This is our truth, tell us yours
Tara Hewitt, a woman of no fixed intellectual abode, (something of her meandering journey towards self-importance is recounted here) is campaigning against the suggestion that there should be specific educational provision for gay kids in Manchester.
You can read an unsensationalized account of what is being worked on here – and in the process you’ll avoid Tara’s vacuous rants about ghettoes.
Now, as the article patiently explains, all that’s happening is that a group who do lots of hard work with schools already are looking at whether there’s a need for some kind of educational provision for kids whose sexual orientation means they are bullied or at risk of exclusion from other schools.
Would I support such a school? Emphatically. Lots of kids, gay, straight and bi, flourish in large mainstream schools. Some don’t. In many cases, if they can’t face going to their mainstream school, there’s a huge lack of provision for them. In my case, as a bi teenager, the only options for me were a mainstream school where the fear of being outed made me paranoid and frightened, or the smalltown boy route of leaving home as soon as possible with everything I owned in a little black case. I had no choices.
In her current incarnation as a conservative Tara Hewitt, would, you would expect, be in favour of choice, of opportunity, and of creating spaces where individuals can be who they want to be. Not in this case. I have to ask why. Seriously. Why would a Tory oppose choice and alternatives to one size fits all education?
The first reason of course, is publicity and self importance. Tara, like Schroedingers cat, only exists if people are nobserving what she does – in that regard she is entirely congruent with the set of people who enter politics because it allows full reign for their narcissism; not for nothing is politics described as show business for ugly people.
Want an example of how Tara, as a narcissist centres herself in everything she does? Here’s a tiny, but very telling detail. Take a wade through Tara’s LinkedIn page. Go on, it’s not hard to find, and it’s very very funny in that self aggrandizing way that recruiters get all too used to. Tara came 43rd in the Independent on Sunday’s Pink List, a full 20 places behind other serious political contenders like the bloke who won Big Brother 13. Tara is very proud of this. However, on Linked In, under the publications section, she lists herself as the author of the article about it in the Independent on Sunday. It’s not the only instance either; for the article in Pink News about Tara becoming some minor Conservative functionary she lists herself as the author when it’s clearly the work of a journo / contributor to Pink News, and listed on their website as such.
We don’t do sidewalk diagnosis, but if you asked me if these small examples are indicators that would lead me to have a conversation with Tara about narcissism, I would say yes. Emphatically yes.
There are other examples in Tara’s Linked In revelations. She is, apparently, the editor of her blog, to which she is the only contributor. Is author not a sufficiently prestigious title? Incidentally Tara, if you’re reading this, it’s something of an own goal to call yourself editor if, when I go to look at your blog, the first article I find has nine instances of the word ‘of’ being used where the word ‘have’ should be used. Yes, I know it’s a common error that arises out of the homophonic qualities of the ‘should’ve’ contraction of ‘should have'(or would have and would’ve) but really Tara, if you’re going to appoint an editor for a blog only you write, at least pick someone who can do proof reading and grammar.
Why does this matter?
Tara says a lot of things; she is, apparently, a political commentator. She can get her name in the paper very easily, and seems to issue press releases at the drop of a hat. She starts petitions to oppose projects that other LGBT people support, using emotive language like ‘ghetto’ even though she appears to have entirely misunderstood the proposal. At such times understanding why Tara does what she does is really important, and the most obvious conclusion is, it’s all about Tara and her need to be at the centre of everything.