Thursday 24 December 2015

Why more men should become feminists


Feminists can be bloody annoying – I can’t lie. They drive you crazy. Already, springing to mind are images of angry, short-haired, self-righteous lesbians, who can’t wait to blame everything under the sun on us men.

Maybe not. Perhaps you’re not a bigot and don’t tar everyone with the same brush, and can recognise that not all feminists are as bad as that. But to quote one of the biggest dons in world football, Mr Neil Warnock: “The stupid minority are usually louder than the sensible majority.”
So the stereotype persists, and like many social movements, feminism manages to marginalise itself, because unfortunately the voices of the radical fringes have a knack of drowning out sensible feminist sentiment.

I think one of the things that upsets people about radical feminism is the tendency to focus on men. If we trace feminism back to its intellectual origins, it’s not really men that feminists were ever attacking – it’s patriarchy.

“Patriarchy is the institution by which male shall dominate female, and elder male shall dominate younger” – Kate Millet.

“Women are made, they are not born” – Simone De Beauvoir.

These are not attacks on men, they are comments on the social institutions through which we derive our everyday norms.

But it seems as if feminism itself has forgotten what it is trying to change, and all over the UK, there has been a steady growth in the men’s movement in consequence, and much of its appeal is its general abhorrence towards feminism, which it sees as its arch enemy.

I reckon we can actually reconcile the men’s movement and feminism. Ultimately, whether or not they know it, the two movements are actually fighting a mutual enemy – patriarchy.

Traditionally only girls have had to really focus on maintaining body image, and men have got away with being a little more careless in their own appearance management. Now though, due to the pervasiveness of social media and a raft of celebrities, footballers and models showcasing themselves on the internet, there is a growing demand from girls that boys should have six packs and big chests and arms, and in consequence, a growing pressure on boys, especially teenagers to go out and obtain that, and I have spoken to many boys who go to the gym solely to go and get more girls. Patriarchy is putting the onus on boys to be “more masculine” and with this comes a whole raft of pressures, of which body image is but one.

Patriarchy affects men and boys in other ways too. For instance, over the course of 2014/15, 4% of men aged 16-59 have experienced domestic abuse. That is still half the 1.4 million women who have also suffered over this period. Yet instances of both categories are increasing year on year. An important difference is that it is generally more socially acceptable for a woman to ask for support than it is for a man, and in consequence, many men don’t seek any help at all, because they are too ashamed. Why do they feel ashamed? Largely because in a patriarchal society, men are supposed to be seen as dominant and resilient. Domestic abuse exposes vulnerability and we live in a culture where this is considered unmasculine. THAT’S BECAUSE OF PATRIARCHY.

Consider normal social interaction and gender norms. Society frowns upon girls who sleep around, and these girls are often crudely dismissed as ‘sluts’, ‘slags’ or ‘skets’ (why do these pejoratives always begin with an ‘s’?) as a way of maintaining the norm that girls should be content sleeping with as few people as possible.

Contrast that with boys: if I bring back a different girl every night of the week then my friends will call me a ‘don’, a ‘player’ or a ‘boss’ (of course this doesn’t happen very often, largely because instead of going out and talking to girls, I spend my time writing this sort of rubbish… and I have no friends). This puts its own pressures on boys, because it becomes expected that we put ourselves out there and shag as many girls as we can.

Once again, social media has a manner of reinforcing the perception among boys who are less successful with the opposite sex, that everyone else is getting some action apart from them. Similarly with girls, who can often talk about boys for hours on end without interruption. But it is considerably harder for boys to talk to their friends about this sort of thing, for fear of being seen as weak, unmasculine, a ‘pussy’… all because of the institutional norms patriarchy has placed upon us all.


I could go on. Patriarchy pervades everything we do, and so there are a number of instances where it affects boys and girls differently. I am a feminist… I have the T-shirt so that proves it. But I don’t hate men. I see how patriarchy negatively effects men and boys and I want to do something about it. Joining the men’s movement seems foolish because of their anti-feminist sentiment. But if feminists themselves can start a conversation about how patriarchy impacts men and women differently, then we might just create a more tolerant and understanding world.

Sunday 13 December 2015

Non-Muslims have a moral duty to fight Islamophobia when we hear it


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Those are the words of the German Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller, who spent seven years in Nazi concentration camps for his outspoken views on Adolf Hitler.
What I find inspirational about Niemoller is that he comes not from any kind of ‘holier than thou wet liberal’ perspective; rather – he was a prominent nationalist and right winger for most of his days.
Fast forward to 2015. The Jews have survived. We have our own state in Israel and while anti-Semitism remains a problem in the West, we have fought back and won against the Nazis’ ethnic cleansing.

Nazism is the result of bigotry, and in particular, the power of populism to galvanise the undercurrents of xenophobic tribalism in the general public. In the last week, Republican hopeful Donald Trump remarked that Muslims should be banned from entering his country until his country’s representatives have “sorted it out”… the “it” in this instance being the problem of Islam. More under the radar, because of the sensationalist rhetoric aforementioned, he is also firmly of the belief that Muslims should be compelled to carry special IDs.

This rings as an uneasy echo for me as a Jew. It was Hitler who forced Jews to wear a yellow star so as they could be easily identified. It was Hitler who signposted all Jewish-owned shops with ‘Jude’ so that consumers were aware of their filth and greed. Substitute the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘Jew’ in Trump’s own rhetoric and you essentially have a twenty-first century Hitler… except this Hitler is topping the polls in the Republican nomination to be the leader of the free world… leader of the very country that the international community has tasked with protecting us from the scourge of another world war.

And it’s easy for us to mock Trump and his legion of uneducated cheerleaders. But even in the UK, one in four of us has Islamophobic tendencies, according to the Pew Research centre – one of the highest rates in Europe. It is only because of our highly disproportionate electoral system that these voices are marginalised from the political mainstream – though to be fair, even Mr Farage condemned Mr Trump… surely that’s when you know you’ve gone too far.

But it is one thing to silently and grudgingly shake our heads in disbelief and contempt at Islamophobic rants by our more bigoted friends. But is that really enough? One of the lessons of the Holocaust was “never again” – yet Islamophobia is allowed to prevail in the West largely because the silent majority among us are reluctant to challenge it.

The petition to ban Mr Trump from entering the UK is the most popular one ever conducted but I haven’t signed it – not because I don’t hold this pathetic excuse for a politician and businessman in total contempt, but because provided we allow him to go unchallenged on his views, we allow those who actually agree with him who live among us, to carry on believing that the mainstream sentiment is out to marginalise and demonise them.

To not do so, is to allow the powerful forces of xenophobia and bigotry to extend its grip over national sentiment… and this ended horrifically for 6 million Jews in the middle of the last century.

So I’m not uncomfortable with Islamophobia just because I am a Jew… and I’m not only asking Jews to join me in combatting it. I’m uncomfortable with Islamophobia because I am a human being… and like our good friend Niemoller, I have a moral duty to ensure that “never again” really means NEVER…. AGAIN. 

Sunday 17 May 2015

Why Chris Ramsey is not the right man for QPR


With the season drawing to a close and Rangers’ fate already sealed, caretaker manager Chris Ramsey should find out shortly whether or not he will be offered the Rangers job on a permanent basis. He has repeatedly stated his desire for the job and no one can question his passion. Unfortunately, it is his tactical ineptitude that means he is not the right man to take the club forward.

Admittedly for Chris, he had it tough from the outset. Rangers were poorly managed by Harry Redknapp and playing good football was never embedded into the club’s culture this season. At the time of Harry’s departure, only Manchester United and fellow-strugglers Burnley averaged more long balls per game than Rangers.


Some things have improved under Ramsey. Away from home, he ditched Redknapp’s favoured approach of playing Charlie Austin up front, isolated and sitting back, hoping that we would be good enough to soak up pressure and hit opponents on the counter, in favour of a more gung-ho attacking brand of football, where Bobby Zamora would frequently partner Charlie Austin and with the resurgent performances by Matty Phillips on the right of midfield, Rangers would seek to press teams in the final third.

