Boys will probably be boys.

Boys will probably be boys.

I am obliged to go against the current cozy consensus, to say something different to the accepted viewpoint and, in the process, lay myself open for criticism. I am going to say something that is shocking, probably heretical, and in the current climate may lead to my being ostracized. I am going to say that there are differences between women and men, between boys and girls, which are not socially created but relate to our biology. There are innate differences in a some of our behaviours, our drives and our instincts which arose after millennia of evolution as a species. There, I have said it, let the heavens open. This is simply a fact, although unusually for one of my opinions, a fact with which most of science agrees.

Why have I found myself spouting heresies today ? Well, it all has to do with a racing car driver. I can confess that I actually felt rather sorry for Lewis Hamilton today. Why do I feel sorry for the handsome, wealthy, skilled and famous car racing star ? I felt sorry for him as he was forced to make an apology for a piece of playfulness with his nephew which revealed he did not toe the party line. In a piece of family banter, in a jovial mock-angry voice he said that “boys don’t wear princess dresses” while teasing his nephew, who seemed to be enjoying the attention from his famous uncle. Cue synthetic shock and horror from the social media watchmen who called out his “horrific” “transphobia“. After a short period of sustained attack, Lewis Hamilton came back with the required abject grovelling apology. However, it seems that this may not have been an adequate Mea Culpa as he is now being criticised  for inadequate sincerity in his shame. The intolerance of the social media clerisy is quite remarkable, they will not tolerate any views which deviate from the current accepted norms, no alternative views will be brooked.

Now I think Lewis Hamilton was wrong, of the things which might be social constructs I am pretty certain that styles of clothing is amongst them. In different cultures, and across different times, that which is suitable for girls and boys to wear has varied; style sense is not inherited (Although I can’t think of a culture promoting princess apparel to its boys). But it does not matter that he is wrong. He expressed his opinion and he has hurt no-one. He should be free to do this without the fear of mock outrage. Further, it is the family’s role to rear children and to instil values and attitudes in them – nobody else has that right. I disagree with many religions but believe that religious parents  have the right to instruct their children as they wish. I disagree with my conservative voting neighbours but do not feel that I have any right to stop them passing their opinions onto their children. Indeed, as long as they are not harming their children, I want families to instruct their offspring as it is them who teach the young how to be good, how to be moral, how to be a good man or a good woman. Sometimes their views on morality and goodness will not concur with mine, but these differences are the grit in the oyster of our culture which generates discussion and change. Tolerating these differences is one of the hallmarks of a civilised and open society. Watching people publicly shamed for unfashionable opinions is reminiscent of the stocks or the show trials and should cause free thinking people to be concerned.

The rights of the individual are closely allied to the family unit. The family unit allows us to act and exist outside of the state and the state has, for a long time, had an ambivalent view of the family : positive in that it cares for the young and the sick, negative as it may instil ideas of which it disapproves. It is still largely within the family that we develop our moral compass although the state’s roles in education and healthcare have reduced this somewhat. Capitalism sees less need for the nuclear or extended family, from the market’s viewpoint the more people producing and the more people consuming the better. Traditional families are perhaps inefficient in market terms in the developed west, the family model works best as a unit of production rather than as a unit of consumption. Socialist thinking has been more generally hostile to the family, it recognised that the family is a place of education and instruction which is not under state control and therefore potentially problematic. In 1920 Alexandra Kollontai wrote the set text on family organisation under communism. She wrote :-

The old family, narrow and petty, where the parents quarrel and are only interested in their own offspring, is not capable of educating the “new person”. The playgrounds, gardens, homes and other amenities where the child will spend the greater part of the day under the supervision of qualified educators will, on the other hand, offer an environment in which the child can grow up a conscious communist who recognises the need for solidarity, comradeship, mutual help and loyalty to the collective.

 and promised that :-
She need have no anxiety about her children. The workers’ state will assume responsibility for them
The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.
Unfortunately it seems that this attack on the family where different opinions might flower continues. If we allow this censorious and intolerant development our future abilities to recognise and defeat authoritarianism will be sorely damaged.  Policing the family has always been a priority for authoritarian regimes, recall the importance given to the Hitlerjugend and the Komsomol in Germany and the Soviet Union, and remember that these were very early developments of fascist societies. A society which will not allow dodgy joke between family members is treading a dangerous path.

Survival of the fattest


The inscripweb-bloggertion on sculpture “Survival of the Fattest” reads ‘I’m sitting on the back of a man. He is sinking under the burden. I would do anything to help him, except stepping down from his back.’ It is a powerful statement about the growing gulf between the rich and poor.

Today even the poorest in our western societies lead lives that would be considered lives of impossible material luxury by those of a century ago. Light and heat at the flick of a switch, literature and music available to all, telephones you can carry in your pocket. In comparative terms we are materially much richer, and, in the developed West we seem to be living in the post-scarcity world. Our problems now, are rarely those of inadequate supplies of essentials such as food, energy, or shelter. Indeed, many of our problems relate to those of excess, for example the problems of obesity or excessive fuel usage and global warming, and unfair distribution of resources.

This unfairness occurs at home and abroad. At home, we in the developed world, have witnessed increasing inequality with extreme wealth concentrated in a few hands. The gap between rich and poor seems to have grown at an alarming rate. Abroad even greater disparity is apparent. There are still areas of the developing world where the basics for subsistence are missing and problems of famine, drought, hunger and thirst still exist and kill people daily.

What can we do to tackle these problems ? We know that the global expansion of wealth arose from the success of the market economy and voluntary cooperation, with the aid of the ‘hidden hand‘ in developing new  processes and products. However, this is a consequence of ‘free markets‘ where individuals working on their own initiative, and in their own interest, compete to make goods and services which are desirable and useful to others.

The market economy has many intrinsic safeguards. Production of undesirable or unwanted goods  will fail;  providers of better goods and services will prosper at the expense of poorer providers; the system itself (by the influence of supply and demand on the price of a good)  guides development and there is no need for any central planning agency. Further, competition tends to drive profit down. Competition benefits the consumer  and is a spur to the producer. Indeed, it has been said that extreme wealth, or very high profits, are a sign that there is not a free market economy and that something is wrong (1). A recent report by Oxfam clearly suggested that most extreme wealth is not “meritocratic” but rather the consequence of rent-seeking activities an over close relationships between capital and the political class (2).

Free trade should also help the developing world. Were trade free,then these countries which are often wealthy in natural resources would be able to benefit from them. Our history of imperialism, when nation states rejected trade with these countries in favour of subjugation and theft, has left a legacy of poverty. Even today, the European Union acts as a trade group to benefit the farmers and producers within the Union at the expense of those outside its borders.

Everywhere we look, the political class works with business to limit free trade and to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few. We need to promote the free market to tackle poverty, to encourage trade and competition to drive down profit and excess and be clearly pro-market but not pro-business, to be pro-market but anti-capitalist (3).

(1) Are billionairesfat cats or deserving entrepreneurs ?

(2) Extreme wealth is not merited

(3) Free Market Anti-Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal