Give the Sussex lecturer the sack and some care

In recent days, photos of a bruised 24-year old student beaten by her ex-boyfriend, who was until recently a senior lecturer at Sussex University, have circulated on social media. The lecturer was convicted of assault but was allowed to continue teaching at Sussex until pressure from the Students’ Union and a public petition led to his dismissal.

Calling for his sacking has been the main response of commentators so far. What we must Sack3dmodel01.jpg2a58a7e1-821e-40ca-8de5-01f1cfe3ea6dOriginalall remember, however, is that getting this lecturer sacked is not the most constructive part of our reaction. What will truly make a dent on domestic violence is not the ousting of perpetrators, but preventative care and emotional intelligence, as well as the eradication of what has come to be called toxic masculinity.

Coincidentally, I was taught by this lecturer myself for a year in my undergraduate degree over ten years ago (though I didn’t know him in a personal capacity). Since he was a particularly good teacher I was shocked to hear of this incident. It also struck a nerve for me as I have personal experience of domestic violence at the hands of a partner. Meanwhile, sexual harassment and violence perpetrated by teachers in British universities is an issue of growing concern – for example, Sara Ahmed resigned from her post at Goldsmiths in May in protest against the university’s failure to address the issue. As female bodies continue to be beaten and placed in vulnerable positions at university, angry responses are justified. And indeed, much commentary around the Sussex has been vitriolic, calling the lecturer a ‘vile man’ and emphasising the disgrace and injustice of letting him stay for so long. One can sense an element of retributive justice in people’s reaction: sack the fucker! Punish him for what he has done!

It is certainly true that punishment, and even revenge, can have therapeutic effects for victims of violence. For this reason I am happy to see him sacked. Furthermore, as Franz Fanon argued, violence as a response to violence can be the only way for oppressed populations to achieve justice – especially, or perhaps exclusively, if it is organised. Fanon’s argument referred specifically to resistance against European colonialism: faced with the violent invasion of the African continent and bloody genocide, is the waving of a few banners at a peaceful protest really sufficient resistance?

This argument can also be applied to domestic violence: how much longer will women continue to be abused by men? How much longer will the government turn a blind eye? How much longer will women carry on surviving abuse rather than going berserk and refusing to take it any longer?

Shaming perpetrators online, calling them vile and trolling them can be a part of such an aggressive response to aggression. This may be justified, but when it comes to building a sustainably peaceful society we need to turn to other wisdom. If we are to learn anything from constructivist social research and theory – whether social psychology, feminism, anti-racist prison abolitionism or anarchism – horrific behaviours tend to be produced in people as a response to horrific circumstances (or mental ill health or substance abuse), rather than as deliberate creations by inherently evil people.

While we should condemn abusive attacks to the fullest extent – and while victims have every right to express their anger and resistance – we must also be mindful not to demonise the perpetrators. To be clear, I am not saying that victims need to be able to Holding small plantforgive them, or that anyone else should for that matter. But when, as external observers, we speak about these cases in social media we’d be better off avoiding demonising language and transcending calls for punishment. After all, by getting somebody sacked we have not won any victories in terms of ensuring that this person will not attack again. Providing care and therapy is more likely to help with that. More importantly, the sacking of an individual perpetrator does not prevent any new potential attackers – rather, analysing and addressing the underlying causes of aggressive behaviour and abuse is what will help.

Getting someone dismissed might give us the impression that we’ve done something, when actually we have done very little. Instead of sacking and punishment, the pertinent questions facing us are: why are children – and especially boys – not systematically and expertly taught how to identify and express their feelings peacefully? Why do we, as adults, stigmatise those experiencing difficulties with mental health or wellbeing? What pressures – whether gendered, racialised, economic/professional or health-related – push people into situations in which they are no longer able to relate to others in a healthy and respectful way? And how do we organise to resist those pressures? These are the questions that should mainly preoccupy our commentary on this tragedy.


