Baby-killing lesbian witches: Why I have the word Feminist tattooed on my back

 A few weeks ago, I got my first tattoo. It's awesome. Seriously, look at it:

Like I say: awesome.

I've known that I would get a tattoo from the age of 13. In that time, I've thought long and hard about what I wanted, and where I wanted it. When I was 13, I'm pretty sure that I had my heart set on a tribal armband around the upper arm. Thank goodness we don't let 13 year olds get tattooed. As I grew older, I understood more about why I wanted to be inked.

It was probably coming across Michel Foucault and the concept of inscription that really solidified the pretty ephemeral "Oh I'd like a tattoo one day" into "I want a tattoo that is a piece of art unique to me, which demonstrates my relationship to the world around me through my own relationship with my body." 

My final piece reflects so much of what's been important in my life - the teacup not only reflects my love of tea (as legendary as that may be), but the thousands of cups of tea I've shared with friends and family over the years. The pattern on the teacup is an adaptation of an arabesque from Alhambra mosque - it represents the education I have been privileged to receive. Books have been intrinsic to that education, as well as providing a means of escape. 

And then there's FEMINIST.

It's been the element of the tattoo that has caused most comment from those who've seen it. Some folk have loved it, others have been concerned that it could be inflammatory. One man even expressed concern for any man who would need to look down and see it during sex. How inconsiderate of me to interrupt their objectification of me!

But then there's the brilliance of how it has sparked up conversations with all manner of people. It's allowed me to engage in feminism with all manner of people, and the big theme that has come up has been about what a feminist is. 

Obviously I've told them the truth. A feminist must do all the following:

• kill their children (and encourage other women to kill theirs)
• hate men
• be lesbians
• practice witchcraft
• destroy capitalism
• grow their body hair
• consider all men as potential rapists
• eschew make-up
• stop making sandwiches

The first 5 come from one of my favourite quotes of all time, from US politician Pat Robertson, uttered in 1992:

Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

The final one comes from the Tumblr Women Against Feminism, which is greatly amusing if you're ever at a loose end. Basically, you get a bunch of women who have enjoyed the privilege of education and freedom to express their thoughts explain why feminism is a bad thing for all of those who haven't got those rights, or have the audacity to ask for equality. Usually it's framed as them arguing that feminism has turned into a war on men, where men are all vilified and seen as potential rapists. But then...

Then there are moments of such glory that I think they are surely taking the mick, that it's all a brilliant send-up of the nonsense that is women who are using the rights that feminism brought them to argue that feminism is awful.

Like Sandwich woman. Sandwich woman doesn't need feminism because:

recieving special treatment based on your gender is exactly what feminists claim to dislike, which makes it nothing more than hypocritical ignorance. [sic]

Yep, because feminists are the ignorant ones here. For seeking the same treatment as men. Bless her wee misguided heart, she then goes on to give my favourite defence of anti-feminism ever:

 I don't want feminism because the will to be equal to men in every aspect does not kill spiders, carry things that are heavy, or protect me. I also really enjoy making sandwhiches. [sic]

Firstly, I am confused. I know, I am a woman. But I am amused that our special treatment is apparently all about the will to be equal to men. I could have understand her - very, very wrong - argument if she was basing it on the idea that feminists want to rid the world of men. But no, this is hypocritical ignorance.

But that's not the biggest problem.

No, the biggest problem is that Sandwich woman really enjoys making sandwhiches [sic], preferably in a world free of spiders with no heavy lifting, whilst feeling protected (presumably from pesky feminists dropping their wombs all over the shop whilst attempting to move stuff). It is a well known fact that if feminists were to get their way, then we would have roving mercenaries snatching bread knives from the hands of women everywhere, whilst enslaving men the world over to provide for all of womankind's sandwich needs. The HORROR.

Or, y'know, we could just let anyone who wants to make sandwiches do that. At last check, I didn't find that my vagina had a lot of input in the sandwich making process. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I want to speak to Sandwich lady. To tell her that being a woman (however you define it) isn't a set way of being. That I would rather lift heavy things than make sandwiches. That we shouldn't live in a world where anyone NEEDS to be protected, that I can walk home alone and know that I will be fine.

