Nick Griffin and Rape Scaremongering

So... long time, no post. Unfortunately life got in the way a bit (moving flat, job searching and the wee matter of a 15,000 word Masters dissertation), but I've been biding my time waiting for something to make me seethe.

That time is now.

Over the past few months there have been repeated protests in Midlothian about the housing of convicted violent rapist Robert Greens, otherwise known as the Da Vinci rapist because he attacked a Dutch student near Rosslyn Chapel, one of the locations for the book.

After his release from prison, no other local authority in the UK would take him, so Midlothian has been forced to house him. Local people have been up in arms about the matter and have undertaken a number of protests, including marching outside the house and staging a go-slow in the centre of Dalkeith to slow traffic.

Now since this furore began, my main reaction has been one of discomfort. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the protesters have placed so much media attention on this man, because it distorts the perception of rape. This man is dangerous because he perfectly fits the stereotype of 'real rape'. He attacked a young victim, who was a stranger to him, and used considerable violence. I'm not denigrating the victim's experience - witnesses who found her walking startled along a road thought she had been in a car crash. The crime was repellent. However, by warning about the dangers of this man - who we know is capable of rape and assault - is likely to underplay the dangers of the majority of rapists who are much more subtle in their methods. I respect the locals' right to protest, but I worry about the message they are sending.

Then the BNP heard about the protests and decided to get in on the act. Nick Griffin made the journey North to join in but there was, as it were, a stooshie and the BNP were forced to leave. Commenting on the 'ugly scenes', Griffin said:

I hope the people who are protesting us feel ashamed and if their daughter or granddaughter is raped next - maybe they would change their minds.

Wow. There is so much wrong with this statement that my head feels as if it will implode. This is probably a good time for numbers.

1) This sounds pretty threatening. If Griffin isn't suggesting the BNP might rape these women then he is certainly suggesting that he wouldn't mind if someone else did. 'Cos then obviously we'd all turn to those bastions of morality for protection (even though there have been a number of BNP members and representatives charged with sex offences recently).

2) As my good friend Camilla has pointed out, Griffin is simply using this as a way to positively publicise the BNP rather than show solidarity with those protesting. He knows that his presence is controversial and liable to draw attention away from the matter at hand, but chose to rock up anyway. Given his response, he certainly doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the victim or the locals protesting.

3) Perhaps this sounds pedantic, but rape myths get my back up like nothing else. Only women are raped, and young women at that - and we all need to be protected by big, bad Nick and his BNP cronies. Urgh.

I'm sure there's more that will enrage me about this statement, but for now I have that dissertation to be getting on with...

But for now, needless to say - Nick Griffin has been banished to my own personal hellfire.

News So Appalling That I May Transform into the Hulk

This is one of the most horrific articles I've ever read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/04/turkish-court-reduces-rape-sentences

A 13 year old girl was sold by two men for sex which subsequently resulted in her being raped by26 men. I may have to repeat that: TWENTY-SIX. These men included teachers and civil servants who have been sentenced for disturbingly short sentences (those who sold her for 9 years and the rapists for 1-6 years). Yet now, those sentences may be cut further because she "consented".

?!

How, in the name of all that is good can a 13 year old girl actually consent in this situation? I've mentioned before that I disagree with consent-focused rape laws, but I don't think I've ever given a full explanation of why. So, oh lucky ones, I shall. Gather round and listen to my words of wisdom kiddly-winks...

Consent is, by it's very definition, an agreement reached by two people in a position of equality. Now, I won't go so far as some have, and claim that due to the ongoing power of patriarchy all sex between men and women is not actually 'consensual' as they can never be equal. I think this is a very monolithic view of patriarchy, and if we do not understand the specific permutations at work then we can, in fact, credit it with too much power, whilst ignoring the real battlegrounds.