Why allies are welcome to criticise social movements


“There are two problems with the notion that allies who belong to a privileged group should simply ‘shut up and listen.’ The first is that it is often incredibly difficult to determine who or what you’re supposed to shut up and listen to. The second is that allies often have lots of important knowledge that movements need in order to overthrow oppression.”

Read the full article on Open Democracy.


The Mirror that Blinds our Attackers

By Sofa Gradin and Koen Slootmaeckers


vigilNow that the immediate shock and grief at the homophobic attacks at Pulse in Orlando have started to settle, we can start to look beyond those first reactions. The vigils we have attended in the past week have been important spaces both for expressing our grief, and for public displays of solidarity and political anger. There is more we can and should do, however, to create a society where murders and attacks like these do not happen.

Western governments and mainstream media have been keen to portray the homophobic mass shooting as an Islamic attack on Western values. But reducing the motives to religious extremism does not capture the bigger picture. For starters, although there are sometimes links between religion and homophobia, Islam, like other religions, does not inherently incite violence or hatred against LGBT people. A lot comes down to the interpretation of the scriptures, which can go either way. Many muslim LGBTQI people gain inspiration and energy from their religion. More importantly, however, the actions of Omar Mateen make it almost impossible to justify such an interpretation. He was not a practicing Muslim. His last-minute references to ISIS and other militant organisations are better interpreted as a search for meaning and belonging than as anything religiously or ideologically informed – especially since the different organisations he pledged allegiance to (including ISIS, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah) are in conflict with each other. Taking this into consideration, it becomes clear that insisting on calling the mass shooting a Islamic attack on Western values is a political act, designed to serve nationalistic and militaristic interests rather than the interests of an open and safe society.

After it emerged that Omar Mateen frequented Pulse and used LGBT dating apps, another explanation quickly emerged and grew in popularity. In this interpretation, Mateen was a closeted gay who struggled to cope with his desires. His actions were said to be inspired by internalised homophobia. This explanation, however, makes too many unfounded assumptions and simplifications about his sexual preferences, and about identities of sexuality more generally. What is forgotten or ignored in this explanation is that sexual practices are far from always identical to a person’s sexual identity. For example, in Western culture men often masturbate together without considering themselves anything other than heterosexual, and in non-Western cultures (as well as in Western culture a century ago) identities of sexual orientation are either different from the LGBT umbrella we take for granted in Europe, or they are colonial impositions.

Whilst religion and (alleged) sexual desires are certainly part of the explanation, singling them out as the sole explanation deflects attention away from other pieces of the puzzle, avoiding any self-criticism of Western society. The reality is that this attack was not primarily caused by the supposedly external threat of Islamic radicalism, nor by the internal pathology of one erratic individual. If we put up a mirror to our own society, we can see several structures that produce the bases for recurrent shootings, attacks and murders.

One of the obvious problems in relation to Pulse Orlando is the issue of lax US gun laws. But the availability of guns cannot explain why such attacks happen, only the specifics of how they happen.

Reflections-Campaign-1To find the underlying causes of the attack we must look deeper into the fabric of our society. Considering other mass shootings and attacks, one cannot ignore the fact that these are predominantly carried out by men. Most often these are individuals who have been facing obstacles on their road to achieving the identity of the ‘successful man’, and who overcompensate by turning to a violent expression of masculinity. Indeed, some blogs and articles on the Pulse shooting have already drawn attention to what they call ‘toxic masculinity’ – a type of masculinity that overemphasises superiority, physical dominance and aggression. Whilst such an analysis has not reached the mainstream, it is important to consider since it highlights the bloody and violent reality of our society’s gendered and hierarchical structure.

As masculinities scholars long have argued, achieving the status of a ‘successful’ masculine man is an uncertain and difficult endeavour. In fact, masculinity is not something a that is acquired like a possession, but it is something that is constantly struggled for and re-enacted. It is constantly questioned by other men who bestow their approval of your masculinity based on whether you can live up to hegemonic conceptions about what it means to be a man – in most Western societies these conceptions include being strong, assertive, rich, intelligent, and white. Whilst most white and middle class men experience little resistance in aligning with these ideals, for others living up to them is difficult. For example, for those with the ‘wrong’ desires, ‘wrong’ appearance, ‘wrong’ class background, ‘wrong’ skills – getting the perfect job, perfect body and perfect family is complicated, and is a pursuit riddled with obstacles, as well as hate and abuse from nationalists and xenophobes. The inability to live up to these expectations can drive men to seek other ways of achieving masculinity. As the ‘toxic masculinity’ commentators have pointed out, this also often involves a glorification of military violence and physical aggression.

While questioning and rethinking masculinity is perhaps the most important step to preventing further similar attacks, it is difficult to do so without also calling capitalism and racism into question. Capitalism might be a specific economic model in the narrow sense (a model where a business is owned by the rich rather than by the workers, which means that all profit goes to the business owners rather than to the workers who produced it). But this economic model is closely entangled with society’s hegemonic masculinity: in fact, the key capitalist values of competition and wealth accumulation are strikingly similar to the key values of hegemonic masculinity. It is equally entangled with racism: we must not forget that the economic theory that underlies capitalism was written during European colonialism as a way to codify white masculine values into supposedly scientific economic truth.

If we want attacks like the one at Pulse Orlando to manofficestop occurring, we thus need to acknowledge the role of these social hierarchies and oppressions and address them head on. The time has come to organise as activists to challenge hierarchical social structures – gender norms in particular, but racism and capitalist economics too – to lower the pressure to conform to unattainable expectations and reduce the need for a violent counter narrative.

Gender roles have become less rigid in recent decades – which has been thanks to gender activists. For example, it has become ‘acceptable’ for men to stay at home with their children, and for girls to dress like hot dogs instead of princesses. These changes, however, remain modest, and for the most part limited to more privileged populations such as the middle class. In other demographics, however, one could argue that pressures have only increased. As the Orlando attack – and many other similar attacks – have shown, we are far from ‘there’ yet. Any further changes will happen only to the extent that we keep actively challenging gender stereotypes.

To push such social change, gender activists have been organising actions ranging from protesting at Miss World competitions, to questioning stereotyping advertising, to organising workshops that explore and critique gender norms. Most of these have focused on femininity and the harmful effects of gender roles on women – important indeed – but it has become clear that exploring masculinities and their harmful effects on men is equally important.

There are many things we can do to challenge and stop the emergence of such ‘toxic masculinity’. Rather than simply working on our own personal thoughts and behaviours in isolation, it is important to organise together with others to widen the impact of such endeavours.

For example, we can organise reading groups with friends, relatives and strangers. A list of good readings is below. Through reading about gender (facts, theories, statistics etc) – and through analysing texts or videos that are not explicitly about gender at all, but that are still full of gendered messages – we can learn to recognise the ways in which gender affects our and others’ power. We can reflect on our own positions in society and explore the ways in which we judge other people based on their background, gender performance, etc. We can avoid using gendered words to indicate inferiority (e.g. refraining from using phrases like ‘that is so gay’, or ‘don’t be a pussy’).


We can also use theatre, role-play and drag to gain a deeper understanding of how gendered expectations colonise our bodies, and how we can subvert and resist them. There are many brilliant films documenting drag kings and queens of all sexes and genders – the 2002 film Venus Boyz is particularly good – which explore the ways in which their dragging practices help to draw attention to gendered expectations. By using elements of drag show or gender re-enactment in workshops and discussions we can pull to the surface our hidden gendered assumptions. For example, think of the way in which a stereotypical man and a stereotypical woman would chat someone up in a bar. Do the ways in which they would do this differ? Why? What broader social norms and arrangements are in place that enable these differences? Would the chat-up be different depending on the ethnicity or class of the man or woman? Perhaps even the bar would be a different one? By asking ourselves such questions, and by experimenting with different behaviours in practice, we can gain new understandings of the ways in which gender, race and class fit together to distribute power and wealth unequally in our society.

Though it is an uncomfortable truth, this type of organising is what is needed for future Orlando attacks to be avoided. We cannot blame these repeated violent outbursts on ‘foreign’ religions, or on the pathology of specific individuals. There is a reason why gender activists, radical lefties and antiracists have been organising relentlessly for decades – and it is not because they enjoy being annoying. Violence and death is the reality behind our society’s hierarchical structures. We have mourned Orlando – now it is time to organise.




Useful readings and videos:


Organisations in London doing work on this:



FPTP and Democracy

A lot of Green Party supporters are expressing anger on social media that the FPTP system is unfair since it has given out parliamentary seats disproportionate to the actual number of votes each party got. For example:

Electoral Reform Society

The first thing to bear in mind about this is that UKIP is the biggest victim of the FPTP system, so we need to be careful about what we wish for.

The second thing to realise is that a proportional representation system is not necessarily any more democratic than FPTP. It is simply a different game: different rules and tactics apply, so you need to think differently about how to make this tokenistic civilian gesture count. But if we were to get a proportional representation system in Britain, that would not suddenly mean we’d have a better democracy.

As we just saw, UKIP got over 3.8 million votes. The Tories got almost 11.4 million votes. Many of those surveyed on election day said they decided to vote for the Tories because they trusted their ability to look after the economy. The Tory myth that the only way out of the financial crisis is austerity has managed to pass as truth in the political debate. That is the problem about Britain’s democracy. Schools teach obedience and productivity over critical thinking and passion. University costs money. Media ownership is highly concentrated in the hands of business moguls who support the tories and their neoliberal ideology (which can be summarised as wanting a strong state to protect corporate interests over those of the working class – which is what both the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP stand for). Workplaces are organised non-democratically and labour markets lack regulation, so everyone is too exhausted by working full time to have energy to deeply learn about politics.

The solution is not a proportional representation system. The solution is:
– Regulate against concentrated media ownership
– Make all schools more like Steiner or Montessori schools
– Make university free
– Legislate for max 6 hour working day
– Make undemocratic workplaces (i.e. non-cooperatives) illegal
– Pay for all this by taxing corporations and rich individuals. At the moment, tax avoidance and tax evasion costs the UK government £95 bn per year. (For comparison, the UK education budget is currently around £60 bn per year*.) Regulating the labour market and media ownership costs nothing. In fact we’d probably see a decrease in health issues resulting from stress and overworking, which would save the NHS money.


*Figures from Jubilee Debt Campaign

Episode 1: To Truly Tackle Climate Change


Grrenheart Project – shipping without ports or CO2.


Scary weather events are getting more common and people are dying – but why has our society not managed to face up to climate change yet? What are the social changes that need to happen if we’re to avert climate disaster? We hear from three experts: an academic, an activist, and someone who is pioneering a socially different alternative.

More info about the people and things in this episode

Episode 2: What Neoliberalism?


Reagan and Thatcher – famous proponents of neoliberalism, though they didn’t use that term themselves.


Neoliberalism is one of the Left’s biggest enemies – but what does neoliberalism actually stand for, and why do voters buy it? What do neoliberals think about freedom, and how could Thatcher make a solid argument for clamping down on strikes? Sofa talks to Dr Clive Gabay.

More info about the people and things in this episode

Episode 3: Seeing Zambia from England

Photo by Ferdinand Reus

The smoke that thunders (aka Victoria Falls) dives over 100m into the Earth, on the border between Zambia and Zimbabwe.


Mwansa has studied and worked on questions of Africa’s ‘development’ for years. She grew up in Zambia and moved to Britain as an adult – so what’s it like to live in such different places, and how do you deal with a whole world’s patronising preconceptions of your home? And why does Mwansa smile more in Zambia?

More info about the things in this episode