But most of all I want to ask her why she is contributing to a movement that is happy to take the gains from feminists past, whilst refusing the opportunity to progress for other women. Women getting equal rights doesn't mean that you won't be able to make sandwiches, or that you will be forced to do heavy lifting. But it does mean that women who are receiving less pay get the same. That women have access to necessary healthcare. That there will be a cultural shift where men don't feel the need to prove their masculinity through violence towards others. That girls will stop being forced into marriage, and suffering the catastrophic effects of childbearing at a young age. That girls get equal access to education, and the opportunities to give their voices in parliament.

Feminism isn't hurting you. But you are hurting other women through your engagement with the anti-feminist movement. I'm not forcing you to accept the label of feminist, but simply asking you to not shout down others who are trying to stand with the rest of humanity, for the good of humanity as a whole.

Feminism isn't a monolith, there are huge disagreements within, but fundamentally we are fighting for equal rights for all. I stand with my fellow feminists. I wear the word with pride.

Happy International Women's Day!

The Willful Ignorance of Underfunding RE

[This may be a bit befuddled - I'm a wee bit ill!]

Have you ever felt the need to roll your eyes and utter such joyous phrases as "you're an ignorant muppet hell-bent on proselytising about how you don't want to be proselytised to" or "how long did it take you to come up with that clever little sarcastic comment demonstrating how free thinking you are (which is suspiciously similar to every other comment)"?

I do.

And when times like these strike, there is only one place where such solace can be found - the Guardian Faith Section. It is a bastion of idiocy in which one can delight in rolling one's eyes right to the back of their head and then for a few more spins. Ahhh.

But occasionally, these comments appear elsewhere. A bit like when you find that tenner you'd forgotten about at the bottom of your handbag, in amongst the 20 million receipts. And today's post is brought to you from such a time...

As I was innocently reading the Guardian website this evening, I stumbled across this article. It details the struggle of a former RE teacher to fund the basics in her subject, and provides an interesting insight into how RE is viewed by those in charge of the purse strings. In summary, it was worth less than £1 per pupil per year in her school.

Yet this sum is decried as "£1 too much". Evidently apart from the commenter's horrific spelling in the rest of his/her post, s/he has no grasp of numbers since the article explicitly states that it is less than £1 which is spent. But pointing that out would be facetious of me.

Other comments claim it is a pity that there are any RE teachers left, and an assertion that the money would be better spent in science. I've already touched on the science vs humanities debate on the blog, but in short, such an argument is reductive at best.

Yet it all comes down to how worthwhile we consider RE (and various permutations) to be. It is hardly surprising, that as a Religious Studies graduate I believe RE to be invaluable. Indeed, I genuinely can't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.

We live in a world shaped by religion, even if we live in the secular bubble of those denizens of the Faith comment threads. They may argue until they are blue in the face that religion does not and should not have any place in their lives, but they encounter the influence of religions and beliefs daily (and I'm not even getting into the 'atheism as religion' debate here). By seeking to ridicule and belittle religion, these people engage with belief on a fundamental level: choosing whether, and how, to believe. For many kids, the only place they will gain the tools to embark on this debate is in RE. This is especially true as the number of families who can be described as 'non-religious' or 'secular' (particularly those who don't really choose any position but ignore the present of religion) increase. It is easy to ignore religion in Britain, if you are willing to ignore debates on faith schools, atheist bus campaigns, Qur'an burning, abortion limits, hijabs, continuing campaigns on LGBT rights, equality of women, religious festivals, multiculturalism, stem cell research, religious symbols in public places, and the justifications of wars, to name but a few particularly pertinent topics.

But to ignore religion on a world stage is willful ignorance.

To 'educate' a generation of pupils at less than a pound each is to bring up our next generations of politicians, generals, businesspeople, teacher, holidaymakers etc without vital knowledge.

And worst of all, we will have no-one with enough knowledge to troll the Guardian faith pages.

Rape IS Rape: Giving Ken Clarke the Keys to a Special Level of Hell

It's been a while since I banished anyone to a special level of hell. However, Jane Austen and those who use the word 'frape' have a new hellmate* (see what I did there?) Ken Clarke, our esteemed Justice Secretary has today given the victims of date rape and any form of non-violent rape a kick in the teeth by declaring that these crimes are 'not as serious' as violent rapes.

Serious rape is violent rape. It plays upon the myriad of stereotypes that continue to plague the victims of rape; indeed, Craig Palmer would love it. We all know what rape is. It's that dodgy looking creep who stalks the city streets late at night, preying on vulnerable young women. Heaven forbid that it be a woman's partner, or that she is coerced by non-violent means. Who'll take her seriously unless there are hand marks around her neck?

It's not even just a question of evidence in a trial though, it is another way to blame the victim. If she isn't covered in marks and bruises then she must have assented - he wasn't being violent towards her so how could she not have stopped it? She must have wanted it.

Clarke is explicit in his belief that there is a hierarchy of rape - when faced with the statement "Rape is rape" he replies "No it's not". As for Date rape, well: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes". Can be, not is, and when did the government introduce a Top 10 Worst Rapes countdown?!

To be fair to Clarke (an extraordinary difficult attitude to take when faced with such an idiot), the other issue he points out is that of underage sex. In Scotland, at least, there is a difference between statutory rape and underage sex, the former being the crime pursued regardless of issues of consent with a child aged 13 or under, and the latter referring to those between 14 and the age of consent. Underage sex is a less serious crime, as is reflected in Scottish law, and if there is no distinction in English law then perhaps Clarke should have thought about dealing with that before opening his trap and spouting a crock of dangerous idiocy.

Rape in the "ordinary, conventional sense" that Clarke talks about - violent rape by a stranger, is a terrible crime, but rape is rape. Even if you know that person. Even if you are coerced by non-violent means. Rape is Rape. To have the Justice Secretary disagree with such a statement is to perpetuate the myths that rape victims have to tackle daily. That is an injustice. That is a disgrace. That is why Ken Clarke should resign with immediate effect.

* Also, for anyone keeping count of those banished to hell, Nadine Dorries is there for her ridiculous opinion that child sex abuse victims brought it on themselves. A twisted misogynist who will fit right in.

Feminism and Religion: Census and Sex Trafficking

I am a feminist. This may have come across on the numerous posts I've written on this topic, but for further clarification, check out the links at the side.

I am also a Christian, of sorts. When it came to that all-important question on the census I left it blank, an action that will no doubt have Religious Studies scholars for generations to come tearing their hair out. I have issues with quantitative analysis of religion. I also got a bit twitchy when the campaign to get the non-religious to say so took on a slightly unsavoury bent; if you are not religious, then say so, because then we can prove religion is loosing it's grip on society and we are trundling along to become a secularist society. Or indeed when some Christians get panicky about the increasing numbers of Muslims in the world. Numbers are irrelevant.

I also find it hard to put myself into a box - perhaps the easiest (some would say most true) response would be to tick the Christian box with the addition of Salvation Army - as the denomination in which I currently worship - underneath. But I can't be defined like that, my dislike of charges of heresy mean that I am quite well suited to denomination hopping and I can't claim that I am sure I will attend SA worship forever.

However, my fundamental issue is with declaring myself a Christian. The term holds so much baggage and requires a list of caveats at least ten foot long. The way I conceive of my own spiritual life owes much to other religions - for example I think that the doctrine of jihad offers a brilliant concept of how I perceive 'the devil', I have no issues with meditating etc - that it seems wrong to nail my colours to that mast.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that Christianity, in these surveys, is not what I make it. It is a distilled, intellectualized and academic exercise, determined by preconceived notions of what is Christian and forced to tick certain boxes. My opinions on religious pluralism, gender, religious leadership and sexuality (not simply orientation, but other issues like premarital sex) don't fit into the category of Christian that most people would use, and so, for these purposes, can I be called a Christian?

Anyway, that little tangent was borne of the real reason for this post - my sadness at the opinions on show in this situation. The government has awarded funding for the Poppy Project - a service for victims of sex trafficking to the Salvation Army, over the bid of previous provider Eaves Housing. However, Eaves Housing has accused the government of an 'ideological' decision which harms the vulnerable women they are trying to help.

The article fails to go into detail about whether the ideological issues arise from the government spending cuts, which they argue will give women a cut price service, or the religious issues at stake, as is hinted at in the reference to the Salvation Army's mission to reach people through evangelism. However, reading through the comments section (always an interesting activity if one has a spare afternoon and the need for a bit of therapeutic anger) it seems that there is a real concern that a Christian organisation has been given the contract for this work. Comments tend to focus around the fear of services being predicated on assent to evangelistic works and possible conflicts of interest in this work.

