Adrian Scott Counsellor Supervisor MBACP Accred

Is there a multitude of quiet men silencing their views on the alleged behaviour of Harvey Weinstein?
Is it because most men think that they have never behaved like that? That men they know wouldn’t speak about women as sex objects? That some men had genuinely feminist role models growing up as kids? That men’s girlfriend peer group insisted on respect and behaviour that included equality, and openness? That men would challenge other men who spoke about women in a derogatory way?
Quiet men. 

Perhaps men would all agree with the all the statements except challenging other men on their behaviour towards women. Like challenging racist behaviour it is very difficult to do. 

There is an argument that being part of a racist culture that if you are perceived to be privileged or mainstream in that culture you have to be racist. That if you have gained from the culture for no other reason then being part of that culture. The problem is that most white people would not think we lived in a racist country in the UK. In one belief the whole argument falls down. The same of sexism. In a patriarchy if you believe in patriarchy and benefit from it? Does that mean you are automatically sexist for benefiting from that patriarchy?

Humans including men have consistently abused their power to do or get what they want. It seems it is inevitable that power corrupts. It is part of human nature to suit yourself, and to try and have outcomes that get you what you want.

It is hard for men if they do feel that they are sexist to be vulnerable and open about it. Men are untrained in the art of feelings, and being at a disadvantage. To be unmanly leaves men without a reason for being a man.
And with no way talking or understanding the way out of this old age dilemma.
Quiet Men

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Masseduction is the new album by St Vincent. In the Era of Trump, Brexit, Sex crimes, & Gender Fluidity. The idea is that we seduce and are seduced by people, products, lifetsyles through the lens of the media. Like all good seductions the facts and the substance behind the seduction are hidden and maybe not what they seem.

Masseduction. This was the case in Brexit. What was the UK voting for? Sovereignty? Independence? A howl of rage against the destructive forces of the Free Market? The easy target of immigration? Were voters seduced by the chance of not paying membership fees to the EU? The perception of not having the EU making laws for the UK?
The Brexit story is still unfolding, of two sides not willing or able to meet in the middle.

Trump and his dubious history with women, was selling a version of the American Dream. His make the US Great again was similar to a Churchillian cry to arms. He promised a revival of American industry and jobs. Being a business man he promised deals. His frustration and blurty tweets show how deals may not be the medium of politics.

The most seductive and clever of all the seducers is the marketplace. It blatantly uses sex and gender and blatantly excludes more complex grey areas of sex and sexuality in its advertising. Consume at any price. It makes us consume even if we don’t want to. Everything we put in our bodies, where we are entertained, and who entertain with is all processed by the market place.
And then sold back to us as a life style choice.
Masseduction

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

A well known Hollywood producer has been outed with allegations of being a serial sex abuser. Apparently his exploits were common knowledge in the film industry!
There are common themes here with the way the story unfolds.
Hollywood Sex Crimes 

That power and money seem to protect them and how they operate. That people know what is going. That people in the know avoid them. That in some cases people have been paid off not to speak. And that it takes one victim to come forward years after it has being going, which encourages another to come forward, and another and another. Until the tipping point is passed. The secret can no longer remain secret. Then the person becomes a pariah, without a day in court.  

The point that seems most to surprise men and women is why did the women wait so long to speak out? Why now after so many years? As far as women and sexual abuse are concerned we seem in 2017 to be finally moving into a semi enlightened age distinct from the dark ages of previous decades. One of the common reactions to sexual misconduct is that it is laughed off always by men as something to be minimised. Another is that it is not believable or to be believed. Or that the process of reporting and gathering of evidence was so weighted against the victim, that it was not a viable option.
Hollywood Sex Crimes

Most women have stories to tell about men not staying within the boundaries they request. Depending on which generation women belong to, this is seen as an occupational hazard, all the way to to their being real equality on all fronts between men and women.
Now how about men and sexual abuse?

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Arthur Russell was a contrarian. If you liked his music he did not trust you. Not well known when he was alive Arthur Russell is making a comeback: fans include Kanye West who sampled him on 30 hours, Frank Ocean, and Devandra Banhart. As a cellist and composer he only released one record called “World of Echo”. He was a very shy man, with an acne pocked face.

