A new reason to be.

I've been quiet now for quite some time. There were a variety of reasons for this - first my life was absorbed by teaching English to foreign students, then I went on holiday (Prague-Split-Brac-Split-Zagreb-Ljubljana-Prague) and then I thought I was moving to Dublin, which would have changed the tone and focus of this (admittedly somewhat unfocused) blog, which is supposed to be (chiefly) the reflections of an American in London.

In the end, the great move never happened and I'm now safely installed at Goldsmiths, doing the same PhD topic I'd have done in Dublin. Now that things are settled, I'm ready - and needing - to continue, this time with (hopefully) more focus.

Since the advent of fall and the start of the academic year, I'm found myself reading loads. My PhD (roughly speaking) is dealing with contemporary theatre in Prague and the various contexts that have created it. As a result I've been reading lots of inspiring stuff - Vaclav Havel on the role of culture in civil society and the importance of living in truth, Jill Dolan on the utopian peformative, Iris Marion Young on the "unoppressive city" in its infinite variety - while at the same time I'm back to reading the English press again, with less than inspiring results. Two themes emerge again and again:

1. Strong messages (frequently penned by female journalists), both implicit and explicit that the place of a woman is in the home with ambp (as many babies as possible); and

2. Britain is the best country in the world, not least because British journalists completely understand and can explain any culture in the world - even your own, my fellow foreigners - better than anyone else can. After all, it was probably once part of the British Empire and, if it wasn't, then it can't be worth much, can it? As an American, and one increasingly aware of and deeply thankful for the inherently various nature of country in which I was born, this is especially vexing. Whenever someone speaks about "American culture" my hackles raise - which one? Texas? Seattle? New York? Philadelphia? New Orleans? Iowa? Yet again and again, these multiple experiences are conflated into a monolith (and a culturally inferior one at that).

So, with renewed vigor and in the spirit of living in truth (but without losing my sense of humor and absurdity - both my own and others'), I resurrect Both Sides Now with a new manifesto - to respond to and comment upon the assumptions, generalisations and factually inaccurate ramblings of the British media as I encounter them. Because noting something and interrogating it is always a good thing. To be silent is to be complicit. And I certainly don't wish to be that.

A note before this week's digest: I should mention that I love the British press. I love Radio 4 (almost as much as NPR, though no one will ever shift Ira Glass from his deeply entrenched place in my heart). I love the Guardian (and how I usually agree with it). I love the Times (for its jumbo crossword and its ability to anger me). I love that in this country newspapers still mean something. But that doesn't mean they're exempt from scrutiny - perhaps it even demands it.

So, without further ado, the article that inspired this relaunch, appearing in this Saturday's Guardian under the headline "Marriage tax break will keep more women out of work, says thinktank" by Allegra Stratton, Political correspondent. The article discusses a plan to recognise marriage in the tax structure, introduced by David Cameron in his speech at the Tory conference last week. The digested sense of the proposal is that it would be benefit single-income families, but might actually discourage second earners, which Stratton notes are "usually women" from working, as their earnings would be subjected to a higher tax rate than their partners. After explaining the still-vague nuts and bolts, Stratton offers two responses. First, Tim Horton, research director of the Fabian Society, likes the idea of helping families, but says the plan "would bring about gender discrimination in the tax system...It would be a socially retrograde step." Okay, fine. Next it's Christina Odone's turn. Ms. Odone is listed as a journalist who "published a Centre for Political Studies pamphlet saying many women no longer want to work full-time." Why? According to Stratton, "Odone said many "real women" rejected work-centred culture and "realised themselves" as mothers."

Um...hello? Am I only one who sees this assessment, which goes unchallenged by Stratton (though perhaps her decision to enclose the real in quotes is telling), as problematic? What on earth is the definition of a real woman? What is with the apparent return to absolute definitions of anything, let alone gender roles? Are Odone and Stratton, themselves obviously "work-centred" enough to be published writers, figments of the Guardian's imagination? Are they "unreal" women? Unnatural? How are we still having this discussion in 2009?! Where is the outcry?!

In more trivial news, check out this parenthetical assessment of Aspen, Colorado, from the Sunday Times Magazine's interview with Black Eyed Pea Fergie: "lovely, like Switzerland with fat people". We have Giles Hattersley to thank for that perfect encapsulation of a winter sports capital. The last one I visited was Lake Placid, NY, also located in the alleged tub-o-lard that is the United States, but funnily enough, as home to an Olympic training and countless winter sports athletes and instructors (an attribute it no doubt shares with Aspen), there were plenty of non-fatties in residence. Admittedly, ski-wear isn't the most flattering. But come on, Giles, really? Are there no fat people in Switzerland? A quick google reveals this tidbit from the Portal to the Swiss Federal Goverment:

A third of the Swiss population is overweight. The reasons for excess weight and adiposis (obesity) are often rooted in the social environment, in particular in the “unhealthy” diet, which has negative effects on weight already in childhood. Today, one child out of five is already overweight or obese. (www.ch.ch)

That's right, Giles. Swiss people are fat too. Just like Brits and Americans. Why the inaccurate snarkiness? Why the perpetuation of erroneous myth that attempts to localize what is actually a global first-world problem? And finally, why do you repeatedly quote Fergie talking about her "mum" - Americans don't have "mums". You know we have moms, and we know you have mums - it's exciting, this bilingual English! Let's assume (at least in this case) mutually intelligibility and run with it! Hell, we might all even lose some weight in the process.