Seemingly, this approach did yield some positive outcomes. Convincing wins against Sunderland and West Brom and a 3-3 draw at Aston Villa show that when we do attack, we can be very dangerous. Indeed, at the time of writing, QPR boast the joint-highest number of goals scored in the bottom seven.


Unfortunately, it the goals against column which is more worrying from a Rangers perspective. At 68, we have comfortably the worst defence in the Premier League and it is clear that this is why we are struggling. And while at times we can point to many goals which are as a result of Sunday League-esque defensive errors, it has always been my view that the main reason we ship so many is our inability to retain possession.

At 44.8%, Rangers have the fifth worst possession average in the league and at 70.7%, the third worst ball retention. Popular under Harry and even more so under Chris Ramsey is the option of playing Bobby Zamora alongside Charlie Austin in a rigid, old-fashioned 4-4-2 formation. While most teams nowadays opt to play with one out and out striker with support coming from creative midfield players, some teams still play with two up top, including Manchester City for much of this season, so to say that the formation is dead is disingenuous.

But City are just a little bit better than Rangers, and are able to still play passing football and remain fluid in a 4-4-2, something which Rangers have failed to do under Chris. The “lump it up to Bobby” option seems to be all he has in his strategic locker and all attempts to play good football have gone out of the window, and this is largely down to a manager who either does not have the will or the know-how to implement passing football in a fluid system.

A good indicator of a team’s willingness to play is how they choose to set up for a goal kick. At most clubs, the two centre halves will usually split and the two full-backs will push on towards half way. The intention is always to play out from the back and only kick long if needed. With the exception of Ramsey’s first game in charge away at a laughably poor Sunderland side, Rangers have not done this. When Rob Green has the ball in his hands or on the ground, the first instinct for the two centre-halves is to turn around and jog towards half-way. There will be traditionalists who think that this is the safer option and I am being too fussy by focussing on this but if the traditionalists were right about football philosophy then England would have won something since 1966. They haven’t and it is the Spanish and the Germans who are dominating modern European football.

Ramsey is still very much operating in this English conservative kick and rush approach to football and in the Premier League you simply cannot go anywhere unless who prioritise ball retention.

I accept that the one thing Rangers need more than anything right now is stability and changing manager again may only further plunge Rangers into further descent. But stability should not be considered an end in itself. The right man needs to be at the helm to take the club forward and build for the future and while Ramsey is a lovely bloke, well-spoken and clearly has the desire to help Rangers rebuild, unfortunately, he simply does not have the tactical credentials.


Sunday 15 March 2015

So I think I know why QPR are sh*t



It's bloody frustrating being an Rs fan. Anyone who has seen Four Year Plan knows just how difficult it was for QPR to get to the Prem. And although we were relegated in two seasons we somehow managed to find our way back to the big time last May in an enthralling, and hugely stressful encounter against the unfortunate Derby County.

Yet despite two promotions, QPR have never really got going in the Premier League. And what is more frustrating, is that Rs fans have been forced to watch Southampton, Swansea, Crystal Palace, West Ham among others, all win promotion and consolidate themselves in the top flight, despite having for the most part spent less money.

A managerial change this season has done little to change fortunes but I think I am starting to work out why QPR have been so poor this term. At just 100m x 65.85m, Loftus Road has comfortably the smallest playing area in the Premier League.

Another theme of Rangers' disappointing season has been the contrast between home comforts and away fortunes. Just three of Rangers' nineteen points in the Premier League have come on the road, or to put it another way, one win in fourteen attempts, a record which is quite frankly abysmal. Contrast with our record at home and this isn't quite so bad, positioning Rangers 13th in the league and ahead of all of their relegation rivals.



Home table


GPWDLGFGAGDPts
1Chelsea131120275+2235
2Manchester Utd1411123010+2034
3Arsenal1410313311+2233
4Manchester City149322812+1630
5Liverpool158522414+1029
6Southampton158342510+1527
7Tottenham158342519+627
8Swansea City147431915+425
9West Ham Utd157352115+624
10Stoke City147251917+223
11Newcastle Utd146441918+122
12West Bromwich156361819-121
13QP Rangers155462020019
14Burnley154561419-517
15Everton133731918+116
16Hull City144461517-216
17Crystal Palace144371720-315
18Aston Villa143561118-714
19Sunderland152761222-1013
20Leicester City132561317-411

Away table


GPWDLGFGAGDPts
1Manchester City158433116+1528
2Chelsea148423017+1328
3Arsenal157352319+424
4Tottenham137242120+123
5Southampton137151410+422
6Liverpool137151816+222
7Manchester Utd144731716+119
8Stoke City155461418-419
9Crystal Palace154651720-318
10West Ham Utd143651822-415
11Swansea City144371422-815
12Aston Villa15429820-1214
13Sunderland142751121-1013
14Newcastle Utd143471325-1213
15West Bromwich14266917-812
16Everton153391423-912
17Hull City152671120-912
18Burnley141581228-168
19Leicester City1522111127-168
20QP Rangers1410131032-223

It would be easy to flatter ourselves and posit that Rangers' world class home support is the determining criterion for this rather odd situation but I reckon that there is a more profound link between the Loftus Road pitch and our oscillating form. Anyone who knows anything about football will tell you that the key to winning football matches is controlling the spaces. That means you want to make the pitch as big as possible when you have possession, so as to stretch the opposition and create space; and as small as possible when out of possession, pressing as a unit so that the opposition are suffocated in possession and the ball is won back as quickly as possible.

Consider Loftus Road then, where the small pitch makes finding tight spaces extremely difficult at the best of times. This was most prevalent in October when Brendan Rodgers' free-flowing Liverpool side were simply unable to get going against a hard-working Rangers side and it was only through us gifting the Reds two sloppy own goals that they were able to go back to Merseyside with the three points.

Gutted - a late Steven Caulker own goal gave a poor Liverpool side a 3-2 win over QPR last October


In my years supporting the Rs I cannot say I've ever seen us play what I consider to be good football. And this season has been especially poor in my opinion, with only Burnley and Manchester United averaging more long balls than us per match. At home, this often works, where teams who have tried to play a progressive game have been found wanting by the Rs quick, combination of counter-attacking wide-play and the effective utility of underrated front-man Bobby Zamora, whose intelligent hold-up play has been crucial in enabling the Rs to retain possession high-up the pitch without necessarily passing the ball well.

OOOOH BOBBY ZAMOOOORRRA - since his Wembley goal last May, the target-man has put in a string of impressive performances


But this has consequences away from home too. It's not the case that QPR are actually a long-ball team. Indeed, at times this season the Rs have gone on the road and look like they quite simply have no plan at all. Sometimes we try to play passing football, but due to a lack of rhythm and discomfort at trying to play a style they don't use at home games, the Rs often lose possession quickly and in dangerous areas. When they try to play more direct, they discover quickly that something which works on a small pitch, where Zamora and leading-scorer Charlie Austin are able to get support from the midfield quickly, does not work away from home when these two frequently find themselves isolated.

Off the ball, the problems continue. At home games we often get away with not pressing effectively because the pitch is so small that space is already hard to create for opposition players. But away from home the lack of preparation is clear for all to see. One of the most important principles of pressing is that it must be done in unison, and that is not something which happens over night - rather this needs to be harnessed over time both in training and in matches. QPR at present have little incentive to do this, because they think that provided in home games their pressing style works, this should seamlessly translate to away games. But quite clearly, in all three of QPR's recent Premier League seasons, this simply isn't working, and the spaces between the lines are at times embarrassing.

So there you have it. It's the middle of March but I think I've finally cracked the mystery which seems to have evaded both the departed Harry Redknapp and the incumbent Chris Ramsey. It's the bloody pitch!