Russell was an explorer of the extreme. His vibrato-free voice, and mid american accent hid the clarity of his lyrics. When you hear his lyrics it can sound like he is singing underwater. He would wander the streets of Lower Manhattan studying people. Hiding in the dark corners of dance clubs he would study which music enticed people onto the dance floor. How the rhythm of their bodies synched with the rhythm of the music. He composed the Ballad of Lights featuring Allen Ginsberg in a haunting track of darkness and light.
Russell died of Aids in 1992 but he left behind a treasure of unreleased music. His work cannot be categorised: Allen Ginsberg called it “Buddhist bubblegum music”. This disco track “Is it all over my Face” became an instant classic.

For every famous well known artist, composer, musician, academic, scientist, and inventor, there are men and women working away creating work that is out of the mainstream. Away from mass appreciation, they skirt around the bodies of well recognised work, able to create without the pressure of being liked, appreciated or revered. Arthur Russell was one of these artists.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Manspreading is becoming a dangerous activity. Men sitting on public transport legs wide open is inconvenient, and takes up space that others are denied. But it seems manspreading is also for presidents and royalty.

Men it seems have to continuously show that they are male, and are out to impress. Male animals have always had to preen, strut, and puff up their wares. In this  way they control territory, intimidate the enemy, and of course try to impress the opposite sex. Is an overt display of manliness or virility actually to cover up the opposite? Desperate for attention, very insecure, or just wants to show off.

The world is divided about whether this is a feminist issue. On the one hand not an issue, on the other a form of subjugation. Women are more approachable on public transport, and trained to make space for others. Women are raised to sit with their legs closed, to be quiet, and discreet. Men are not taught to be discreet. Maleness has the power.

This is modern patriarchy: women are generally seen as less than men. Particularly in the public space men and women have very different experiences of the same situation. Men have it easier. Manspreading could be interpreted as a show of domination born from a long historical privilege. It might seem like a small thing when there are so many more important issues that feminism needs to address. But the myriad of small slights gather up to be as big as important as the bigger ones.
Manspreading

Ted Talk: Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Travelator of Racism is an idea to describe how we can contribute to racism. Like an airport moving floor conveyor belt: active racism is walking fast along the conveyor belt towards the racist destination. Passive racism is like standing still and not making any effort to move. But still moving towards the same racist destination.

Some other people will sense the direction of the conveyor belt and want to turn around to move away from the racist destination. As long as they are walking faster than the conveyor belt they are being actively anti racist. This takes a lot of effort and the actively anti racist person has to walk faster in the opposite direction, to move away from the racist destination.

The idea that is being challenged here is that racism starts on a level playing field. People are people, and colour is colour. There is no colour issue when thought about at face value. If this is true then the view on race and racism would have to exclude slavery, discrimination, institutional racism, and a less than perfect interpretation of White history.

To widen the concept out – ask how was the floor conveyor belt built? How old is it? Does the speed vary? Are people able to get on and off the conveyor belt when they wish? Is the entrance to the conveyor belt policed? Or is the conveyor belt silently driven through views and beliefs that are in every part of our western life?

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique 

Alexander Gardner was a man of his time. He wandered the world in the 1800s dealing with Kings and Princes with their own kingdom who were above the law. With health and safety and political correctness he could not have got away with what he did. Like a latter secret service agent he roamed the world doing what he liked when he liked.
He was in gun and sword fights and spent the end of his life suffering with 14 wounds. It was said he was difficult to understand his speech because of a big gash in his throat, a wound collected in one his fights. To eat and drink he had to clamp a pair of forceps to his neck to close the wound.

He was a big bearded man, a warrior, a man of great physical strength. In 1841 he saved the City of Lahore where his comrades had deserted him, and he shot 300 of the enemy. He wrote a book chronicling the Fall of the Sikh Empire.
His Father was Scottish and his mother Spanish and he was born in Wisconsin US. For 13 years he wandered around Central Asia. He was captured in Afghanistan and recruited to command a small army. He married a local and had a son who were both killed.

Gardner wrote a journal: most of it lost. Extracts were published in 1853: the exploits were so incredible that many disbelieved them. He recalled his life recorded by several biographers, and these were published after his death in Soldier and Traveller

His personality is subsumed by his unbelievable exploits.
Pity: what motivated him to do what he did?
A swashbuckling wanderer apart.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Politicians say that the public and electorate are not stupid. They like to tell the stupid electorate this –
as there is a big argument to show that the stupid electorate is stupid. It is to politicians’ advantage that the electorate is stupid or at least misinformed.

The misinformation in politics is to obscure the truth and agenda of decision makers. Sometimes this is necessary. Government cannot be justifying itself with every decision it makes, particularly if decided on sensitive information. But most of the time it is to distract us from the motivations of what is being decided.

With a nation of shop keepers it is easy to sell the idea that we should concentrate more on the size of our bank balance rather than the quality, or more social aspects of how we live in the UK.

Debate is kept within opposing lines so that the nuances and subtleties of what could be informing decision making ideas cannot be heard. Brexit is a good example where voters decided not on Brexit but as a protest vote against immigration, loss of identity, and the global market.

Whether Brexit will be a loss or gain will be so complicated to measure that opinion will be divided not on the facts but on ideology and values. The Left want to stay in the EU to protect workers rights and maintain a liberal elite. The right wants a more unfettered economy to maximise profit, and keep the British Bulldog alive.

To be informed and motivated in this political takes enthusiasm. commitment and energy. It’s difficult.
But if you don’t…..??

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Nobody wants to talk about Yemen. It’s not in the news. While hurricanes and Syria are centre front.
Yemen is at the back pushed against the wall.
Over two years of conflict has left 10000 dead, 50000 injured, leaving 18 million Yeminis in need of humanitarian assistance. Added to that is a huge Cholera epidemic spreading by the day.

Why do we not care? Why does the press not report on Yemen? The press has always discriminated on news. But it is ultimately trying to sell news to a public who are Western, White, Wealthy in relative terms, and Democratic(?) We are villagers with old lumbering village brains. The next village is too far and too foreign for us to care about. We care about our own village. If the next village has an impact on our village that is something else. Then we care…more.

But otherwise the relationships and dynamics in our own village take all our energy. To live and survive takes a lot of energy which we only have a finite amount of. We have family and friends to take care of. And if we don’t – we have complex enough lives needing constant maintenance. Our attention is elsewhere.

It is not that we don’t care – it’s that we have our own Western lives to deal with. At this time Western life has many distractions close to home to avoid and numb against the dislocation and disconnectedness of wealthy living.
Sex, drugs, alcohol, exercise, academia are a few of the distractions that help us through this world in the 21st Century.

Conversely an awareness of war and strife across the globe nags at us. The West is vulnerable to attack. This creates a living anxiety which permeates through our lives, relationships and decision making. Our brains are used to this: the constant threat of attack is monitored by our inbuilt fight and flight response. It seems we are bent on recreating a primitive world which our ancestors lived in.
Is modernity just a sheen of pretence that we have advanced?

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

This radio interview (1:33.50) between Yasmin Qureshi Labour MP and Marilyn Hawes Founder of Enough Abuse
is about the recent case of groups of Pakistani men abusing young White women.

The MP condemned abuse across the country, and of people travelling abroad to buy sex. Repeatedly asked about Pakistani men, the MP did not allow the focus to solely rest on the Pakistani aspect of abuse. Her viewpoint was to move it away from the racial aspect, and broaden it out to everyone and everywhere. There is a truth in this.

The Founder accused the MP as a politician of not focusing on Pakistani men, and not addressing the issue. She said it wasn’t about Muslims, but a deep Ethnic stated belief and a wrong belief: that women are there to be exploited. When asked what could be done about it, she talked about changing attitudes and teaching in mosques. The MP interjected that this was wrong. The Founder then talked about culture citing the issue of Female Genital Mutilation being practised by African cultures. Race Abuse? Or Race Abuse?

Again Context is everything. The MP is a Pakistani Born British woman, the Founder is a white British woman and the interviewer a white British man.

70 years ago this week at midnight on 14/15 August 1947, India was partitioned and millions of Indian people were displaced with the creation of the Pakistani state. The Mountbatten Plan laid down the boundaries of the countries: a white British man. Making a ridiculous link? People don’t forget. Why should they? Would the UK have forgotten its borders being redrawn by an Indian Man?

Following on – the Pakistani Born MP is already back footed and defensive. Two British white people symbolising power and repression are attacking her culture. One by asking difficult questions about the racial element of this abuse from her own culture. The other white woman saying her culture has to be re-educated like our own British culture.

The context is played out without the issues being addressed. The arguments comes across circular and inauthentic. The reason is the context is played out reducing the arguments to nothing.
The context is not talked about. The blunt brevity of the media allows for no such thinking.
So the argument in this present political system remain unaddressed.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique