Living in Hebden Bridge
Posted by Jeff,
Monday, July 21, 2003
As a possible resident looking to move out of the dratted conurbation - whats it like living in Hebden Bridge? I love the place from the outside. I've been over quite a few times from Bradford, where I live now.
I work in Leeds, and worry about getting there, wonder about myself and g/f being accepted by the community - just wondered (cos it's a biggish step) what village/town life is like?
Posted by Nic Pugh,
Monday, July 28, 2003
In response to Jeff's email about living in Hebden Bridge. I am planning a move to the area in September and hope that the general lack of response to Jeff's mail does not bode ill for my family and I. Although, we are moving from London where everybody ignores one another anyway.
Posted by John Morrison ,
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Jeff and Nic... Move to Hebden Bridge with no qualms (as long as you've got the brass to buy a house. Seen the prices lately?). It's changing from a sort of hippy/new age haven into a rather more upmarket place for jaded city folk who want to give small town life a go. I suppose it's a bit cliquely, but give it a couple of months and you'll be OK.
When life is good in Hebden Bridge, it?s very good indeed: a haven for creative folk. When it's not so good, the town can seem a bit claustrophobic and cramped, hemmed in by the hills. Apparently there are more people with degrees here, per head of population, than anywhere else in the country. And lots of lesbians.
Transport is good, despite the local complaints. Easy going East-West through the valley - to Manchester, Leeds & Bradford - but a bit more taxing going north or south, "over the tops". The walking is good, and the landscape is both rugged and "lived-in". Hebden Bridge is characterful rather than pretty; a lot of the old hippies say it was more fun in the seventies.
Posted by Liz Anstee,
Friday, August 1, 2003
In John Morrison's opinions of living in Hebden Bridge I am wondering why in the spirit of inclusivity he implies exists in living here he chose to emphasise the presence of one group of people [lesbians] over others [single people ,single parents, young people, older people,teachers, social workers, solicitiors, doctors etc. I could go on] to give some intimation of what peope who may want to move here might find when they do? Why out of all the people who comprise Hebden Bridge did he choose to bring lesbian women forward to put under the spotlight?
If you think you might want to understand better John's fear and homophobia you could read the installments of his writings on this website but in doing that you would only be encouraging him.
Note to the editor of hebweb - if Hebden Bridge comprised 10% black or asian people [the proportion of lesbians suggested to live here] and john chose to emphasise that in contibutions to your pages would you not consider that his comments were oppressive to minority groups already discriminated against and consider whether you wanted to print them?
Posted by Elaine Connell,
Friday, August 1, 2003
When we published John's books and from time to time when we've put his pieces up on the forum on a variety of issues, we've felt a little tentative about what people's reactions might be. So often good humour of the cynical and/or satirical variety can be rather "near the bone" for some people. It is probably this edgy quality which makes it so amusing.
When John first started writing about the lesbians of both Milltown and Hebden Bridge we tried it out on some of our (including gay) friends who all laughed so heartily that we felt we could publish it. In the last month, while working in Manchester, one of my colleagues was a gay woman who visits this area regularly and actually mentioned how hilarious she finds John's work. She had no idea that I was involved in publishing his stuff. She felt that having such good natured jokes and references made to the gay community of Hebden Bridge actually demonstrated the fact that it has been accepted. She used the word "celebration" in this context.
Hebden Bridge has a significantly higher proportion of gay people than many other towns. John mocks all sections of the town and it would be false if he were to ignore one group of people on the grounds of their sexuality.
Unfortunately, we don't have many Asians or other ethnic minorities in the town. But I am sure that if we did John would make fun of them too in the same affectionate fashion he adopts in satirising hippies, new age therapists, landlords, councillors, social workers, green types, failing writers, bar maids, seedy journos and even wounded balding men with beards and glasses.
Posted by John Morrison ,
Friday, August 1, 2003
As a writer of what I consider to be affectionate humour, I am happy that people have their own opinions about my stuff (better than being ignored, as any writer will tell you). I try not to bellyache about criticism or bad reviews, but I can't let Liz Anstee's posting go without comment.
I mentioned lesbians in no derogatory way. Hebden Bridge has been called 'The Lesbian Capital of the North' (though not by me) and written about in this context. Some of these articles have already been posted on the HebWeb. I am very glad that lesbians find the town presents a friendlier face to them than many other places. When people find a reasonably hassle-free place to settle, it's not surprising that other, like-minded people will follow. My hopefully humourous asides are, as Elaine points out, a recognition that lesbians (and gay men, and bisexual folk, etc) are part and parcel of this little town's social scene. Yes, something to celebrate, I think.
As Liz amply demonstrates, it is possible to tie ourselves up in politically correct knots when writing about prejudice, so I will break the habit of a lifetime by posting the first half of an article for a (rather specialised) magazine which I finished this very morning. The second part of the article was about ways of addressing our own prejudices.
Women: they can't read road maps, can they? And men can't express their emotions. And what about Scotsmen? They're even more tight-fisted than Yorkshiremen, and that's saying something. Illegal immigrants go straight to the top of the housing list, you know. But what's the council doing for us? As for those monsters that mess with our kids - paeodiles, paediatricians, whatever they're called - we should lock them up and throw away the key. Oh, don't get me started...
Yes, by the age of twenty-five, most of us have assembled a portfolio of beliefs, opinions and prejudices which, if unchallenged, will last a lifetime. Prejudices enable us to create a simplified view of the world, pitching 'us' (good, patriotic, upright, 'right-thinking' citizens) against 'them' (bureaucrats, foreigners, global corporations, Tories, Socialists, tree-huggers, dole-scroungers, noisy neighbours, people who thwart our ambitions... yes, just about anyone, really). It's convenient to find scapegoats when things go wrong: it's not our fault, it's theirs.
The English language comes to our aid with subtleties of meaning. We know our own mind; they are opinionated. We have unshakeable convictions; they are fanatics. We have faith; they are rabid fundamentalists. Words, in an Alice in Wonderland kind of way, can come to mean whatever we want them to mean. Vices can be transformed into virtues when they apply to us (Scotsmen may be 'tight', but we are 'prudent'). A speaker's attitude to a particular sector of society may be flagged up as soon as he chooses his terminology. 'Unemployed' or 'dole-scrounger'? 'Refugee', 'asylum seeker' or 'illegal immigrant'?
We develop a selection of knee-jerk responses to events both local and global. We watch the TV programmes, buy the newpapers and vote for the political parties that reaffirm - rather than challenge - our prejudices. We gravitate towards people who share our view of the world. We are happy to put forward our own beliefs, at every opportunity, but are loath to listen to those who take an opposing stance.
Even for the most liberal of minds there are moral minefields to negotiate. It is depressing (or mildly diverting, depending on your point of view) to watch the Church of England tearing itself apart over the issue of openly gay bishops. Well-meaning clerics try to differentiate between gay relationships which are expressed sexually and - big sigh of relief - those in which two men cohabit in a state of chastity: a distinction that misses the salient points by a country mile. The Church is on a hiding to nothing, of course: whatever judgement they come to will upset one faction or another. But still they argue, despite the one injunction that would seem to trump all the others: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Stereotypes are the building blocks of prejudice. We lump a number of people together, and ascribe common characteristics to them all. At best, stereotyping represents lazy thinking (women and road maps, for example) or some tired joke (take my wife... please!). Stereotypes nearly always contain a degree of condescention. I can't be the only bloke who is fed up with being told - yet again - that men don't express their emotions. Though there's more than a grain a truth in it (as in many stereotypes), it's still a hackneyed old clichE that prevents - rather than encourages - greater understanding.
Stereotypes may be contradictory. Lesbians, for example, are either crop-headed and stroppy, or inconceivably attractive (depending on how far up the newsagent's shelves you reach when you buy a magazine).
Stereotyping can be hurtful. Black people can be objectified in many ways - from the names used to describe and define them, through pointless generalisations (their 'natural sense of rhythm') to the crude sexual stereotyping that both belittles and demonises them at one and the same time. Every time we ascribe blanket characteristics to an entire group of people - instead of responding to them as individuals - we demean them, and, in the process, ourselves.
Stereotypes are the building blocks of prejudice. We lump a number of people together, and ascribe common characteristics to them all. At best, stereotyping represents lazy thinking (women and road maps, for example) or some tired joke (take my wife... please!). Stereotypes nearly always contain a degree of condescention. I can't be the only bloke who is fed up with being told - yet again - that men don't express their emotions. Though there's more than a grain a truth in it (as in many stereotypes), it's still a hackneyed old cliché that prevents - rather than encourages - greater understanding.
Stereotypes may be contradictory. Lesbians, for example, are either crop-headed and stroppy, or inconceivably attractive (depending on how far up the newsagent's shelves you reach when you buy a magazine).
Stereotyping can be hurtful. Black people can be objectified in many ways - from the names used to describe and define them, through pointless generalisations (their ‘natural sense of rhythm') to the crude sexual stereotyping that both belittles and demonises them at one and the same time. Every time we ascribe blanket characteristics to an entire group of people - instead of responding to them as individuals - we demean them, and, in the process, ourselves.
Posted by P,
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
I was very interested to read the above exchange. I found the post accusing John Morrison of being homophobic etc quite funny, and the response from the publisher eloquent. If we can't laugh at ourselves then Hebden won't be nearly as fun a place to live. Hebden is great place, and I've never felt safer. Highly recommended to all lesbians, croptop/humourless/"gorgeous"/whatever, as a safe and fun place to live, you need never again run out of herbal tea, animal totem candles, aromatherapy oil, tofu, or those weird menstrual "keeper" thingos.
A very merry yuletide season to all. Good luck with retaining the sense of humour despite all the provocations to the contrary.
From a (gorgeous) lesbian with a huge dog and well-worn tarot cards xx