Yes, he is black. So what?

In the Snooker World Championships this week, Rory McLeod played John Higgins. He was quite comfortably beaten. He missed too many shots that, at that level, are considered gimmes. He tried hard and upset a few people with his slow, attritional style. None of this is particularly remarkable, but what is remarkable is that Rory McLeod is snooker's only black professional, and no-one seems to mentioning that fact.

Hold on..... this is not another pro-equality, minority empowering blog. This is The Alternative View. So why is this issue so remarkable?

I don't recall McLeod's colour being mentioned at all during the BBC match commentary, their coverage or the match reports on their website. The Guardian's match report is the same. Apart from, ironically, me, no-one seems to have mentioned it at all. And why should they?

I recall a blog post on the Pink Stinks website about a Matthew Syed article published in the Times. Syed had interviewed Fran Halsall, the swimmer, and written a massively favourable article about her. He did make one mistake though - he opened the piece by commenting on her appearance. That small flaw set the alarm bells ringing at Pink Stinks HQ, and prompted the following response:

http://pinkstinks.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/dressed-for-success-what/

You might notice my counter-arguments tacked on the end of their blog. If you think I have held a grudge over this for two years, I really haven't. I like the Pink Stinks blogs and I think their "campaign for real role-models" is a great initiative which the authors, Emma and Abi, are clearly very passionate about. In fact, I have to actually credit Emma for her suggestion that I set up my own blog, which is where, um, this all came from!

For me the counter-argument to most pro-equality causes has always been that they tend to put people in boxes, and putting people in boxes is actually more divisive than it is helpful. In the Halsall / Syed scenario, Halsall is in the oppressed box and Syed is the oppressor. But, actually, Fran Halsall has gotten to where she is through hard work and determination and she is a good-looking girl. No-one, including Matthew Syed, would argue otherwise. She probably didn't feel oppressed or objectified, and he probably didn't intend for her to.

Syed has also gotten to where he is through hard work and determination, and not just with his award-winning journalism. He was an olympic table-tennis player. He must understand the effort that Halsall has gone through, but does that mean he can't acknowledge that she is a woman? If you follow the link (in the Pink Stinks blog) and read his article, you will actually find that he only briefly comments on her looks at the start, in the context of the glamorous photo shoot she is attending, and then swiftly moves on to itemise and laud her achievements and her character. It is hardly straight out of Nuts magazine, is it?

It is not enough to say that women are objectified or marginalised in sport. It is not enough to say that black people are under-represented in snooker. Without context these arguments are unsubstantiated. There cannot be a quota system for sporting achievement or media coverage, and if there was one, it would not represent equality. When a sportsperson of any colour, gender, creed, age or class can perform at the highest level, win or lose, and have no-one qualify their judgement based on anything but the contest at hand, then that will truly constitute equal treatment.

The same should be said of journalists and any other professional. Do not judge what I am, judge what I do. Judge the articles he writes, the snooker he plays, the speed she swims. Judge it on merit and relate to it accordingly. If you are bad at what you do, you can always work harder at it. You can never change who you are.

Matthew Syed's article is fair, balanced, well-written and complimentary. If you forget that he is a man, what fault can you find with it? It doesn't matter that Syed is a man. It doesn't matter that he is half-Pakistani, and therefore eligible for minority perspective himself. As a writer, he should only be judged on what he writes, not on some presumed agenda which he may or may not have.

People are different. The human population is multi-faceted and diverse, but there are trends amongst groupings. For example, West Indian men tend to be more powerfully-built than white British men, which can make them more suited to sprinting, but less suited to distance running than those from certain parts of Africa. But nature - in so much as our understanding of genetic and geographical influences allows - doesn't have all the answers. Culture is important too. I'll use my favourite example here again - Brits of Asian descent are well represented in cricket, but not in football. Whether for natural or cultural reasons, or both, those of West Indian heritage, like McLeod, are certainly better represented in athletics than they are in snooker. There is nothing wrong with this, so long as it is organic. There is another factor too: individuality.Rory McLeod is unique. But then so are John Higgins, Fran Halsall and Matthew Syed, and so are you and I.

So, for anyone with no agenda, other than trying to understand and occasionally pass sensible comment on the world around us, let's hope that some day everyone can simply be treated how Rory McLeod has been treated this week - just like anyone else.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

I'm male. I'm white. I'm not yet 30. What happens if I'm the one who is discriminated against?

Let's discuss a hypothetical scenario: I feel that I'm discriminated against at work.

It's not on account of my race, gender, age, religious beliefs or sexuality - none of which could be considered marginal.

I have read the employee handbook, and I have referred the situation to Unite, the union. They both refer to employment law, which prohibits discrimination - but only on specified grounds, such as those listed above.

The truth is, I don't know exactly why I am discriminated against. I just feel, sometimes, that my face doesn't fit. This is not covered in law.

Bullying at work is covered by law, although Unite recognise that, as a form of discrimination, bullying is hard to define and even harder to confront.

Alarmingly I realise that some of the bullying behaviours identified on Unite's website describe ME. Am I a bully? I certainly don't mean to be, but I can be bloody sarcastic sometimes.

I read on, and the website tells me that bullying behaviour is often a reaction to being bullied - of course, this is playground stuff, and it is silly. No one bullies me.

But then I read about institutionalized bullying. Qualified by effect rather than intention, this may make its victims feel hopeless, depressed or worthless. It may involve passing people over for promotion, even if they are better qualified or more experienced. It may involve favouritism towards others, or inequal treatment (better pay, better opportunities, more recognition for the ones whose faces do fit). Institutionalised bullying may occur when you are asked to perform to a higher level than those around you, without the benefits or status which should accompany such responsibility. You may find that you have to pick up the slack for others, including those above you, for little or no extra reward. You may find yourself kept in the dark about your own future - especially where short-term secondments and departmental re-organisations are concerned. You have proven you can do the job, will you be rewarded? There may be little opportunity for progression in your role, particularly if those above you seem to be job-for-lifers. You may feel that you can't complain about these things or that, if you do, your words fall on deaf ears. Worse still, if you speak up you may be resented, or even further victimised, as a result.

This is institutionalised bullying. It is hurtful, and cruel, and it can make your working life a misery. And, looking around, I see others like me who must feel the same - how do they deal with it? Happy pills? Or do they become, eventually, so jaded and worn down by it that they just don't care.

Of course, this is hypothetical - if it were true I wouldn't write about it. I'd be too scared of the consequences.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5