As someone who works in service provision for vulnerable people, I find it ridiculous that people would assume that the contemporary Salvation Army would refuse to provide a service unless some willingness to conversion was shown. For my part, I am working as someone with fuzzy-wuzzy Christian-ishy like belief kind of things within a Christian organisation, and I see my work as "evangelistic" (if one would wish to apply such a loaded term) in the sense that religious leaders have given religious weighting to serving the vulnerable/needy/poor/sick/dying. I do not demand that religion is even discussed, though I will talk about my beliefs when asked. The SA offers chaplaincy and counselling where it is desired, be that through formal prayer etc or through informal support and should be praised for that.

Possible conflicts of interest again brings me to my point way up at the top - people will judge by their own preconceived notions of what Christians believe (as a monolithic and static group singing off the same hymn sheet). But contrary to some comments, I know that I have no issues with supporting a victim of sex trafficking through an abortion, or providing a service to homosexual/bisexual service users. To suggest otherwise is utterly insulting.

Now if Eaves Housing are concerned because women will not receive the specialist treatment they require, then I wholeheartedly support their claim for these women should be at the centre of any debate. But, if the reactions I have responded to above are illustrative of the basis of their claim then I am appalled.

I am a feminist. I am 'religious'. But the wellbeing of these women comes before either of those concerns.

I Would Spit on Him. Unless He was on Fire...

I know, I know. I'm mean and horrible. Unless you consider who I'm talking about, in which case you may be more amenable to my way of thinking...

That's right, it is the monster that is Clameron, or Camegg. I've not decided yet.

And why, oh why would these odious, duplicitous little goblins make me act in such a terribly impolite manner?

WELL.

We've got an issue that is close to my heart, even if it doesn't directly affect me - tuition fees. I will say here and now I can't imagine a time I'd ever vote Tory. Ever. Like, unless my local Tory candidate was standing against Nick Griffin, and I'd still be tempted to spoil my ballot. My feelings about the Lib Dems (or Labour if you want to accuse me of being partisan) were not quite as entrenched, but the sight of Clegg's smarmy (and worryingly indistinguishable from Cameron's) face and manner in the election debates, as well as my inability to shake off the feeling that he was the illegitimate love child of Pinkie and the Brain - all the world dominating ambition but with the ability to only say nyarf - meant the Lib Dems weren't getting my vote either.

(Side note: I'm not actually keen on the idea of party politics anyway, but the fact that my constituencies Tory and Lib Dem candidates spouted the same rubbish as their 'leaders' meant that they didn't get a vote.)

But it seems the rest of the country is STUPID and/or were mislead by greasy lies, and so we have a ConDem Nation.

It took a while, and I got over the sharp pain in my brain whenever I realised that those muppets were in power. So much so I didn't even get violent at those who admitted they voted these idiots in.

Then the cuts happened. Tripled tuition fees for many students came in, just to make sure that your universities are filled to the brim with clones of our power sharing team, who were privately educated at two of the best regarded schools in the country, and we can patronise all 'poor' students who need to be catered for with practical training, because heaven forbid they want to go to university too, or even, horror of horrors, wee Tarquin from Harrow wants to be a roof slater.

Iain Duncan Smith told people to 'get on their bikes' and look for work when no suitable jobs were available in the immediate area. Which is fine and grand. Unless the nearest suitable job requires public transport, which is going up in price. Or if you have a young family or sick relatives and need to take on caring responsibilities.

But what makes me truly incandescent with rage is the ways in which the government has targeted women in their cuts. The Fawcett Society brought an action against the government for sex discrimination, in which it was found that no gender impact assessment was carried out.

The most horrific example I have come across is the situation in Devon, where the cuts in council grants mean that three main charities working with victims of domestic/intimate partner violence have had their funding cut. By 100%. That is not a misprint, one hundred per cent. The Devon model has won awards for their success in working with some of the most vulnerable members of societies, but when the economic crisis (would it be churlish to point out the massive gender disparity in bankers here?) hits, women are disposable. As I've argued before, the myth that women are equal is damaging, and here it is being put into practice.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm keeping my saliva to myself.

The Truly Offensive 'F' Word

Over the past couple of months I've had numerous discussions about issues relating to my embryonic thesis - rape, sexual violence, inequality, patriarchy etc - with a number of very good friends, each of whom has seemed shocked at the fact I used the 'f' word to describe myself.

I am a feminist.

I understand that the term 'feminist' means very different things to many people. A postcard I picked up in Oxfam today read:

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, US Politician, 1992.

Yeah, ninety-two.

For me, Feminism is the acceptance of an ideology which promotes the equal political, social, economic, religious, legal and sexual rights of women and men. It does not mean that I hate men; instead, I argue that men themselves suffer from the effects of patriarchy. Patriarchy entrenches a gender binary which is portrayed as 'natural' by it's derivation from the notion of sex. Because I fit the 'natural', 'medical' definition of a woman, I am expected to embrace that identity and work within it. For men, they must adhere to the societal norm of the 'macho' - they will wear 'men's' clothes, they will engage in 'men's' activities. A man in a boob tube and hotpants, cross-stitching is something to ridicule and thus bring into line. For those who do not fit into the narrow binary of male-female, there is the pressing concern of choice. Someone must make a choice as to which gender they will be, because society cannot deal with anyone who accepts their identity as intersex. Every citizen will adhere to the gender chosen for them, and although this has some flexibility in modern Britain - I was able to walk into a shop and buy men's shoes without too big an issue, for example - there is certainly a bias towards women in that respect. A man who walks into a woman's shoe department is judged, often severely, and labelled for that. As a feminist, I believe that working against the patriarchy which perpetuates this binary is beneficial for men and women alike.

Another issue that crops up is the fact that Feminists were A-OK during the Suffragette movement, and back in the '60s but in the year 2010 women enjoy equal rights with men. This myth is one of my biggest bug-bears because it lulls the modern woman into a false sense of security. The law may say that women and men will be paid equally for the same work, but the law does not take into account the disproportionate number of women engaged in part-time employment because they have caring responsibilities. The law also perpetuates the image of the woman as primary care-giver for children, with inequality in maternity/paternity leave. Heaven forbid a couple who wish to co-parent. I have read about female academics in the US taking off their wedding ring to attend a job interview because married women are less likely to be employed as they might want to start a family in the near future, causing the male powers that be to find maternity cover and then she'll probably want to go part-time and we'll just have to go through the hiring process all over again. Married male academics are encouraged to wear a ring because they might want to start a family soon and that means that he's settled and committed. 2 women a week are killed by their partner and there is a call made to the police regarding domestic abuse every minute. I've written extensively about the issue of rape and legal inequalities so have a look at Why Frape isn't Funny and Repressed Ranting for further details on that.

Aside from that is the issue of women in other countries who suffer the most horrific forms of injustice and abuse. I've written before about the statistic that a Pakistani woman is raped every hour, every second rape is an attack on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. The situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo has also been mentioned in some of my posts. This week, a series of articles in the Guardian made me weep. The first contained one of the most appalling statistics I've ever come across. A South African woman is more likely to be raped than to learn to read. I cannot even comprehend what that statement means, let alone get my head around the case it mentions of a 7 year old girl gang raped at school by a 9 year old and two 11 year old boys. The second cites that 37.4% of men surveyed admitted to rape. Over a third.

I am a feminist because I refuse to stand back and convince myself that the world has become enlightened about women's issues and become equal. I am a feminist because I believe in a fair and equal society where everyone can express themselves as they wish without fear of ridicule or reprisals. I am a feminist because I believe that no-one should be fearful of their safety in their homes and on the streets.

I am a feminist because if I am not, I am refusing my own voice and the voices of women across the world unable to speak.

I am a feminist, and I am proud.

The Law is an Ass - Where is my Shotgun?

I was astounded and pretty upset to read this article yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/08/rape-case-woman-appeal.

A woman in Wales has been sentenced to 8 months in prison for perverting the course of justice by retracting a rape allegation against her husband. Reporting her husband had raped her 6 times, the woman withdrew the allegations a few months later, before again contacting the police to assert that the attacks had actually taken place. She claimed that her husband had been emotionally blackmailing her during the breakdown of their marriage, causing her to retract her initial allegations.

The police did not respond with any attempt to ensure the woman's safety and stability in the aftermath of a pretty hellish period. No. They arrested her instead.

What. The. Hell?

I obviously know only the details of the case which have been made public, and one cannot discount the possibility that the woman was making the claims up all along. However, that is besides the point - by imprisoning this woman, the police force have further kicked a boot into any woman that has been raped. I've blogged about the appalling statistics regarding rape conviction before, but it is important to remind ourselves that there are wider issues. Definitions of rape as commonly held by society are shockingly narrow: rape is the pretty young girl walking home alone at night and attacked by a barbaric stranger. But we forget that rape is:

- the woman who has been drugged, or plied with alcohol until paralytic and taken advantage of

- the elderly woman in a care home who suffers at the hands of her carer

- the wife forced to comply with her husband's wishes

- the girlfriend coerced into sex with the threat of damaging rumours

- the woman who has been consistently demoralized by her partner until she "consents"

- the prostitute who hasn't been paid

- the porn star who has been belittled and objectified until she has no control over her own sexuality

(Rape is obviously not just a male on female phenomenon, male on male and female on male rape do occur, and I take my hat off to those who study them, but my work is primarily male on female so forgive the one-sided bias.)

Society often ignores these victims - in some cases she meets the legal definition of licit sexual intercourse - she has "consented". But how can a woman consent if she is not in a position where she can give it, where she has no ownership of her own sexuality, when she is threatened by unspoken violence, when she has consented to marry this person, when she cannot withdraw that consent? Juries come to their verdicts on the basis of their own poorly-understood definitions of rape, and the law gives weight to this. A woman in fear of her life may 'consent' to save her life, but that is still rape.

Rape law across the country (and as I will argue, the world) needs to be overhauled. Consent is a flawed notion which holds no water. Rape is sexual activity forced upon a woman, where force may include but is not limited to violence, coercion and threats.

If we are to give this ridiculous situation the backing of the law then of course women won't report that they have been raped to the police. Already minuscule conviction rates will fall and those who do report will be wary of the possible outcomes. In the emotionally fragile time after being attacked, a woman should not have to weigh up whether it is worthwhile to report it to the police.

We are only a step away from the appalling situation in countries like Pakistan, where the infamous Safia Bibi case gained worldwide attention from human rights advocates. A 13 year old blind servant, Safia Bibi was gang raped by her master and his son, an attack which resulted in pregnancy. Upon reporting the rape, her pregnancy was accepted as evidence of her partaking in illicit extra-marital sexual relations whilst her attackers were released on the basis of lack of evidence. How can we be outraged by cases like this when we are committing the same offence against women?! The Pakistan Human Rights Commission released figures displaying the appalling truth - a woman in Pakistan is raped every 3 hours, every second is a minor and every fourth is gang-raped. I repeat, rape law must be overhauled.

In better news, I was very pleased to read that the government have dropped plans to introduce anonymity for those accused of rape. Anonymity is fine if it is applied to all those accused in criminal proceedings, but to single out rape cases, where the majority of victims are female is to display institutional distrust in the word of women. Unacceptable.

Every one of these stories betrays the ugly truth - women are not protected by the law and are distrusted by wider society. The law is an ass which needs to be put out of it's misery for all of our sakes. Now find me my shotgun and I'll get us started.

STEM vs TheoDoReS

No, I'm not diving into the murky depths of a stem cell debate, but I'm having another moan about funding in Higher Education.

STEM, for the uninitiated, stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. All very worthy subjects which have borne studies with terribly practical applications. Excellent - I love a bit of practicality.

TheoDoReS is my utterly appalling acronym for the area in which I work: Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies. For the majority of the population, the second category has no practical application, other than providing someone who will bury you and will look after 'that nice church on the corner that I'd love to have my wedding at because it would look lovely in the 'photos'.

Every single RS or Divinity student will have experienced the following scenario:

In taxi/talking to stranger/in doctor's surgery etc: What is it you do?
RS/Div: I'm a student.
Stranger: Ooh and what are you studying?
RS/Div: Religious Studies/Divinity (delete as applicable)
Stranger: What will you do with that then?!
(RS/Div feels that sinking sensation, because they know what is coming next)
Stranger: Are you going to become a priest/minister/nun/RE teacher?
(RS/Div attempts to strangle the scream creeping it's way up their throat)es

My point is that everyone assumes they know what these subjects entail, and even consider themselves experts in your career path. Yes some will go on to be priests, ministers, nuns and RE teachers and these are all very worthy careers in themselves. But a defence of these is not why I'm ranting into the blogosphere.

My rant was sparked by this Guardian article,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/13/theology-crucial-academic-subject entitled "Theology is a Crucial Academic Subject".

Ooh, controversial.

I have issues with the way the writer has chosen to take the category 'Theology and Religious Studies' as one subject. I'm not going to get all Wiebe in your face about it, but Theology and Religious Studies are different subjects. That does not mean that we should deny the vital link between the two, for then we sound the death knell for both and the importance that they stand for.

But I'm going to get really controversial here.

Divinity should continue as an academic subject. But I don't think it is crucial, at least in it's current form.

If Divinity is to be considered crucial, in my opinion, it must begin to focus on issues which do have a practical, as well as spiritual application. To truly compete on a higher footing for funding, it needs to focus on the issues that are facing the world and Christians in particular today: looking at LGBT and women's theology, considering the ethics of greed in a corporate world and reflecting on where theology stands in a multicultural society.

Call me a heathen and shoot me down, but there is only so much we can consider when we look at Aquinas for example. Of course he has influenced the above topics, and we should consider this, but for goodness' sakes, if it ain't fresh then please get over the dead guys.

If only so Religious Studies isn't tainted with the same brush...

Burkas, Bin Bags and Bans

Banning the burqa, denying permission to mosques and particularly minarets... times are hard for proponents of religious freedom just now.

The notoriously secular France dealt a blow to 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' by banning religious symbols from schools, and are currently in the process of debating legislation which makes the wearing of any item which covers the face in public an offence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8568000/8568024.stm) Way to go France. Of course neither of these have enforced bans only on Muslims - the first applied to all religions and the second includes motorcycle helmets etc, but the backlash against visible religious symbols is astonishing. I respect that French culture does involve the private and personal expression of religious belief, but the utterly appalling response of - "you're in France now, so you better adopt our ways" makes me MAD. The notion that what epitomises any culture was decided at a specific date and henceforth will remain completely stagnant is ludicrous. Culture adapts, adopts and changes. We should respect history and traditions, absolutely, but to entirely reject visible aspects of religious culture is plain silly.

My second complaint with the ban is of a more feminist nature, namely, that Muslim women particularly bear the brunt with an ongoing societal obsession with what women wear and what choice they have in the matter. This is not limited to Muslim women, in every women's daily life, they face criticisms about whether their clothes conform to 'fashion', align them with a subculture (e.g. 'goth'), what their clothes say about them (frumpy, slutty, ditzy) and even simple rules about what is 'female' clothing and what is 'male'. But I digress. The male-majority parliament sees fit to dictate what these women can and cannot wear in public. WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT?! This bunch of self-important muppets have declared themselves to be the arbiters of one of the most fundamentally personal choices a woman has. Ridiculous.

Finally, the notion that the French parliament can decide what a woman can and should choose in order to express her religious devotion makes my blood boil. Some have argued that the burqa is a tradition rather than a religious duty. This is true, but it does not mean that it is seen as extraneous by women themselves. I do love the end of the article linked above where it states that women are considering taking up the burqa in face of the ban!

Julie has also reminded me of the counterpoint to this debate - how 'Islamic' countries dictate the dress of all women. For the record, I disagree with this attitude as well, for the same reasons as stated above. I also take issue with women who have been declared provocative dressers leading men into temptation, which is commonly heard across the world. If I were a man, I'd be offended by the insinuation that I was so weak a flash of ankle left me outwith the control of my senses.

Homa Hoodfar wrote a fascinating article about the changing significance of the veil, where she asserts that the veil became 'Islamic' rather than 'Iranian' upon the arrival of the Crusaders. As the two groups embarked on propaganda campaigns, North African Muslims picked up on the Crusader's equation of the veil with Islam. In Iran, the Shah's modernist regime declared wearing the veil illegal, meaning that many women refused to leave their homes at all, declaring that they felt 'naked' without it. Particularly difficult was the issue of the hammam. Society expected these women to attend the hammam for their ablutions, and non-attendance signalled issues at home. For women who refused to be seen without their veil, what was previously an independent endeavour required the help of men. The Iranian revolution turned the tables on women once more, making it illegal to not wear a veil. I love the fact that protests against this were led by women who personally chose to wear the veil, but stood up for their rights to choose. Hoodfar even cites examples of women sneaking in via bin bags. I also love her wee story about the ultimate emasculating insult - women only need to veil in the company of non-related men and so taking their veil off in front of such a man during an argument signalled that she didn't think him man enough to require a veil. SNAP!

Anyhoo, sorry for digressing again!

In summary, I am not pro- nor anti-burqa, but I respect the place of Islam in culture and the choices of women in their religious devotions.

Switzerland duly responded with a ban on minarets: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8385069.stm) Basically, Islam is made up of fundamentalist terrorists out to eat your babies and allowing a Muslim to build a minaret is like serving your newborn in a dish of apple sauce.

Finally, the article which sparked off this magical mystery tour through the potted mind of Gemma: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10846716.

There have been protests at plans to build an Islamic centre (including a mosque) near the site of the 9/11 attacks. This interests me on a couple of levels: first, the obvious debate about the placing of the mosque, and secondly the way in with Ground Zero is being treated.

As for whether it is appropriate to build a Mosque on that site, I say yes. I understand why there is a debate, but for me it comes down to the fundamental issue that 9/11 wasn't Islamic. The perpetrators were not representing the majority of Muslims, their reasoning doesn't comply with Islamic doctrine and they have been roundly condemned, especially in America. Obviously I am not aware of the workings of the Cordoba Organization, but I imagine any extremism would have been picked up on by now. As such, I believe that the, frankly dangerous, equation of Islam and fundamentalism which underpins this debate is a non-argument and should be ignored.

But what really interested me was the way in which Ground Zero is described in this article. The muppet that is Sarah Palin described the plan as "an intolerable mistake on hallowed ground". The sanctification of sites of devastation is an interesting concept. In terms of being 'set apart' then Ground Zero does meet the generally accepted marker of sacred, but there is something ghoulish about it. Should we label Auschwitz a 'sacred' place, does this labelling reappropriate the scene for 'good'?

I'm unsure as to where I lie on it.

Anyway, apologies for the long and rambling nature of this post!

(Italics are edits - I forgot to write some of what I wanted to say)

Troll 1; Gemma 0

The Number 41 bus - crusher of dreams. Toddling off to Cramond Beach the other day (a lovely wee excursion which makes me yearn for the Ugie and Lido at home) I received a phone call from the bank about the meeting I was due to have yesterday. Questions were asked. Did I have my degree certificate, what about a permanent full time job offer? Erm, no. This loan is to fund my postgrad.

Oh.

Is that in Law or Medicine?

Nope.

Oh, in that case, I'm afraid we can't help you.

Yep, a loan isn't even an option now.

Am I disappointed? I was. Now I am furious.

(Disclaimer: I am really, really, REALLY mad right now, so this may be a bit disjointed and manic. That is the state of my mind right now. Also, apologies if this veers into the territory of 'painful lives' - surely the most horrific literary classification since 'chick lit' - I do realize that my life is a heck of a lot better than many other's.)

17 years. 17 years of ploughing all of my energies into learning, from learning which way the 'G' in my name should face at the age of 4 to 21 year old me considering how modern Muslim feminist literature utilises the methodology of Foucauldian inscription in order to re-appropriate female Muslims' ownership of their own bodies in comparison to Orientalist artwork and Muslim patriarchal assertions. The horrific jobs, memories of being elbow deep in horse mackerel (aka Tom Jones), the many hours spent trudging the rain splattered streets of Edinburgh with 80 Italian students in tow, always attempting to earn enough to get by. All of it was worth it to get to the point where I can study my proposed thesis - Muslim responses to sexual violence. A thesis so practical that it hurts me to see that it still isn't good enough to garner me any funding. I'm not the brightest, no, but surely a very good 2:1 (with a straight A final semester) from an excellent university, studying that topic should manage to fund their masters somehow. Even a student loan for goodness sake?

But no.

The government will espouse the importance of education, and particularly higher education until they are blue in the face. They will set ridiculous targets of 50% of young people in higher education, but they will not provide any infrastructure for postgraduate courses.

Education continues to be an elite institution. Oh, we can be fooled by the supposedly 'universal' further and higher education, and the sprinkling of scholarships allow one to be fooled that it is a meritocracy. But, fundamentally, lack of financial backing is a weight dragging every low-income student down. At undergraduate level, the necessity of taking up paid employment decreases the available studying time and often means that extracurricular activities are a dream that lies far from reach. Opportunities for travel are limited, meaning that knowledge of other cultures is at a premium - obviously not brilliant for a Religious Studies student. There is a desperate game of catch up where they need to learn so much in their own time to reach the level where their better educated fellow students. My first lecture at New College - peppered with 'deontology' and 'Kant's categorical imperative' left me feeling like someone had punched me in the face with a fuzzy, floral velveteen Ethicist with illusions of academic grandeur.

And then the postgraduate abyss where only law and medicine are seen as acceptable reasons to continue studying, where the disdain for arts and humanities, makes my sensitive wee soul cry.

Oh to want a normal job...