Alan Johnson and S.C.W.A.A.M.P.

On page 2 Johnson states that his book can't help having a "white, straight, male, middle-class point of view" (Johnson 2) as that was how he was born. I believe that's the same for all of us. Our experiences are oftentimes shaped by what we were born as, although it shouldn't be this way. Unlike him, I have an assigned female at birth, queer, lower-class point of view. But I'll always have a white one. Going on from that I would like to talk about the fear of the unfamiliar. As Johnson says "For many, the answer is some variation on "human nature, People can't help fearing the unfamiliar-including people of other races, goes one popular argument. Or women and men are so dissimilar it's as though they come from separate planets, and it's some kind of cross-cultural (if not cross-species) miracle that we get along as well as we do. Or there is only one natural sexual orientation (heterosexual), and all the rest are therefore unacceptable and bound to cause conflict wherever they become obvious. Or those who are more capable will get more than everyone else-they always have and they always will. Someone, after all, has to be on top." (Johnson 4) I wanted to include that whole quote to dissect it and how it correlates with S.C.W.A.A.M.P. First going off about the point of women and men being so dissimilar, arguing that human nature puts cisgender men on a pedestal. Using S.C.W.A.A.M.P we know maleness is valued in society. They’re seen as less emotional, the leaders/head of the house, the dominant. None of these traits are instinctual to men themselves, unlike people often claim it to be. They’re often pushed to be these and some men do follow. If we were truly biologically different to the point of women “needing” to be limited, then would we have to push men to be this dominant character? As well as the opposite direction, would we need to push and often lure women into being housewives if it was biological? Going into queerness I would argue the people who fight about it being “unnatural” are wrong. Many animals have exhibited homosexual behavior, and when we bring up this point it’s often said “We’re better than animals” which would also contradict the points stated earlier about men and women. This point often (but not always) goes in hand with Christianity being valued in our society. When I was growing up the ideal family that was shown to me was a man and woman, who went to church every Sunday, and had children who would go to Sunday school and follow in these footsteps. For me, this social pressure placed this ideal of a white Christian heterosexual family where the woman stays home and raises children. This is often how social ideals are passed on, from parents to children. I would also like to talk about the last point, “someone, after all, has to be on top”. I can see how a mindset like this leads to S.C.W.A.A.M.P being valued in our society. If we have this image of what we view as an ideal person then we can always put them on the top of the social ladder.