s health is that in a UK context practitioners may( if at all)  only be aware of one side of the debate – that of the sociology side, and hence practice driven by this – and not that of an equally valid field of research – and its potential for practice. (And as for Myers Briggs Type Indicator psychometric tests, extraversion and introversion and relevance to male communication and interaction with others (participation and discussion?)…but let’s not get go off at too many vague tangents. ) Some of this may well be political – a perceived ‘left pole’ occupied by sociology (it’s from the left so it must be right…) and a ‘right pole’ occupied by nasty evolutionary psychologists who just can’t wait to experiment and administer all sorts of medication to sort out society’s ills. Both are simplistic arguments. We need to take the politics out of this – it’s about addressing real health needs not academic pogroms!

If some of men’s behaviours are due to their evolutionary psychology/biology it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t address those behaviours that are detrimental to health – not a bit of it! Indeed some of this may well buttress  sociological research on ‘masculinities’. What it means is that we need to reconsider how we work with young men, and how we apply research from different fields of research to best address men’s health needs. However, the way in which we address those needs has to be via a social marketing approach that is inclusive of different theories,  makes use of a wider base of the sociological tradition, and recognises the concept of authenticity as well as masculinity.

For those young men who inhabit entrenched masculine cultures, and for whom there is a credibility cost in engaging with approaches based on current practice guidance that seeks to challenge and change their masculinity ( ie whether from our own ethical stance we approve or not, that they’re comfortable with their masculinity and the masculine cultural group they inhabit and are resistant to change) then there may need to be – for some academics and people who write the practice guidance – an uncomfortable reconsideration of practice. That in instances where there are barriers to engagement with ‘entrenched masculinities’ we may need to utilise aspects of masculine culture to work within those cultures to affect change – not use approaches based upon current guidance that in such instances impose barriers to change.

There are examples of work that uses culture to engage with masculine cultural groups – in work with cultures of gay men Terrence Higgins Trust have made use of aspects of gay culture to address health issues, for example The Bottom Line, Below the Belt, and The Manual as visual examples – yet despite a depth of heterosexual male cultures there is little evidence of this sort of approach in sexual health work with heterosexual men – although there is evidence in other fields of practice – for example mental health ( CALM   - although not exclusive to heterosexual men) and in substance use work .

The Red Knob itself provides an example of targeted work with one masculine cultural group – a group that inhabits a subculture with recognisable codes traits and idioms – an authentic subculture; the point is it’s targeted at that group – it’s not aimed at all young men and it won’t work with all young men – but the approach we have developed works with some; others – young men who inhabit other cultural or subcultural groups, and some practitioners, academics and the architects of guidance may well not approve – but it’s not meant for them!

The Red Knob is based upon a social marketing approach. Social marketing is not a theory in itself – merely it provides a framework on which different theories can be hung to create an intervention which in terms of work with young men is most likely to succeed with a targeted masculine cultural group. How did we arrive at a decision to use the approach we use with the Red Knob? We used a simple model developed by a social marketing consultant at  the Central Office of Strategic Information  ( you can view it on the website if you browse through…). We define our approach as a social marketing base of practice.

What is interesting is that whilst much public health and health improvement work has embraced a social marketing methodology open to many theoretical approaches, guidance on practice work with young men has continued to plough a furrow based upon one theory – sociology based masculinities. Things may change. The architects of the previous guidance are currently holding four workshops  - in London, Bristol, Manchester and York, to explore a revision of the guidance on work with young men. May change. It may be that we are presented with examples of ‘what works’ based upon the same old, same old. And if so, we’ll have to try it and see – we cannot be dismissive of an approach that works with a lot of young men – the Knobsters use it themselves. However, there may well be an opportunity lost for another decade – if the architects of guidance fail or refuse to recognise why we need a broader base of the sciences to provide the ‘why’ that drives the ‘how’

The Knobsters have no gripe about turning off the social gender conditioning – of course we must challenge ‘the givens’ where appropriate –but we need balance and flexibility; for all those young men who are happy to talk about issues,  there will also be those who do not – possibly because of the cultures they inhabit and engagement around issues or that engaging with statutory services themselves are problematic – or for others that their psychology, their personality inhibits them from doing so; there is no acknowledgement within current guidance that some young men do not wish to talk about issues – even if we might want them to; we are failing sections of the young male populace if we fail to explore other approaches

This is not a challenge to sociology and feminist inspired academia and practice, neither is it a challenge to a ‘men’s health studies camp’ that recognises the value of evolutionary psychology and biology; this is a challenge for all involved in health work with men – a requirement for a reciprocal and integrated practice that acknowledges a wider base of theory in academia, and one which acknowledges a broader base in the sociological tradition. We can challenge and change – but sometimes guys we need to look beyond our own confines. Young men deserve nothing less.

Filed under: Op Ed | No Comments »

I recently went to a conference on domestic violence. The presentations were top quality – I learnt a great deal and have much to take back into my own work now. The venue was great, food was delicious and it was very well attended.

Of the 170 listed delegates, 26 were men and at least 9 of them, from their job titles, worked in the criminal justice system. The only man to take the stage was an actor playing a perpetrator of DV.  We were reminded of the well-known statistics that 2 women die every week at the hands of partners or ex-partners, that 1 in 4 women will experience DV in their lifetimes. That made the odds pretty good that a fair proportion of the predominantly female audience will have been ‘victims’ at some point already – either directly or as child witnesses when they were growing up.

There was a drama piece in the afternoon that portrayed the gradual increase of severity of domestic abuse from subtle put-downs right through to rape, all with a puppet child watching in silence. Very powerful stuff.

About half way through the scene, there was a cut-back in time to the man in the piece being bullied at school, beaten up, humiliated, not picked for teams, possessions stolen, curled up on the floor being made to say he was a stupid baby who wets his pants. About as far away as you can get from the idea of what a man should be.

I am not suggesting, in any way, that that could possibly excuse what he then did.  However, it occurred to me that there is much truth in the old adage that we criticise in others the very things we don’t like about ourselves. It occurred to me that this is not actually about ‘gender’ violence – it is ‘the-idea-of-gender’ violence. Let me explain – in the morning we heard several speakers talking about recent research into violence in teenage relationships. In relationships where it occurred, there was a correspondingly much higher acceptance of old school gender role stereotyping – how boys and men should be, how girls and women should be. Surely this is a pattern we are foolish to ignore.

Incidentally, three of the women speakers managed to slip in their own self-denigration into their presentations – one said – ‘the ladies in the audience will understand that I have achieved my first challenge of the day – getting to the podium without falling over’ – another was introduced with a fantastic resume of all her fabulous research and publications. Her first line to us was,’ Gosh!  That makes me sound terribly important – I’m really not’ and the third equated the anger and frustration that some young people feel as ‘my worst day of PMT’. How powerful are our notions of ‘how women should be’ that expert speakers on DV can exhibit traits, in their very presentations, that would indicate vulnerability to abuse themselves. To apologise for themselves, to minimise their achievements, to assume they will make a mistake, to equate any emotional disturbance to ‘hormonal issues’. I found myself dwelling on that for much of the rest of the day.

Lat week on the sexual health training I run, my colleagues did an exercise with a group of adults who all work with children and young people. Of 12 delegates, 2 were men.  My usual proportion is about 80:20. They were doing a piece of work on gender sensitive approaches to the work we do and were asked to respond to a series of statements by just writing comments on headed flip-chart sheets. (Usual training fare, really) The statements included, ‘the best / worst thing about being a boy is…’,’the  best / worst thing about being a girl is….’. I would have struggled to facilitate that session myself, I think, as the clichés came thick and fast. It seems that the best things about being a ‘boy’ are the absence of the perceived bad things about being a woman – you know, having to give birth, have periods, shave your legs, having to shop for shoes and hand-bags. I’ve done this exercise myself many times and it never ceases to amaze me how I only have to scratch the surface to release a tirade of bile from women and leave any men in the room struggling to say something that might be acceptable. Try it yourself with a group of colleagues and see what happens if you don’t believe me.

Going back to our drama piece at the conference…it occurred to me that this man was full of self-loathing and hatred. He instructed his son to ‘never let anyone see that you’re weak’. He created situations which would make his wife feel and behave like he’d felt and then he could rage at her and abuse her for her stupidity, infidelity, weakness etc etc. At the end of the piece, the audience first asked the female actor if she was OK. As an afterthought or out of politeness, it seemed, they then asked the male actor. During the piece there were times when he would come to the audience and ask for a response to him, in role. Almost to a person, they were angry, tried reasoning, told him to think about how his wife was feeling, mocked him, made it very clear that he was a very unlike-able person. He already knew that. I kept quiet, until he was finding excuses for having ‘been a bit rough’ with her in bed the previous night. ‘Well she gets me all hot and horny and then goes cold on me– what am I supposed to do?’ I suggested he could have a wank  - which raised a laugh, predictably.

I was left at the end of today feeling like the world of professional work around DV is still rooted in the over-simple premise that women are victims and men are bastards. A basic dichotomy. Although we also know that men can be ‘victims’ and women perpetrators, it is relatively ‘small fry’ and the perception of a women’s ability to harm a man is that it just isn’t in the same league. And ‘all men are bastards’ – in relation to young people‘s relationships there seems to be more room for accepting a need to explore where those poor gender perceptions come from and help young people work them through so future relationships can be healthier. But in adult relationships it seems to be about safety of women and children, criminal justice, injunctions and refuges. Where is the line? When do we stop acknowledging that the perpetrators may have been damaged people too? When do we stop having an empathic response to them? Because as hard as it is, as nauseating and horrifying as we might find the violence inflicted by men against women, we will never eradicate it if we stay in ‘gender-wars’ mode. This is about an IDEA of women and an IDEA of men that must be broken down and to which we are ALL victim, men as well as women.

I listen to the radio on my way to work. This morning I listened to Tom Jones singing ‘Delilah’ with new ears. Surely this is the soundtrack to DV. A man, hurt and humiliated by his woman’s infidelity, stalks her, waits until she is alone, knocks on her door and then, when she laughs at him, he stabs her! Then he begs her forgiveness saying ‘I just couldn’t take any more’ – suggesting, of course, that she had brought this all on herself. Apparently written to reflect the story of ‘Samson and Delilah’ (that’s another rant for another day!) we all sing along quite merrily yet I wonder if we really acknowledge what we’re singing about. Come on people! Wake up and smell the skinny-latte!!

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Testicles were obvious by their absence at the recent RCN ‘do’ at Cavendish Square. Of about 90 delegates at the sexual health forum annual bash, only 7 on the list were preceded with a ‘MR’. That’s a pretty poor show!!! I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - it’s not that I don’t think women can do this job - if that were the case I’d be out of work and down the job centre flogging my wares and possibly my arse to keep the wolf from the door. But this is a disgrace really. No reflection on the RCN , of course, they just administrate the applications. No! it’s a disgrace across the field of sexual health. Why are we not being more creative and pro-active in recruiting men - and, with no offence to our gay bretheren meant, straight ones at that - to this area of work? The more I think about it, the more I think this needs some proper research so we can move on from just accepting the status quo (who wants to go through life only singing songs that require the same 3 chords?!) There must be some serious blockages going on to keep men out of this field.

Some years ago, I heard about a trainer who bravely  introduced an exercise on a youth worker training programme, with one group looking at the question ‘what does it mean to be young’ and another group looking at ‘what does it mean to be a man’. This was taken straight out of a popular published and recommended guide to developing boys and young men’s work in youth services. We’ve all used it ( no prizes for guessing)  - and the exercise. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t…but it’s meant to make a point, however…The ubiquitous flip-chart sheets were dutifully labelled ‘young’ and ‘man’, the group divided into two smaller groups and fat coloured pens predictably distributed. The idea was that they’d come back and ‘compare and contrast’ the answers and magically notice how the things that define ‘young’ and ‘man’ are so very different that the group would instantly become empathic and understanding of this crucial dichotomy affecting the young men using their services. That’s the theory.

And what actually happened?  The two men in the group (out of about a dozen women - this was a training event for part-time youth workers after all!!) found themselves unable to answer the second question - they were utterly lost when asked to define what it was to be a man. And the women wrote things like ‘bastard’ and ’selfish slob’ and proceeded to swap stories about their acrimonious divorces. The trainer changed tack and challenged the group to acknowledge and consider how these attitudes were likely to impact on their practice but the unprovoked aggression of the women had, by this time,  put the men on the defensive and the workshop dissolved into accusation and counter-accusation.

I hasten to add that this was taken to the manager and was followed up with the persons involved and the trainer is now much more experienced and confident. Nothing like learning on the job. That exercise could be used as an example of what NOT to do on training about working with boys and young men. It is, however, a response that I continue to see in my own practice- albeit in a less vociferous form than that example. In experienced hands it can be used to make a valid point, but in less experienced ones  - well, you’ve read the above. Just last year I had a training resource defaced with permanent marker - it was an exercise about developmental stages in children and one of the statement cards read ‘ability to multi-task’ under which someone had written ‘WOMEN ONLY!!’ I had to point out to the group that this is a recognised HUMAN ability and is not gender specific. I frequently hear comments from women generalising about men’s undesirable traits of behaviour or attitude even after we have made group agreements where delegates have agreed to ‘not judge each other and respect the diversity within the group’. I am curious about what fuels this undercurrent of distrust  (verging on a rampant misandry that would not be tolerated  in terms of attitudes to women - or around gay men’s issues )  - and quite how much influence it has on practice.

This needs some serious attention as a contributing factor in the very real gender issue that faces us in the provision of sexual health education and clinical services. Serious attention. Anyone out there want to fund some proper research?

Filed under: Op Ed | 3 Comments »

Well, the fab chaps and chapettes at The Red Knob have been quiescent for a little while - but fear not…we’re hitting the road yet again! Representatives from the mighty Knob will be appearing at the Royal College of Nursing sexual health conference tomorrow in London…exploring the theme of lifestyle, subculture, and young men’s health…we’re sure you’ve all read our spiel! If not, read the blog! Belated details of the conference can be found here:

RCN Sexual Health Conference 2009

Last year’s conference saw Kathy French talk about the invisibility of young men in teenage pregnancy discourses - a situation which - now let’s be honest, hasn’t really changed. We do need to keep raising the profile of this - which the low key commando unit that is The Red Knob strives to do…well, we try our best, given the paucity of funding for this work - we did start off in a converted coal bunker you know!  The good news is, that whilst the folk at The Knob rail valiantly on in their tirade against the dearth of sexual health promotion work that deals with young men ‘as they are’, the mandarins at Brook appear to have picked up the penny that they’d dropped a while ago and decided to take another look at work with young men - including the possibility of a literature review with those iron men ( you’ve gotta be tough to do this work) at Working with Men. Information here:

Brook research - boys and young men

We can only applaud this - but chaps, pleeeeease can we acknowledge that sometimes that however ethically uncomfortable it might be for all of us, and as much as we may not personally like it, that some young men do inhabit authentic cultures  - that are real to them -  and that sometimes current guidance doesn’t work? That we need to be a bit more realistic about ‘what works’ in order to deliver our messages? Possibly too uncomfortable a price to pay for some professionals? The teenage pregnancy strategy is a decade old - young men haven’t gone away, yet how much focus on them is there really? Young men deserve more than this. C’mon!

Filed under: Events, Op Ed, Red Knob | No Comments »

 Evesham High Street, Maundy Thursday, at approximately 16.50. Yours truly is returning some DVDs to BlockBusters video store; a short break in London is on the cards - and I’m in need of money. I’d already passed a sleek looking cash machine, but this man has a preference for the black steed and I didn’t bank at this particular franchise. I was in a hurry, and the urge for a quick and convenient withdrawal, and not wanting to cross the road carried me in the direction the Barclays ATM machine. Giving it a quick glance, and wary of onlookers, I straddled the opening and decided to put my card in it.

The light was green and flashing - things appeared to be fine, so I pulled my card out and slipped it gently inside the device. I’d done this many times before. Lightly fingering the machine’s digit pad, and taking care to protect my identity and safeguard my cash, this was easy - afterall nothing could possibly go wrong. Or so I thought. Things moved rapidly; before I could punch my PIN into the silver machine… it switched off, swallowing my debit card. I was in a deep fix.

This was confusing. Urgently, I fingered the machine’s keypad, again and again, pressing error, cancel, return card. Aware that this was taking up time, I looked into the machine’s card slot - the card might be lodged in there - but no. My card had been taken. My identity, my life, my money, my weekend in The Smoke. Gone. Damnation! I rushed into the bank and informed the cashier that the machine was faulty, asking him to return my debit card. “No” he intoned. “Your card will be destroyed. It’s the law”, he continued…Dread gripped me.  “Where’s your manager?” I demanded.

The manager appeared, reiterating what the cashier had said. I was in no mood for messing around. “Let me get this right. It’s the law that my card gets destroyed - because of your faulty device. Where does it state that on the machine outside?” adding “it’s the longest Bank Holiday of the year, and I’m going away. I need my card”. The manager, probably realising he was dealing with no mean customer, and no doubt wanting me out of the bank, said if I could get a representative from my own bank across the street to come into their bank, then they would retrieve my card and pass it to them, to pass to me. I had no choice but to accept, and backed out of the building.

The situation required haste. I ran to my bank and explained the problem. It was now 16.56 on Maundy Thursday and they were about to close. I stated my case. “Please help  - the ATM machine at Barclays is faulty and has swallowed my card; can a representative please go across the road and help me retrieve my card?”…Gimlet eyes and a cracked voice confronted me.  “No… Your card will be destroyed. It’s the law…” Dread fixed me again.  “You will have a replacement card within 14 days”. Yours truly confronts ignorance and stupidity at every turn. “ESAD” I responded. “Close my account now; if you can’t help me as it’s the Bank Holiday, I’ll take out all of my cash - I’ll close the account.” They were out on their back feet. “Oh you can’t do that  - you have to ring this number to close your account”. Which I did - and received £50.00 not to close my account.

Now what in the world has this to do with STIs you ask? Well, from this detective’s out-of-the-box perspective, quite a lot. Think about it. The ATM machine was defective, probably carrying a viral load on its software. This baby put it about just a little too much - and no protection was offered to the customer, or even discussed, as it managed to indiscriminately swallow another 30 cards. That’s a lot of people paying the price for a lack of protection. However, Barclays have not made a direct apology, although they did say sorry to my partner. That’s not enough - after the event - the damage, a lack of trust is the result; maybe next time I’ll be more careful where I put my faith.  You pays yer money, yer takes yer choice. Etc.

Then we have their attitude to the problem, which bears a resemblance to the attitude of the authoritarian mandarins of guidance on sexual health promotion work. “No. You can’t do that. It’s the law. We wrote it and you’ll damn well keep in line and do as we say. Any divergence, any questioning, and we’ll point the finger at YOU.”  The condemned man, huh. Well, “ESAD” I say. Whose law? Where does it say that, and whom is the law protecting? Those who need it - or those who benefit from it? I got fifty quid and a nasty little rash. I won’t be slipping my card so indiscriminately into ATM machines in the future, will stay monogamous, and remain faithful to my black steed.

Be seein’ you. The Dick.

Filed under: Blog, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »