Two Books on Women

 

I recently read 'How to be a Woman' by Caitlin Moran followed fairly immediately by 'A year of Biblical Womanhood' by Rachel Held Evans. I'm glad I read them this way round! It struck me that there were some interesting differences and notable contrasts that I wanted to share with the world.

I think I might start backwards. Both authors conclude that there is not and shouldn't be a prescribed way to be a woman. For Evans book this felt like the natural conclusion to her discussion. I felt the narrative learnt from the experience of other women from a diversity of cultural experiences and approached such learning with a humble heart. Yet it stayed authentically itself and gave me as the reader permission to do so as well.

Moran's book however irritated me most of the way through. It was essentially an autobiography but despite it's beginning and conclusion about the diversity of female experience I couldn't help but feel I was being told that this was or should have been my experience as well. Especially the stuff around adolescents. 

Both books reference other women who have fought similar battles before and have begun to forge a way and in who's path we follow as well as contemporaries. Evan's does so with great respect and gratitude to those 'Women of Valour' both past and present. One of her final resolutions is to identify and praise women of valor. 

Moran by contrasts dismisses most of her contemporaries, including Object and even Greer as having become irrelevant.  The only woman who comes of relatively well is Lady Gaga.  While Evans writing humbly acknowledge's the work of those who have gone before. Moran writes 'When Simone de Beauvoir wrote one is note born a woman one becomes a woman - she didn't know the half of it.' Hmm.

Moran repeatedly says that woman have done very little (even nothing) over the last 100,000 years, while men she claims have made great achievements in science, art politics and repeatedly in her long lists she includes empire. I find it very problematic to list empire in with a list of great advancements without any deconstruction or critique of the very idea of empire. Evan's by contrast retells the stories of many great women's achievement both biblical and extra biblical. She also on occasion broadens her critique not just to hierarchy between genders but the idea of hierarchy at all in any context.

Both repeatedly use the word 'Lady'. I have written about my dislike of the word here. Evans however only ever used it in contexts where, had she been talking about men she may well have said gentlemen. Generally when she was talking about people and only once directed to the readers. Moran however got right up my noise by continually giving instructions to her readers preceded by calling them to attention with 'Ladies!'. 

Both authors while not writing a book about violence against women and the global situation do reference it. Evans to put her own struggles and difficulties in perspective. Moran to explain that the problem with modern feminism is that it is focused on these things while ignoring things like glossy magazines and pants being too small.

Both authors once mention the Vietnam war, both use it for illustrative purposes. In the case of both books I have forgotten what was being described! Evan's I remember said that some group of people discussed something - "Like veterans talk about 'Nam" I can't remember feeling it was inappropriate or offensive. I cannot remember the details of what Moran was talking about either save that it was about running away "faster than a Vietnamese boy covered in Nepalm". I wasn't expecting that sentence it kind of sprang at me from no where and made me feel positively sick.

Both authors discussed having children. Evan's wrote an honest and reflective account of her worries and fears about having children. She also explored issues around women's relationship with parenting and the difficulty of living in a world which defines women in relation to children and explored the duff theology in parenting as a woman's highest calling. Moran on the other hand wrote 'Childbirth gives women a gigantic set of balls'. To be fair on Moran this is not all she said and she did also point out that there are a variety of life experiences that can change and shape us. But it's almost that that makes these bizar one lines so problematic there is an inconsistency in her writing.

Both authors mention their vagina's. Evans in a discussion about teenage experience of church teaching on sex.  Famously there was big discussions about how that would affect christian bookshops and whether they were willing to stock the book or not. As far as I am aware there where no such discussions as to the inclusion of the c word which I can't even bring myself to write, but that's apparently what Moran calls her vagina.

Both books made me laugh out loud. Moran's book also made me shout and swear. Evan's book also made me cry. Moran's book left me with an overwhelming sense of frustration. Evan's book left me peaceful and wiser. 

A need for feminist research into neurodiversity

I have been brewing on this blog for a while. To be honest I just want to cry about it all. It all started a few months ago when life just became very very difficult. Not for any massive reason other than a dawning realisation that there are some parts of parenting I am not and probably never will be any good at and then a realisation that my partner was not going to be able to compensate as he too was not particularly good at, what from our point of view are miss-named, 'basic life skills'. 

Things like knowing what day it is, what your meant to be doing, where the nappies are kept, remembering appointments, spare clothes other parents names. I think one of my lowest points was 10 minutes after leaving the house realising I'd forgotten to put trousers on my child. 

The difficulties I've been confronted with in becoming a parent (which I've blogged about here) made me look again at the realities of being dyslexic (and having a very poor short term memory) and lead me to discover the concept of neurodiversity. Viewing my dyslexia/dyspraxia/ADHD as a diversity issue rather than a pathology fits my politics very very well. I started to read up (or more accurately listen up) and became more and more interested in the idea and the potential consequences to policy and practice within education if we adopted a neurodiversity model. I found this film particularly helpful if you have a spare 4 hours!

I tell you all this just as background to another common theme I unearthed. On many many websites I read that dyslexia/dyspraxia/ADHD where more common in boys than girls. I was always going to read such things with caution - and it appears rightly so because while many authoritative individuals and organisations report these claims I also unearthed evidence to the contrary. 

Dyslexia
The dyslexia association website says:
Recent research indicates that boys and girls are equally affected but our data suggests that three times as many boys as girls receive additional teaching because of their dyslexia.

I know my mother had to fight to get my primary schools to take my learning differences seriously. I was incredibly blessed my my secondary school taking it seriously. I've been speaking to other parents of girls who are likewise facing an uphill struggle in their advocacy. Mostly because their daughters are 'well behaved'.

ADHD
Again all over the place it states that boys are more likely to have ADHD than girls. But if you listen to the frustrations of people with ADHD about the policing of their behaviour, the telling off for moving, the admonistrations for not listening (When it's not that your not listening its just your not making eye contact), it is very obvious very quickly that girls with ADHD will have their behaviour doubly policed. 

Then there is this website. Which says it all really - girls internalising and boys externalising. All very depressing.

Dyspraxia 
I found no similar hidden research about dyspraxia, though it may well be out there. However on the list of signs and indicators dislike of team games and sport in general seem most prominent. Doesn't take a lot to hypothesis that it would be quiet probable that this contributes to the great diagnosis in boys. Girls who don't like sport are hardly going to be seen as having specific difficulties.

Autistic Spectrum Disorders 
Now here I really am in the realm of my own theorising. It interests me that their are some quarters that refer to the autistic brain as the extream male brain. Given the above; are we here too either not noticing signs and indicators in girls and women or is the way we raise boys (their is lots of evidence to say we talk to baby boys less, assess their emotions worse, leave them to cry for longer) putting them at greater risk of developing certain difficulties. 

In the four hour video I mentioned earlier it claims that in the states the Neurodiverse are the most over-represented minority group in both the prison population and the unemployed population. If this is true then it needs to be a feminist issue, it is certainly an issue of intersectionality. And if we take a social model of learning disabilities, then we should expect the manifestations of learning differences to appear differently in young men and young women since they very clearly exist in such different environments.

I can't tell you how troubled I am about this, but the intersection of learning differences and gender need to be researched by feminists or we will continue to horribly fail a certain group of girls and young women in the education system. 

I was incredibly lucky. My school invested in me so that the 11 year old with a reading age of 8 and writing age of 7 got to Cambridge I dread to think what would have happened had I not had that. 

Please please somebody do some research and let me know about it.

My tuppence on intersectionality

Don't bother reading this blog read this and definitely this oh and this oh and this is about why Christianity needs to be intersectional.

I just have two things to say about intersectionality, which I can't spell and to a certain degree don't understand.

1.) I am so grateful for the concept of intersectionality because as a privately educated, white, middle class oxbridge educated woman, who has never experienced violence at the hands of a man I have to honestly say that a lot of times the sort oppression I read about in feminist literature I have no experience of. I am still passionate about feminism. Intersectionality gives me the ability to say - yes I experience oppression as a woman - but I also experience huge levels of privilege, unfair privilege. I don't want to spread my privalege I want to understand how to give it up. How do I change the way I live so that the accident of my birth is no longer oppressive to others. I cannot look to people like me to give me answers.

I'm currently reading 'In Search of Our Mothers Gardens' by Alice Walker. I picked it up at a second hand bookshop cause it looked interesting not because I felt the need to read it (my privilege). What I didn't expect was to find it so emotional a read or so revolutionary. I expected it to be well written and interesting. I didn't expect it to explain to me what it means to be white. The truth is I don't think a white woman could write a book about what it means to be white. Privilege is blind (or often chooses to be). We must not reject criticism of those with less privilege we desperately need to seek it out if we our to find true humanity.

2.) It is nonsense to say that only 'academic' people can understand intersectionality. We all come acros new words all the time. First time I read it I hadn't heard it so I looked it up witch does not take an MA in gender studies. 

I ran a participative workshop recently with some of the most marginalised women in the country. I wanted to explore intersectionality with them as I wanted their perspective - they got it 100% and taught me loads and loads. The workshop wasn't really about explaining intersectionality of oppressions - they understood that in a way no MA or doctorate could ever teach. What it did do was give the problem a name and last time I checked that was a big part of what feminism was about - naming things. 

We mustn't shy away from new words, we should be the ones creating them. 

The Dyslexic Parent

I always used to pause when filling in job applications at that bit that asks if you have any disabilitys that affect daily life.

Do I? I'd wander - some days, but others not. Is it really suvear enough, what if I'm just making it up. Will they look at my cv see I went to uni and think I'm therefore exaggerating or making it up. Will they think it just means I can't spell?

I'm never going to hesitate again. Not since becoming a parent.

I didn't read many parenting books but of the bits I did read none of them mentioned any particular difficulties you might experience as a dyslexic parent and there's not a lot of stuff out there on dyslexia websites either, though when I posted a question in a forum it seems I am far from alone in my particular struggles.

Through life I have managed to develop coping mechanisms, these are utterly inadequate for organising 2 lives. I forget stuff and people say 'don't worry its just baby brain' I think 'you have no idea'. Before my daughter was born getting out the house having remembered my phone, keys, wallet, diary and bus pass without leaving windows open and the door unlocked was a major achievement as was getting through a week without forgetting something in the oven. 

Organising 2 lives is nigh impossible. I'm not sure I've once left the house without forgetting something. I'm finding it incredibly stressful. But we get through somehow and are very good at learning to improvise when we forget clean nappies, spare clothes, a drink etc. She hardly notices now (though I try to hide it from other parents cause I feel so incompetent) but I'm getting nervous about getting to school in a few years time without something significant.

Then people say have you thought about schools? And I think in my head - yes I have little panic attacks about it every time anyone mentions it. Then I have to remind myself that she's not me, she might love primary school, she might be able to spell. Then I feel a bit sad cause secretly I kind of hope she is because on good day's I'm chuffed to bits I'm dyslexic. Then I think actually I really don't want her to go through what I did. Then I worry cause she's 21 months and still can't walk and only just to crawl. 

So at the moment I am deffinately dyslexic and it deffinately affects my day to day life - and my daughters. Which lead me to do a bit of reading up and I have become absolutely appalled at reading that girls are just as likely to be dyslexic but 3 times less likely to receive support. 

I experientially know why this is. My mum was constantly told not to worry cause I was behaving well. The way we gender our children is clearly going to mean girls who are struggling at school won't have the same assertiveness and are likely to be overlooked because they are being 'well behaved' while boys who've had 'naughty' and 'trouble' written across them since they where born and who have been trained to have no weaknesses are going to kick up and 'behave badly' and are more likely to get help. 

I imagine also that girls will have extra incentive to keep quiet and head down because they will get extra told off about messy writing and not being tidy. 

 I cannot explain how angry I am about this.  

   

The essence of F***

‘I had to fake it till I made it’ is Rhianna’s explanation for how she became ‘so comfortable in her sexuality’, a sexuality which Esquire magazine described as ‘the very essence of F***’.  I think I found these statements some of the most disturbing of the whole interview.  Essentially it was a discussion not about the individual life choices and experiences of one 24 year old but a moment, for those who could see it, of real honesty about the pornification of the music industry and indeed the universe.

There have been a lot of responses that have raised concern about Rhianna’s comments about her relationship with Chris Brown, jumping to reiterate that abuse is never acceptable and berating Rihanna for not giving a more nuanced  response, especially since she was a ‘role model’. But even if she had given a model response would we want to be promoting her and by implication the industry she is involved in, as a role model.  

It makes no sense to say that Rhianna is comfortable in her own sexuality if she had to fake it until she made it. If she had to fake it, it is not her sexuality it is someone else’s, and is not about her pleasure, desire or sexual expression it is about someone else’s. But what choice did she have? As Gail Dines puts it the choice for many young women ‘is to be f***able or invisible’.

Rhianna was described as the very essence of ‘F***’ not ‘sex’, not ‘beauty’ not ‘love’ but ‘F***’ There is something in the word F*** that is inherently aggressive and violating.  The way we use the word reflects this. Have you ever heard anyone say ‘My love shall we have a F***’? It is rarely something mutual but normally describes one person doing something to another without consent and to the detriment of that person. I wonder if the pictures of Rhianna after Chris Brown assaulted her contributed to her ‘F*** essence’?

Rhianna stated that she was not sure that that was what she had been aiming for. I am fairly convinced it was exactly what many in the industry where aiming at for her and I’m not sure she really ever had a choice about how people would see her. But here we are, in a situation where the highest accolade for a woman is that she is the essence of ‘F***’.

Of course the other option available for women (though it is a little more niche and American) apart from invisible or ‘F***able’ is to be virginal, so virginal in-fact that you can’t even get raped and certainly can’t conceive from rape.

Is this why 50 Shades of Gray is so popular? I have to be honest I have not read it and do not intend to, but I have read substantial amounts about it. From what I gather the book is all about Ana becoming F***able and F***ed by a powerful, rich and controlling man. Women who have been so surrounded by pornified images and narratives, but for the most part still not able to overcome the social mores and watch porn, are perfectly able to read something penned by the hand of a woman (but really written years ago in the offices of Hustler et al.) that dresses itself up as a romance novel, and dream about gaining some value through becoming ‘F***able’.

And is this why so many people seem so confused about what rape is? ‘Cause clearly if a powerful man like Assange “inserts” (thanks George!) while you are asleep you have been ‘F***ed’ and should therefore be flattered. When ‘the essence of F***’ becomes the dictated ambition of women rape becomes a compliment.

It looks like the ‘essence of F***’ is here to stay impregnating every part of our lives, it looks like it is determined to be the dominant definition of what it is to be a woman, forcing all others into obscurity. But I for one refuse to be invisible and they can think of a million names to dismiss me with, but I will not become invisible.

I will not become invisible because I have unearthed other archetypes and role models, some in legend, some in story but my most favourite in scripture. A diversity of strong courageous diverse women who lived life on their terms creatively challenging the patriarchy around them and a Jesus who meet them on their own terms and offered them not 50 shades of ‘F****ed up’ but a celebratory rainbow of humanity. 

The pornification of childhood

My small daughter’s life is extremely edited.  She is likely to grow up thinking the only program on TV is Abney and Teal. She will have a surprise when she gets to school and discovers that the bedtime stories she’s come to love actually don’t have an equal representation of men and women and that the world is not a fair and egalitarian place.  And she will at some point encounter that horrifying narrative of the princess.

What has any of this got to do with porn? Well what I would like to argue is that:

1.) We use story and narrative to understand and explain the world and this is especially important to children.

2.) There is a particular narrative that Porn tells

3.) This narrative has been present in childhood for a very long time, but is now becoming more insidious and endemic and it primes children to accept and expect a porn narrative.

So what is the porn narrative? Essentially it is that women exist for the sexual pleasure of men and their worth is connected to how sexually attractive they are to men. Masculinity is defined by sexual violence and predatory conquest within the porn narrative. 

Recently I re-watched Disney’s Snow White. In an early scene Snow White is singing about wishing for the one she loves to find her, she is clearly not talking about someone she knows, she looks like a teenager. Suddenly an adult man appears beside her she is clearly frightened and runs away but then listens at the window flattered by the attention. We all know what happens at the end of the story, that while unconscious, having been drugged, this same man sexually assaults her and then they live happily ever after. (While we are at it Sleeping Beauty is the story of a women out cold, a strange man climbs through her window and sexually assaults her. This is not OK.) But that initial scene struck me as I had just finished Gail Dines’ chapter on the use of pseudo-child images and the narratives were very similar ‘At first she was nervous, but she wanted it really’.

So these storys we tell young girls and boys that normalise sexual violence and male ownership are far from new, but while they used to function to groom young girls into being submissive compliant wives who on getting wed discovered Cinderella had no better time of it in the happily ever, now we are seeing a narrative creep into childhood that has a slightly different angle. Building on the princess, girls are now taught that they must exude sexiness in order to please the men.

So enter beauty pageants (http://www.missminiprincess.co.uk/), Bratz by day Catz by night, (http://www.bratz.com/), pole dancing dolls, cute little playboy bunny’s everywhere, make up and high heels for toddlers, even Lego thinks a girls preoccupation should be beautifying herself (http://friends.lego.com/en-us/Products/Details/3187.aspx), and don’t even let me get started on Hannah Montana. While grooming our girls we equally groom our young men into a sense of privileged and a warped idea of masculinity. How many times have you seen 'naughty' 'trouble' etc written across toddlers just because they happen to be male. Boys watch the princess stories too and learn they are to be characterless thugs. Boys also play with dolls, only theirs come with weapons and biologically impossible muscles and a noticable absence of genitals.  

So the messages of porn are infecting early childhood, grooming and priming children so that as they enter adolescents their space and freedom to explore and discover their own sexuality is severely restricted. And now they are bombarded with normalising attitudes in magazines, television programs and even on occasion what purports to be objective positive information. Girls begin to experience sexual violence and intimidation in school environments and discover adults are ill equipped to respond and protect them, that victims get blamed and perpetrators get kudos. They begin to hate every part of their body because, like the all seeing eye in lord of the rings, the pornofied gaze is everywhere. The only option of validation left for a young woman is as a sexual object and the ultimate expression of masculinity for a young man is to perpetrate sexual violence.

I know some people think my anxiety about my own daughter and other childrens experience of childhood is misplaced, that it is not that dangerous or toxic environment I think it is, that body dismorphia and self loaving are not inevitable.  I agree, they are not, but in our current climate they are probable and I am not kidding myself about the kind of effort we need to make to provide an alternative storyline for young people.  Hugh Hefner himself said ‘I don’t care if a baby holds up a playboy bunny rattle’. So let’s not pretend that a powerful industry is not trying to groom the next generation of product and purchaser. 

The beginners guide to consensual sex

It has come to my attention that a great many people seem not to have the understanding and skills to enjoy healthy consensual sex.

I thought it might therefore be useful to outline here in brief some basic pointers. However if you are still unsure what consensual sex is I strongly advise you to seek further support before embarking on any sexual activity. This information is for those who are unsure how to ensure their partner is able to consent. Those who are not being given the space to consent are not the ones who don't understand consent.

1.) In order to engage in consensual sex it is important to understand what consent means. The law defines consent as follows:

"A person consent's if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to make that choice'

I've highlighted certain words here lets take a look at them one by one:

Agree: They were able to say 'no' and they choose to say yes.
Example:  'Would you like to have sex love,or do you need to get some sleep?'
                 'Oh yes please, I'd love to have sex right now'

Choice: They had at least two non harmful or threatening options.
Example: 'Would you like to have sex love?'
               'No thanks, I'm watching TV at the moment'.

Freedom: They are not coerced, manipulated or threatened in any way. It is therefore important that you don't physically restrain, threaten or otherwise attempt to control your partners behavior. If you are unsure you could try these line 'It's really important to me that we have consensual respectful sex, do you in any way feel you are unable to say no to sex?', 'Please don't feel any pressure if you don't want to have sex, I would much prefer it if you said no than do something you are unhappy or uncomfortable with.' or 'I understand that if you say no to sex you are not rejecting me as a person but that you don't want to have sex, or you are not comfortable with the particular sexual act.'

Capacity: A person does not have capacity if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or asleep (the law also states that anyone bellow 13 cannot consent and that it is illegal for anyone bellow 16 to have sex). If you want to have sex with your partner but they are asleep it is not possible to have consensual sex with them as a person who is asleep does not have capacity to consent.

We suggest the most appropriate action would be to leave them to sleep and get on with something else. Perhaps you could compose a poem for your partner about how much you appreciate them, or spend some time thinking about what you could do to sexually pleasure them. Then at a more appropriate time (probably not when they first wake up - especially if they are not a morning kind of person) you could share your poem or thoughts with them. If however you really want to have sex right then and there and you suspect they may also want to have sex you could gently wake them up and ask if they want to have sex. Proceed with great caution however as it is highly probable that they do not want to have sex and will be very annoyed at being woken up. But at least this way you have given them the opportunity to consent and have not committed a crime. If you are worried that you may want to have sex with your partner when they are asleep why not try this: 'Sometimes at 2 in the morning I'm awake and sometimes think it would be nice to have sex. How would you feel if I gently woke you up and asked if you were also up for it?'

2.) Talking really facilitates consensual sex, as many of the examples above have highlighted. It is apparently common for people to become concerned when they realise that they can't just have sex whenever they feel like it with whoever they feel like, that they will have to start getting written consent before every act. This is not necessary and actually also not sufficient. Consent can be withdrawn by either party at any point so even if you had a written agreement it would become invalid the minute it is signed. But don't panic! You can talk about sex. I am sure you arrange and organise many joint activities with your partner, like your social diary, what your going to do at the weekend, maybe you discus house chores, perhaps childcare arrangements. All these joint activities are things you discus and agree with your partner, its exactly the same skill set its just about healthy respectful communication and agreement. If your finding it hard try this line 'Love, I find it a little hard to talk about sex, I feel a little awkward and embarrassed, but I think it's really important to our sex life that we have good, honest discussions about sex so that we can both enjoy it and ensure that we are respecting each others boundaries. Do you think we could make some time to talk about sex, what we are comfortable with, what we like and don't like, what we would like to try?'

3.) Remember this simple rule: yes and no are two sides of the same speech bubble. If someone can't say no, yes is meaningless. If they haven't said no that doesn't mean they've said yes. Whenever we say yes to something we say no to something else, whenever we say no to something we say yes to something else.

Example: We say no to sex and at the same time we say yes to our current desire and need to sleep
               We say no to rape and at the same time we say yes to healthy respectful consensual sex
               We say yes to allowing our partner a choice and at the same time say no to sexual manipulation        and violence

So if you want your partner to say:
yes, yes,yes, yes, yes, yes, YES, YES, YES, YES!  to sex
you have to make sure they are able to say no.

Simples.

If you are still unsure about how to ensure you have do not have un-consensual sexual activity and thereby violate another human being and commit an offence check out this blog.

Brilliant Brave

(Warning: contains a few spoilers)

Would you believe that I voluntarily went to see Disney's new princess film... and loved it, absolutely loved it. I cried nearly the whole way through. 

Recently I was lent a copy of 'The Women who Run with Wolves' I've hardly started but am immediately  captivated by the idea of the wild woman archetype. I think Brave provides just that. Here's a girl who run's with bears.

I loved the couple of occasions where her bear mother leap's forward to defend her. It was a fantastic picture of the Mother heart of God.

I loved that the relationship between the two women (Merida and Elanor) was the central theme of the film. That it was really real, that they both learnt from each other, that there was reconciliation and that together they managed to challenge and change a patriarchal system. 

I loved that there was no man coming to the rescue.

I loved that even the witch came off well, and the sense that she was really standing in solidarity with Merida.

I loved that the sibling rivalry/collusion between Merida and her brothers seemed normal and healthy and wasn't about gender.

I loved that there was nothing ever at any moment passive about Merida, that she 'went out and made her own fate.' 

But the bit I loved most was the moment when she stood up and claimed her right as a first born to compete (for her own hand). This is what I want for our dear daughters, not passive princess like waiting for some man to come rescue them, but a fearless reckless bravery that stands up and dares to claim its full inheritance in Christ. 

It felt like Disney was almost deliberately having a dialogue with itself. The part of the old princess archetype was played by Elanor, who clashes with the new (though the scenery and setting made it feel that she could also have been the ancient) archetype Merida. And this is not a story about one vanquishing the other, both learn from each other and new possibilities are opened up. Merida is not an archetype that requires us to be like her, but one that open's up new possibilities, new questions. One that will give permission to our daughters to be themselves.

This is a brilliant, brave and welcome statement from Disney. Thankyou. 

"We're all individuals" - "I'm not"

(Lot's of Life of Brian References) 

However nice "always look on the bright side of life" is as a sentiment, the world would rapidly not be a nice place at all if we only ever spent our time looking at the nice sides. Unfortunately we need to look head on at the nasty bits, call them out and seek to change them. 'Cause sometimes life is "a pile of shit when you look at it", and someone needs to say it.

I feel I have been getting into many different arguments recently, about the Olympic closing ceremony, 50 shades of grey, whether its ok to say female commentators voices are 'grating', whether free market economics will solve all the worlds problems, etc. etc. 

Often I feel like I'm in that crowd of people all chanting 'we are individuals' and being the loan little voice suggesting that maybe we're not. 

The tyranny of western 'freedom' is starting to get me down :(

Let's take 50 shades of grey as an example. The reason I and many others are publicly and loudly stating that this book is about and condones abuse and we suggest people shouldn't buy it, is because we understand the normalising power of popular culture. 

You're reading 50 shades of grey on the tube - now you identify the behaviours of Christian Grey as abusive and would never tolerate it. But the 17 year old girl next to you, whose boyfriend makes her watch porn and who's just seen 50 shades prominently displayed in a bookshop and is now reading a bit over your shoulder, she now feels less able to say no to abuse and coercion. As Gail Dines points out the decision for many young women has come to be 'be a sexual object or be invisible'. 

Now you could say that's not your problem, that a person's right to read what they want shouldn't be infringed, that a book can't cause abuse, that someone else should do something to support this young woman, after all you're an individual, she's an individual, you don't know each other and have nothing to do with each other.

Or you could recognise that every choice you make, from where you keep your money, to what tea you buy, to who you give a platform, to what jokes you laugh at, to what you chose to market and sell, impacts on the degree of constraint or freedom of other people's choices. Now here's a choice: you could choose to let that be important data in your decision making process. 

So you can choose to continue to be in a crowd of individuals making individual choices, and strangely still all heading in the same direction, or you could join the little crowd of people who recognise their need for, and responsibility towards each other.

'What has individualism ever done for us?' Well it's brought us creative freedom, freedom of expression, individual rights etc. etc.  - But I still don't think it should get to be an occupying force. 

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

Uni-tube

I've just been watching a TED talk and it made me think - wouldn't it be amazing if we used the internet to democratise learning especially higher education. 

Higher education as it is at the minute is pretty expensive - whoever is paying. It's also designed for an elitist system. 3+ years hidden away from the rest of the world living apart from your family and community. And at the most 'elitist' universities structures that make it very difficult to engage in economically productive work. 

What about if we filmed and made available ALL higher education lectures to anybody and made uni lectures free to whoever wanted to go and people would just go to there local uni but when studying a subject you could watch lectures on that subject from any uni. It would massively increase the quality of teaching. We could call it unitub!

Then academic papers would have to be freely available - maybe through local library or cost reasonable amounts like say 50p a paper - seriously if you wrote a good paper and charged 50p and had a nation that had a culture of lifelong learning - you'd make a lot more than you do currently by writing a paper.

Lectures would have to be publicly funded - but it would be worth the investment because you would have one of the most educated populations in the world and that would be an enormousness resource.

You could have pop up study groups; people who want to talk about a certain lecture or paper or question could put an event on unitube and all meet at a coffee shop or library or something. This also would fundementely shift understandings of learning from ones where the teacher imparts knowledge to the student to one where we all learn from each other and all learning and knowledge is valuable. It would change attitudes to problem solving and stratergising in the work place because we'd have a culture of collective discussion and interrogation. 

If you really want to insist on the tyranny of exams - which are no sensible way to assess peoples ability. You could still run exams and people could pay to do them  rather than paying for the learning. 

And people could still pay to 'go to uni' if they really want - charge them a fortune to spend 3 years getting pissed and the rest of us can get on with life and take part in continuous learning. 

I have a list of about 4 or 5 Masters I'd like to do - mostly because I think they would hugely benefit the work I do with young people. There's a lot of research I can't access cause its just to expensive - what's the point in doing research into better ways of working with young people if practitioners are never going to read it? 

In summary I think what I'm trying to say is knowledge should not be privately owned. So I haven't got the time or the know how (writing a blog is about the most technical advanced thing I'm capable of) for this idea so if anyone wants to run with it please do. And a plea to lecturers, academics and universities out there if you want to do something really subversive in response to tuition fees why not make lectures and papers publicly available?

"Conservative christians" aren't the only ones with something to say...

I am unapologetically christian (and if you're into labels evangelical at that) and I am unapologetically feminist and socialist. This is not easy at the same time as being remarkably easy. I always say I am a feminist and a socialist not despite being a christian but because I am a christian - but that's a blog for another time.

Here I just want to try and explain why groups and spaces that only ever (or in the overwhelming majority of cases) refer to faith communities in terms of the 'religious right', are doing themselves and their causes no favours. I am in no way suggesting they stop exposing stupid things said by such groups but that they equally ensure they give the same platform  to faith communities with different perspectives. Here are the dangers I perceive with the current set-up:

1.) Firstly it gives an inaccurate portrayal of Britain's faith communities thereby spreading mis-understanding and miss trust and weakening community cohesion. What you say may be an accurate representation of a certain subset which is already very vocal - so why give them the microphone again? I know many many churches where it would be a brave person who admits that they vote Tory. Many christians are pretty left of centre. I can't speak for other faith communities but I'm sure the same is true - they are not all right of centre, but those voices that are not, are almost completely absent from those environments where I hear the 'religious right' condemned with huge regularity.

2.) Secondly it makes a group of people rather than an ideology the route problem. We need to confront and challenge the belief system if we are ever to change the world. And almost without fail when the 'religious right' or 'conservative christians' and blamed for a belief system I can think of several people with no faith who hold the same views.

3.) There is often a bad use of logic. I have very often heard people disregard an argument because its 'what christians believe'. Just because someone you don't like thinks one thing doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true!

4.) It plays straight into the hands of the 'this is a christian country' rhetoric. All those people out there who do not hold a genuine believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he came that we may be reconciled to God, to each other and to the earth, but who self define as christian for political motives are able to continue to wield political power. This is especially dangerous in our current climate. Because if you only present faith groups as right wing, you continue to feed that false perception, that this is a large group who have the hotline to God and face no criticism from within their community making them seem like a much larger group than they actually are and allowing those who do not genuinely have an active faith to align themselves with them.

5.) You alienate people like me, people who would like to be your allies. And I am very definitely not alone.

6.) You convince people the only option is to be religious + right or secular and left driving some away from faith and many away from the left. I know many christians who read right wing papers because they don't feel welcome elsewhere - if they did their politics might be very different.

We really need to change the understanding of faith and political views. I can't talk for other faith communities but certainly among the faith communities I'm part of 'conservative' christians are by far in the minority.  Most of us are desperately trying to see the world change in progressive ways, trying to be Christ-like, trying to see a just, equitable, sustainable world.

So next time you write or say something about 'conservative christians' or the 'religious right' could you just put in a sentence or two about what 'progressive christians' or the 'religious left' think. I would be very grateful.  Thanks.

My body

I love my body. It fascinates me. The way it changes, adapts, grows, learns, survives, thrives. It's energy, it's weariness, its journeying, its learning, it's power, its weakness, its uniqueness, its sameness, its joy, its sorrow, its story telling and its story making, it's dying and its renewing, its temporarlity and its eternity.

My body does not need to be thinned, tightened, controlled, straightened, perfected, tamed, tanned, lightened, changed.

My body is a paintbrush not a canvas. It creates its own picture, it is not a blank for others to paint perfection on.

I love my body, it is me and I am it. To alter it is to assault myself, to starve it is to hate myself.

I do not need to look in the mirror to know my body is there, it always comes with me. I do not need a mirror to tell me if there is something wrong with my body, it is supremely articulate and always let's me know. I do not need a mirror to tell me I'm the fairest in the land - I and my body have no desire to be.

My body beats the rhythm of the day, the week, the month, the year.

I am so tired of the war on my body. I was going to write a blog explaining why my vagina is not too lose, my legs not too hairy, my breasts not too saggy, but why should I. My body does not need to mount a defence against the tempest heading toward it, that storm's waves will crash apart against the rock that is my body.

I love my body and the more I'm told not to the more I'll love it in all its defiant glory. The older I get - the more defiant it will become it will wrinkle, increasing its ability to communicate a million complicated emotions, idea's and adventures. It will continue to journey away from that caged magazine pretty, towards beauty, freedom, hope, adventure, discovery, wisdom, death and glory.

Sorry

A poem about looking into the eyes of a girl child while hearing a woman's been shot essentially because she's a woman.


Beautiful new life, little girl, sorry.
In another land our sister was shot
and as you smile my heart is filled with worry
Oh what a world! What a cancerous rot!
As I lay you down in your bed to sleep
From in the dark shadows I'm sure I hear
Men's monstrous laughter seeking to creep
and patriarchal talons drawing near.
Beautiful new life, little girl, sorry.
In another land our sister was shot
And here you begin to write your story
While the world's hate seeks to distort the plot
Beautiful new life, little girl, sorry.
We've been hated since the fall from glory.

Privilege blindness is a choice

It is not uncommon for me to get very upset about a policy announcement, action or inaction from the current government. In fact I am starting to feel quiet depressed at the current situation to the point of spending large amounts of my day shouting or wanting to cry.

But today something happened that was so revolting it made even my mild mannered, peaceful husband shout 'what?'  and declare that he was very upset. I am referring of course to the announcement that housing benefit might be withdrawn from those under 25.

I'll be honest I've not read beyond the headlines, I can't bring myself too, I may end up in a quivering wreck on the floor. What upsets me most is that the political classes cannot pretend not to understand what they are doing.

I had an incredibly privileged upbringing, I've done the boarding school thing, I've done the Oxbridge thing, I've done the live at home at 22 thing. I understand that my life experience is not everyone's, I also understand that my life experience is grossly unfair. I choose not to let my privilege blind me. There may be many many things that my privilege makes it hard for me to understand, I am sure I have attitudes and prejudices that are just plain wrong and need changing and challenging, but God blessed me with two ears and I, to the best of my ability, choose to use them to understand the world.

David Cameron studied PPE. He must have been presented with a range of political theories so he has had alternative world views to choose from. He must know it is a possibility that young people on housing benefit are not mealy lazy scroungers.

And all this in the name of austerity. This is where the political classes  are really choosing to remain privilege blind. Spouting off rhetoric about austerity while none of them have to worry about what there children will eat tomorrow, whether they will be able to afford school shoes, how to pay the gas bill and resist the temptation to bye a wide screen TV on credit to paper over the wounds of poverty inflicted on them. They do not know what austerity means yet they use the word like it is everyone else who does not understand.

What struck me recently is that there is not actually less stuff, there's been no harvest failure, no mass loss of crops or livestock (not in uk at least) nothing real has changed since 2008, just economics and politics, just a change in hot air. There is more than enough to go round. The wealth of the richest thousand people in Britian has increased by £30bn more than the deficit and most of them pay significantly less tax as a proportion than the rest of us (with the exception of Dyson and Rowling).

It's all so very very wrong. And Mr. Milliband - I am very upset with you. Here's an idea; how about rather than joining the 'the Eastern Europeans are stealing British jobs' rhetoric you could point out that if we insisted on paying a living wage the 'competition' would disappear and workers would realise that they stood in solidarity with each other wherever they where from and that the real opponent was the powerful. If it is true (and I doubt it) that British workers are losing out on jobs because others will work for less, in worse conditions, then yes we could sort that by preventing people 'coming in' or we could not let employers exploit them then they would have no vested interest in employing them instead of those who have the power not to tolerate abuse. This should be pretty obvious you are called Labour for a reason.

We have not seen levels of inequality like the current ones since Dickensian days. Yes the levels of absolute poverty may be slightly different but inequalitie is huge and is the major problem not the deficit.

So to all politicians I would like to wake up tomorrow and not have to apologise to my daughter for the world she is going to grow up in. Just for a day could you chose to see the world through someone else's eyes. 

Your Vagina Smells Just Great!

On Saturday I was on a very pleasant walk with my beautiful family when suddenly I was confronted with an advert on the side of a phone box, which quiet honestly made me burst out laughing. It appears I am not the only one who noticed.

While the utter ridiculousness of Femfresh's product initially made me laugh I also find it incredibly sinister. The beauty industry has made an assault on most every part of our bodies, not even our vaginas are exempt from it's critique. 'Whatever you call it make sure you love it' translation: If your not using our product you are not loving your vagina and it needs special products cause it's a little bit smelly and gross.

This in a week where we've seen uproar because someone dared to use the word vagina in a debate in Michigan. And the Christian world is no more comfortable with the word, though I am glad the it did make it into Rachel Held Evan's book (http://rachelheldevans.com/victory-vagina).

So can I make a plea. Please love your vagina, vulva, clitoris et al. and know that it is just great the way it is, there is a reason it doesn't smell of flowers. And before you feel the need to purchase something that promises to provided 'multi-Actif deoderising complex to provide that little extra reassurance', ask yourself, when was the last time you thought 'gosh her vagina smells', why have they miss-spelt active and did I feel the need for reassurance previous to seeing this ad?

Porn is NOT like doing the washing up

This mourning while doing the house work I have been watching Louis Theroux's documentary 'Twilight of Porn Stars.' There is so so much so very very wrong with this 'documentary' but I'll leave the critique about whether the industry is 'dying' to the excellent Gail Dines. (See here)


Just to briefly make the point that no one would argue that because seamstress in Bangladesh where getting less pay and finding it harder to find work that the clothing industry was in crisis.  


I just want to explore whether porn is like doing the washing up? Several people during the documentary made that point that we all have to do things we don't want to do. 


Today I have a day of admin and house work before me, I don't particularly want to do any of these things. So far I have done half the washing up, half sorted the laundry and half cleaned the bedroom. I have not particularly enjoyed any of them, but neither have they exposed me to huge levels of risk and abuse.


Not really wanting to do anal, but doing it anyway because we all have to do things we don't really want to do, is so very very different from not really wanting to do the washing up but doing it anyway, because we all have things we don't really want to do.


Firstly I am not doing the washing up for financial reasons, I'm doing it because its part of life. Capitalism has so  warped how we understand work that we see money as the end product of work. Work should be about changing the world, stewarding and governing, it moving it towards Shalom. Money should be the way we codify stewardship. An unwanted sexual act produces nothing towards this end. 


Secondly doing the washing up does not compromise my bodily integrity. The body is not a product, the body is not an apology, the body cannot be sold or bought. A sexual act that is unwanted, where a person does not feel able or cannot say no is a sexual offence. This was brushed over in the documentary, left unchallenged. Could someone say no? was not asked.


Thirdly there is not a huge weight of documented evidence to show the damaging effects of the washing up, nothing to expose the coercive nature of the washing up industry, it will not increase my risk of infection, anal  hemorrhage and I will not only be able to sustain involvement in the washing up for an average of three years, no one is making billions out of my doing the washing up.


The documentary ended by saying 'Porn is a refuge for people fleeing lives of chaos a place where they can blend in and feel valued' these words made my stomach turn. What a misunderstanding of the word refuge and what irony at a time where services seeking to provide refuge from gender based violence are being slashed. 

Breast vs Bottle War

I have not eaten Nestle for half my life. 14 years. Now you all know how old I am. That is how much I value breastfeeding.

I complained about a display in a local shop that had cow's head's on female dressed manikins with a sign declaring 'Breast is Best', I value Breastfeeding.

But I cannot walk round the adult world and tell who was breast fed and who wasn't.

It's just not as important as we'd like to make it. Sure there are questions to be asked about capitalist marketing, about women's body image and support of the wider community, but at the end of the day what matters is that the child was fed and held and loved.

Pendulum's swing and in reacting against pressure we must ensure we don't create it. There are women distraught because they cannot breastfeed or can't produce enough milk or don't want to, or want to return to work or have to return to work.

Feminists need to create a rhetorical environment that values breastfeeding but also values choice. That values the best for the child recognising that that is not divorced from the needs of the mother. In responding to a situation where women where coxed and coerced into using formula lets not create a situation where they are coxed and coerced into not using formula.

Stop the mummy wars join the movement for parent peace.

I vow to thee, the market

As promised in my previous blog my take on an old hymn:

I vow to thee, the market, to support your bet,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of your debt;
The debt that asks no question, the debt that fails the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The debt that’s bound to falter, the debt that pays the price,
The debt that makes unquestioned the final sacrifice.

I heard a country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of deficit it calls and calls to me.
The people all are paying for a future full of dread,
And round her land are lying the dying and the dead.
I hear the noise of cut backs, the rhetoric of what’s fair,
I haste to pay taxes, but not all pay their share.

And there's another system, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that seek it, most great to them that know;
We may not rate its credit, we may speak of her King;
Its fortress is not usury, her pride not profiting;
And soul by soul they don’t care if the shining bonds increase,
As its ways are ways of generousness, and all its paths are peace.

Yearning for a Jubilee

What sort of country do we live in? A country that buses 300 people into London, makes them sleep under a bridge in bitter weather and work for free? 


A country that makes an elderly couple stand for 80 minutes on a boat in freezing whether? While our grotesque colonial history is celebrated, while a crowd that is totally unrepresentative of London looks on, while the bankers take a holiday from making debt and young girls aspire to being a princess just like Kate, cause there sure aren't any other jobs around.


Oh yeah its a country that sings this totally un-biblical and ridiculous song:


I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above, 
(Don't even get what 'all earthly things above means?)
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love; 
(that surely is idolatrous? to vow your love to something other than God?)
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
(yeah cause Jesus didn't do discursive teaching he was all about dictatorship)
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
(This is a huge thing to vow and again it is idolatrous to vow it to your country, but didn't Jesus say something about not swearing by anything or making vows?) 


I heard my country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.
Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,
And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.
I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns,
I haste to thee my mother, a son among thy sons.
(We don't normally sing this verse hey? totally revolting. Why has Britain never repented of this humiliating part of our history? why do we remember it with such a romantic gloss? While we continue to bash the Germans and continently forget that taking other people's countries was something we lead the way in.)


And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
(It is not "another country" it is the rule of God, there is no comparison. Neither is it the thing of long ago - it is at hand, subverting power structures)
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
(Somehow this line reads as a little patronising)
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
(You would quail in your boots if you saw Him - but He is there to be known by anyone who wants)
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
(We are not proud to suffer - there is nothing biblical in that idea, we rejoice through suffering not because of it and take pride only in Jesus Christ)
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
(It is not silent - there is more rejoicing in heaven luke 15:7)
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.


Think I feel a hymn re-writing coming on.


Come Lord Jesus and sort us out we need a jubilee sooo badly. 

Porn is NOT about your private masturbatory life

"You need to balance keeping your values against your partner's entitlement to a private masturbatory life"

Recently through twitter I came across what I initially thought was a fabulous video debunking porn myths, what a great resource I was thinking, till the end when the conclusion was that porn is great and sex is great they're just different. 

Concerned I wondered over to the website that had created the video and discovered it was a website designed for young people aged 16 to 25 about health and well-being. The page on porn made some very good points but also had gaping holes. There was no discussion about making and distributing pornography - and for this age group that is definitely an issue. And the only reference to the exploitative nature of the industry was as one possible reaction a young women might have on discovering her boyfriends secret porn collection, no discussion about whether this is a well founded concern. 

Lets imagine for a minute the conversation was about finding out your partner is secretly a member of the BNP would being concerned about the racist nature of that group be one of several possible reactions and explored no further and would the ensuing advise be "you need to balance keeping your values against your partner's entitlement to a political life?" I would hope not.

What is the difference between balancing your values and compromising your values? I think there is a confusion of values with issues of taste. My partner does not expect me to drink coffee, get excited about football or history documentaries and nor do I actively try and convince him not to do the above, we have different interests. However he also knows that there is a long list of food stuffs that I will insist we do not buy, a limited number of places we can buy clothes from, and very specific places we keep our money. Because I do not want to be involved in the exploitation of any other human being. These are values I will not budge on, though sometimes do slip up on.

Most people masturbate at one point or another but porn is not about masturbating it is a juggernaut of an industry that is systematic degrading of all women (and many men) and exploitative and abusive of those women ensnared in the industry. We are human, humans beings have sexualities but porn is not humane. When a person chooses to watch porn it is not a private activity many others are involved and those others are humans and I will not compromise about that.

The Pornoglare

A poem inspired by Gail Dines' Pornland and Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland! Probably won't make much sense if you haven't read The Jabberwocki.

`Twas normling, and the sleazy perves
Did gawp and grimace on the web:
All wanky were the femaphobes,
And the playboys outbleb.

"Beware the Pornoglare, my child!
The jaws that tare, the claws that gag!
Beware the Hustler bird, and shun
The profitmine de-beautmag!"

She took her Buttle sword in hand:
Long time the maxcore foe she sought --
So rested she by the Tumtuc tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in femish thought she stood,
The Pornoglare, with eyes of blame,
Came gourging through the primesat wood,
And distorted as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The Buttel blade went snicker-snack!
She left it dead, and with its head
She went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Pornoglare?
Come to my arms, my beamish girl!
O frabjous day ! Callooh! Callay!"
She chortled in her joy.

`Twas equaling , and the bodyforms
Did mix and mimble in the posed;
All gone were the gender norms,
And the sexism exposed.

Though it might seem like it because some of the words and concepts are new this is not a nonsense poem, just as anti-porn literature is NOT nonsense. 

So here's a few words that may need defining:

Normling: refers to that time of day before dinner after school pick up when your to tired to listen or think properly and the tv babysitter is the only thing that keeps you sane. The time when your intellectually most vulnerable the time and space that some people use to normalise what is not and should not be normal.

Outbleb: Bleb is a protrusion on a membrane or a fluid filled blister. To be outbleb is when the gunge you've filled yourself with bursts filling the mainstream or when other blisters grow so big they engulf you.

Profitmine: something that knaws into you for profit.

De-beautmag: A creature that takes away your sense of beauty. 

Buttle sword: a rhetoric cast in the mold of Josephine Buttler

Femish thought: A mind most detested by the Pornoglare, independent, deconstructive, creative and powerful

Primesat: A place that has been so saturated with the Pornoglare dung that the trees have both come to be dependent on it and poisoned by it. (A combination of primed and saturated)

Equaling: The time of day when you are most alert and celebrating life and humanity.

Posed: All places where images are placed for public viewing

The rest of the words that don't make sense you can blame on Carroll!