I have been aware recently of criticism directed at those who rally around a simple phrase; use a joke to convey repugnance for something; or otherwise condense, simplify and précis complex issues. Actually (embarrassed cough) I’ve criticised such behaviour myself. But I am beginning to feel uncomfortable about my superior attitude and want to explore what is actually going on here. I’m struggling a bit; feel free to help me out if you can.
I’ll use the phrase the ‘rape clause’ as an example. It’s been a highly effective rallying call. Which one of us would not find it repugnant to force women into revealing their child was conceived through rape? Oh, but the detractors say, you are using emotive terms and oversimplifying the issue! You are reducing a complex argument to a couple of words. You are defining it in black and white terms. The real world is much more nuanced.
My problem with this is that the more power one has the more one can use language to obfuscate, obscure and otherwise cloud[1] the issue. Consider the following Department of Work and Pensions defence of the new rulings:
Families supporting themselves solely through work do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children. The policy encourages families who receive benefits or tax credits to make the same financial decisions about the number of children they can afford to support as those families who support themselves solely through work, while protecting the vulnerable by retaining extra support for families with disabled children.
Some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family as others. For that reason, there are a series of exceptions to the restriction.
So that’s that sorted then? I don’t think so! For the apparently reasoned and compassionate argument is a Trojan horse for a load of cultural assumptions. It seems that there are people who ‘support themselves solely through work’ and those who don’t – the deserving as opposed to the feckless. The phrase conflates ‘work’ with paid employment and in doing so devalues unpaid work. It reduces economics to outdated and discredited theories, ignoring the role of the state and the commons on which we all rely.
‘Encouraging families who receive benefits or tax credits to make the same financial decisions…’ This makes the cultural assumption that those who receive benefits or tax credits are in a position to make the same choices as those that can obtain low cost credit, have well insulated homes, are able to save, can afford higher education, etc. It slams as undeserving those who have to experience the worst outcomes of our low wages and zero hour contracts and lack of access to collective bargaining – for the new poor are not those who do not work, but those who do low paid work with uncertain hours.
The notorious HMRC ‘Support for a child conceived without your consent’ form makes the assumption that most conceptions are planned and consensual so people should just be more responsible. Whereas contraception takes a lot of shrewd calculation, risk analysis, product stability, invasive physical procedures and luck. Oh, and most of this falls upon women.
So it’s not just those who conceive through rape or coercive behaviour who have children without consent, but for those who do, the hoops that must be jumped through are not just insensitive, they may also be life threatening and will adversely affect the child who becomes known to services as the product of rape.
My problem is, I can argue the detail, but there is no room for that on a t-shirt or placard. So is reducing it to a ‘Scrap the rape clause’ slogan acceptable? I would argue that it is.
[1] ‘Nuance’ is derived from the Latin word for cloud.
I’ll use the phrase the ‘rape clause’ as an example. It’s been a highly effective rallying call. Which one of us would not find it repugnant to force women into revealing their child was conceived through rape? Oh, but the detractors say, you are using emotive terms and oversimplifying the issue! You are reducing a complex argument to a couple of words. You are defining it in black and white terms. The real world is much more nuanced.
My problem with this is that the more power one has the more one can use language to obfuscate, obscure and otherwise cloud[1] the issue. Consider the following Department of Work and Pensions defence of the new rulings:
Families supporting themselves solely through work do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children. The policy encourages families who receive benefits or tax credits to make the same financial decisions about the number of children they can afford to support as those families who support themselves solely through work, while protecting the vulnerable by retaining extra support for families with disabled children.
Some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family as others. For that reason, there are a series of exceptions to the restriction.
So that’s that sorted then? I don’t think so! For the apparently reasoned and compassionate argument is a Trojan horse for a load of cultural assumptions. It seems that there are people who ‘support themselves solely through work’ and those who don’t – the deserving as opposed to the feckless. The phrase conflates ‘work’ with paid employment and in doing so devalues unpaid work. It reduces economics to outdated and discredited theories, ignoring the role of the state and the commons on which we all rely.
‘Encouraging families who receive benefits or tax credits to make the same financial decisions…’ This makes the cultural assumption that those who receive benefits or tax credits are in a position to make the same choices as those that can obtain low cost credit, have well insulated homes, are able to save, can afford higher education, etc. It slams as undeserving those who have to experience the worst outcomes of our low wages and zero hour contracts and lack of access to collective bargaining – for the new poor are not those who do not work, but those who do low paid work with uncertain hours.
The notorious HMRC ‘Support for a child conceived without your consent’ form makes the assumption that most conceptions are planned and consensual so people should just be more responsible. Whereas contraception takes a lot of shrewd calculation, risk analysis, product stability, invasive physical procedures and luck. Oh, and most of this falls upon women.
So it’s not just those who conceive through rape or coercive behaviour who have children without consent, but for those who do, the hoops that must be jumped through are not just insensitive, they may also be life threatening and will adversely affect the child who becomes known to services as the product of rape.
My problem is, I can argue the detail, but there is no room for that on a t-shirt or placard. So is reducing it to a ‘Scrap the rape clause’ slogan acceptable? I would argue that it is.
[1] ‘Nuance’ is derived from the Latin word for cloud.