Instead, I argue that consent is essentially meaningless in the realm of sexual negotiation. The law does not really have the means to provide legislate for the minutae of power relations at work in the sexual realm, so it takes a 'single common denominator' approach. To give consent, in the eyes of the law, is to remain silent, to not fight back, to not kick and scream... This is based on two major misunderstandings: 1) the myth of 'real rape' where innocent young virgins are violently violated whilst their continued attempts to fight are overcome by the sheer strength of the vile offender - for a bit of a rant about this see my post on the Ken Clark controversy earlier this year; 2) a complete lack of forethought about the choices a person is framing during the course of their relationship with that person/the attack. It is all very well and good to say that you'd fight back, but what about if you suspected you would be subjected to further violence? What if the attacker had a weapon? What about if the attacker had threatened your family? What if silence is the easiest way for you to deal with the attack? The coercion and violence inherent in the act of rape as demonstrating power on the body of another takes place at a level the law cannot truly legislate, at least if it continues to rely on the overly broad and meaningless concept of 'consent'.

We don't know what sort of choices this child was framing when she was raped, but placing oneself in the shoes of a child being forced to have sex with adults who hold very real power over you is rape. For goodness' sake, she was SOLD - how can she have consented?!

There are two issues at stake in the more specific Turkish context here too - 1) these men may be released because this legal wrangling is stretching the case past the timeframe for prosecution and 2) killings of women increased 1,400% between 2002 and 2009. I can't even begin to comprehend such a figure.

Massive Killer Pacman Ghosts: Why Frape isn't Funny Part 2

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote Zombie Sheep and Beelzebub' Dinner: Why Frape isn't Funny, which has become the most read post I've written. In it I ranted about how it had become acceptable to use the term 'frape' a contraction of 'facebook rape' to describe someone hacking into your facebook account, and how this has spread into a wider acceptance of rape as something to be joked about. Thankfully, in the intervening months I have seen a much lower usage of 'frape' but it seems that the underlying current that made it acceptable is still strong.

You may have heard about petitions to facebook regarding the proliferation of pages which joke about rape. They include 'You know she's playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway', 'Raping your mates girlfriend to see if she can put up a fight', 'Kicking Sluts in the Vagina', 'I know a silly little bitch that needs a good slap', and 'Riding your Girlfriend softly, Cause you don't want to wake her up'.

Lovely.

Given that Facebook says in it's terms and conditions that "You will not post content that is: hateful, threatening or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence", one would think that it would be easy to have these pages shut down. Alas, Facebook thinks these are all just hilarious rude jokes and to shut the down would be a violation of free speech.

Because we all know that women who have been assaulted and/or raped have a total hold over their own rights. They have freedom of movement, right? They have freedom of speeh, yeah? This week I read an account by Andrea Brenton Rushing entitled 'Surviving Rape: A Morning/Mourning Ritual' in which she describes feeling unsafe in her own home, suffering severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder where she had to take extended leave from her job as a lecturer because she couldn't write, nor even remember things. But, y'know, the fact that she woke up in her own bed to being attacked is funny. Funny because he obviously didn't know to go 'softly' enough.

Now if Facebook is going to be so blasé about this, we can take this as an affirmation of what they're doing. An affirmation of making fun of rape, and rape victims.

Facebook, you are being damned to my own special level of hellfire, along with Catherine Hakim, Ken Clark, and Jane Austen. Oh, and because I feel there would be a splendid irony to it, in that hell I will set massive killer pacman ghosts on you - you may try to run (digitally, I suppose), but you can't hide...

Postgraduatedom in Numbers: Week One

After a year of waiting, 3 months of grappling with the Career Development Loan folk, and innumerable visits to the NLS, I began my Masters this week.

There have been 3 lectures.

One assignment sprung on us with very little notice.

45 hours of working at my job because I didn't know that either of the above were happening.

5 6am starts.

3 1am finishes.

1 expletive filled rant.

1 bout of sobbing.

Oh, and 2,323 words on an assignment on Dual Agency and the Evolution of Thought in the Work of Fatima Mernissi.

I'm pretty tired, but I'M BACK, baby.

Surely that's a Misprint? and Deals with the Funding Troll

This week I was invited to a panel discussion entitled God & Sex. Sounds interesting, and particularly relevant to my research. Alas, on further investigation this does not seem to be the case. Indeed, it would seem that God really doesn't have much to do with it at all:

Does the Church talk too much about sex? Are any of the Church’s traditional teachings on sex relevant today? Should Christians rethink their approach to sex? Or stay out of the discussion entirely?

This panel discussion on God and sex, held at the University of Edinburgh, features:

Richard Holloway, outspoken ‘after-religionist,’ former bishop of Edinburgh, and champion of LGBT causes
Dr. Sara Parvis, lecturer in Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, feminist, and devout Roman Catholic
Fr. Ian Paton, rector of Old St Paul’s

Chaired by the Rev. Harriet Harris, Chaplain to the University of Edinburgh.

Now I'm not saying that this isn't a very valid and necessary discussion to be having, far from it. The way the church treats sex and sexuality is pretty dire in my opinion. I also like the idea that Christians should rethink their approach to sex, it brings up all sorts of images of a Cosmopolitan-esque magazine imploring Christians to branch out from the missionary position, or even giving more 'holy' names to existing, erm, approaches. Anyhoo...

However, I get rather irate when 'God' and 'Christianity' are treated as synonymous. This may be a case of miscommunication, but there is certainly a very virulent vein of thought in which Christians either forget that other people have a claim on God as well, or in which they are so arrogant that of course their idea of God is the only true conception and they, and they only, have the right to use the term 'God'.

*Did you notice that I was keeping an eye out for how it would affect my research? That would be because I have finally come to an agreement with the funding troll - that he can follow me around for the next four years shouting in my ear that I owe him money - in order that I can do my Masters. Induction happened on Thursday and I start back proper tomorrow. Eek!

Erotic Capital: The Rationalisation of Rape

Catherine Hakim, an LSE sociologist has a new book out at the moment: Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital. Nice.

Her basic thesis seems to be that men want sex. More sex than women are prepared to give, and so this provides a bit of a vacuum in which any self-serving women will exploit to her benefit. Apparently women have now noticed that they can use their 'sex-appeal' to get ahead, a fact which the 'patriarchy' has attempted to cover up: "Patriarchal ideologies have systematically trivialised women's erotic capital to discourage women from capitalising on it – at men's expense." You can read a rather fantastic interview with Ms Hakim here.

This theme, that women don't have to go all the way and fulfil men's desires, but only to look pretty and make the guys think they might has been picked up in this jaw-dropping Daily Mail article. Ms Brick is a delightful young women, who is quite happy to spend a large proportion of her time flirting away in order to get exactly what she wants (which it seems is make-up and clothes - a touch of a vicious cycle going on there). Happy days for her. Interesting that last year she wrote this article entitled How TV is run by sexist pigs, where she wrote of how it was only through hard work she got on in her career despite sexual harassment. Anyhoo, it's the Daily Mail so I won't hold her up as an example.

However, Hakim's thesis doesn't just make my blood boil because she is boiling women down to sexual fantasies for men. I think she is pedalling a very dangerous ideology.

I came to this realisation when re-reading Catharine MacKinnon's section on Rape in "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State". She draws on the popular image of women as teases who control their sexuality in terms of consent. Men initiate sex, women consent . The terms of the initiation, consequences of refusal, and the situation a woman is placed in when deciding whether to consent or not are generally ignored. "Fundamentally, desirability to men is supposed a woman's form of power because she can both arouse it and deny its fulfilment". (MacKinnon, 1989:175) However, this notion of women as 'teases' rationalises force. She's stringing him along, thinking she will give in to his desires, but at the last second leaves him standing. Well of course she wants it, hasn't she just been giving all the signals? Perhaps she's trying to get him to work for it. Never do we consider that she actually doesn't want to have sex with him. "Consent in this model becomes more a metaphysical quality of a woman's being than a choice she makes and communicates." (MacKinnon, 1989:175)

Hakim is perpetuating this image of women as teases, even encouraging women to take ownership of her erotic capital and use it for her won ends. Unfortunately she hasn't thought it through. This isn't the dawning of a new feminine overcoming of the patriarchy, but it is lending academic credentials to a dangerous piece of misinformation.

For that reason, Hakim is being damned to my own personal hell, as detailed in previous postshere, here and here.

Kill the Funding Troll for the Good of Obedient Wives?

Rape. Incest. Prostitution and Sex Trafficking. All terrible ills. Do you want to cure these, ladies?

You do?

Me too!

But how, I hear you ask?

Well ladies - too long have you neglected your husband's needs. Not wants, not desires but NEEDS.

Does your husband want you to share him happily with the woman next door? Let him.

Does your husband want you to dress up as a horse complete with all necessary regalia? Then gosh darn it woman find yourself an equestrian centre!

God is demanding you to become a sex goddess, whatever that may entail for you in fulfilling your husband's NEEDS.

From whence have I received this eminently sensible wisdom?

The Obedient Wives Club

Oh yes, it's God that wants you to do this. Indeed, you would not even be here if men did not have such needs:

"Eve was created because Adam had needs. Men have [sexual] needs which they can't control. And if the needs are not fulfilled, men will find another woman. God created them like that."

Now, at this point you may be feeling a little feminist rage bubbling within, but STOP. Feminism, in the guise of those sinister 'women's groups' has led you up the garden path. Talk of men being responsible for rape is just a ruse to detract from the plain and simple fact that it is his wife's fault he rapes. She has left him unsatisfied, so how could he be accountable for his actions?

It is all so self-evident, based even in the Qur'an!

Alas, alack it is almost a sadness to deny the logic available here.

You see, it is true that the Qur'an is peppered with references to sex and sexuality. The absence of Augustinian notions of Original Sin as transmitted through sex means that it can take on a divine notion. This is all very positive, and something I absolutely advocate.

The 'awra' or 'shame zone' - the areas which are to remain covered in public for all introduce a theology of the body which has, through successive commentators, become imbibed upon the bodies of women. Our bodies are vessels of honour, but that honour is perceived to be the arena of our male relatives and husbands. If that honour is damaged; however, for example in a rape, then it is our shame to live with. Or indeed die with.

This double standard forms the basis of much confused thinking about female Muslim sexuality. We have opulent Orientalist exoticised notions of Odalisques, harems and lesbianism which juxtapose with our image of the burqa-clad oppressed woman. Both images are disingenuous and it is for this reason that I propose to study the lived experience of sexuality for British Muslim women.

I have always argued that we must reconsider our current uncritical definitions of the homogeneity of sexuality, and to contextualise these within ethnic and religious lives, in order to truly get the best deal for women across the globe, and this proves the need to do this. Otherwise we end up with crackpot theories which force women to be subservient to their husbands every (and it would seem even deviant) desire and absolving rapists from the blame for their crimes.

In other words, someone kill the funding troll and let me get on with sorting this mess out.

48 Women an Hour Raped in Congo

It is now two years since I first began studying rape, and over those years I have inevitably come across some awful stories and statistics. Some of them I've published on the blog - from the fact that a South African woman is more likely to be raped than learn to read, to the Pakistani statistic of a woman raped every hour, every second attack is on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. I've raged about defence lawyers' tactics - women wearing skinny jeans couldn't possibly be raped (an Italian example only recently rejected by the courts), women pinned down by the weight of a man is engaged in the missionary position (Assange's lawyers) and the opening gambit of one trial in America a few decades ago where a lawyer span a Cola bottle around and attempted to insert a pencil into the neck. Obviously a woman who doesn't want to be raped can fight back(!) Academic studies which ask women how violent their attack was, delusional muppets claiming to be academics and a textbook which finished a section on sadistic rape with a paragraph on victim impact which began "if the victim survives...".

All terrible things that have led me to rant and rave, and in many cases cry.

But as I stumbled across a Guardian article this afternoon, I had to take a deep breath before reading the article:

Forty-eight women raped every hour in Congo

The systematic use of rape as a weapon of war is not a new discovery, particularly in Congo, but the assertions that rape is beginning to creep outwith the areas of the fiercest conflict and especially into the home are disturbing.

12% of the female population of Congo have been raped, whilst 3% of the female population were raped in a single year between 2006 and 2007, rising to 7% in one province. More than a fifth have been forced to perform sex acts on their partners.

These statistics are even thought by some researchers to even underestimate the problem.

:(

Repressed Ranting

***Warning - the following post deals with some pretty traumatic subject matter. Not all are recommended to read on.***

I like to see myself as a vaguely rational person who will accept different viewpoints and embraces academic debates. Without debate we will never learn anything, so I will listen to you, even if I then spend 20 minutes banging the desk and yelping 'ABSOLUTELY NOT' across the room.

That was before Palmer.

Over a fruitful cup of tea with Nikki today, we discussed my list of academics I have issues with. I didn't need to think very long to figure out who hits the number 1 spot : Craig Palmer.

Back in the days of yore, when younger, inexperienced me shivered in the cold December wind, working tirelessly on le dissertation by candlelight... Ok, back in December when I was researching chapter 1 of my dissertation - the legal status of women in Pakistan (specifically in terms of rape legislation) since Zia's Islamization programme was introduced - I was searching through books and journals to familiarize myself with the main debates in what I came to call 'rape theory'.

Susan Brownmillar's argument that rape is an exercise in power has been at the pinnacle of debates for over 30 years, revolutionising how we thought about rape as an act of not purely sexual significance.

Continuing the debate, Palmer contributed the most heinous aberration I have ever had the misfortune to come across. 'Twelve Reasons Why Rape is Not Sexually Motivated: A Skeptical Examination' set out to put the sex back in rape. (Accessible at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.webfeat.lib.ed.ac.uk/stable/3812897) I am open to debates on the 'rape as power' issue, but I was not prepared for the onslaught that befell me. I will not give a full exposition of why I disliked the article, but I will highlight a few of the worst lines.

Top of the list has to be the brilliantly phrased "Only 15 to 20 per cent of rape victims required hospital treatment for physical injuries" and "only 22.7% ended up inflicting "very severe injury". That's right, only over one fifth of those psychologically traumatised, physically abused and socially stigmatised are left with very severe injury. Almost disappointing, right? If only there was a way to ensure that the attack stayed with them for life, affecting their relationships, causing lasting physical damage... Oh wait, that already does happen. Had this been a quote from a lecture I attended, I would not threaten to punch him in the face. No, I'd actually punch him in the face as hard as I could. But it's OK 'cos he isn't guaranteed to end up in the hospital so he won't be really hurt.

Other gems include: dismissing an argument because it "hinges on the assumption that a males' sexual desire is exhausted by a single "outlet"". But it's all OK because there are prostitutes and pornography for that sort of thing, which obviously isn't about the power inherent in objectification of women, oh no.

The military personnel who specifically planned attacks as a way of displaying power over the enemy weren't involved in power games. As Brownmiller argued:

Rape is considered by the people of a defeated nation to be part of the enemy’s conscious

effort to destroy them [...] men appropriate the rape of “their women” as part of their own male

anguish of defeat [...] rape by a conqueror is compelling evidence of the conquered’s status of

masculine impotence. Defense of women has long been a hallmark of masculine pride as possession

of women has been a hallmark of masculine success [...] The body of a raped woman becomes a

ceremonial battlefield, a parade ground for the victor’s trooping of the colors. (Brownmiller, 1986:38)

Rape as punishment can be sexual. Yay for rapists - exert power over women and get a kick out of it (!)

Sex doesn't need to include consideration for the other party's arousal. Good-o, because forcing a woman who clearly doesn't want it is all terribly sexual and not at all about power.

Date rape isn't really rape.

Men might experience sexual dysfunction because they are worried about punishment. What a shame. If only they weren't forcing themselves on someone else.

Rape is to be expected in the summer, y'know, with all those women out and about flaunting their bodies.

"only excessive force is a possible indication of violent motivation on the part of the rapist" - obviously rape isn't forceful at all. Oh wait, isn't that part of the blooming definition?!

Oh yeah, and only pretty people get raped. How comforting.

A well deserved number one spot on both my 'most hated academic' and 'most likely to get a punch in the face' lists - well done Craig Palmer.

The Gestation of the Mind

What an awesome title. I'm pretty proud of it, and I definitely think there should be a book with that title. Maybe there already is. Who knows?

Anyhoo, before this descends into a dull stream of consciousness, I'll get to my point. Way back in January, I set myself a few personal goals. Go on holiday (alas, one I have failed so far!), see Chris perform (achieved, and it was as awesome as I'd expected - go see for yourself in whatever he pops up in next) and to read at least 15 books. I thought 15 would be a manageable target, but one that would stop me from taking the easy route and watching some TV or what have you.

Nine months later, my mind has been conditioned, challenged and changed by the books I've read. Using my handy 'Read in 2010' list on Visual Bookshelf, I found the results interesting and thought I'd share.

(Not necessarily in chronological order and not including books purely consulted with the goal of completing my degree)

1. Women of Algiers in their Apartments - Assia Djebar
Unbelievably awesome. Back in 2009, I did a course grandly entitled 'Harems, Homes and Streets: Gender and Space in Middle Eastern Literature' and in it we touched on this. Intrigued, I read the entire book and was so challenged, moved and affected by it that I wrote an essay based on it for another class. A collection of short stories focussing on Algerian women during the Algerian-French war, Djebar critiques both the colonialist and native Algerian patriarchal representations of women, dramatically reappropriating Algerian women's bodies for Algerian women.

"Whispering, Baya translated for Anne, while she was rubbing her breasts with her hands; it was then the Frenchwoman stopped asking questions, looking at the wasted bodies around her in fascination. Arms of a masseuse, standing straight up on a marble slab, then kneeling down, encircling the body of a bather, who's face, belly, and breasts were crushed against the stone, her hair a reddish mass, her shoulders dripping with trails of wattery henna.

The masseuse opened her lips halfway, showing golden teeth that shimmered; her long, pendulous breasts were crisscrossed with little veins all the way to the tips. Under that light that came down in oblique rays from the skylight, her villager's face, aged before it's time, was turning into the mask of an oriental sorceress. The silver pendants she was wearing made a clanging sound every time her shoulders and knotted arms came sliding down on the neck and further down to the breasts of her bather [...] Stopping to catch her breath, then slowly pouring a cup of hot water over her naked bronze back, while hoarse sighs were exhaled below her."

Wow. Every time I read that section, I think about the complex interplay between Orientalist, and particularly artistic representations of 'Eastern women' in the hammam as a sensual, erotic and exotic experience, compared to the morgue-like undertones and hyper-realism of the passage. Just read it.

2. The White Tiger - Aravind Adiga

I struggled to see the hype with this one to be honest. It's a little like Zadie Smith's 'On Beauty', a nice enough book, but rather boring. The narrative style felt a little too smug-aren't-I-fabulous-breaking-away-from-traditional-prose but sticking a letter head at the start of the chapter is hardly ground-breaking.

3.The Satantic Verses - Salman Rushdie

Yeah. This was a bit of a trek to get through, especially during the stresses and strains of the final semester of 4th year. I definitely recommend reading it in as few sittings as possible, because the protracted way I read meant that I was getting rather confused about the plot! I do see where the controversy came from, although it wasn't as shocking as I was expecting. I suppose expecting shock is a bit of a paradox anyway though.

4. Yes Man - Danny Wallace

A bit of a departure from the previous 3 books, it was a nice light laugh which didn't require too much brainpower. Worth it for the wee snippet about his meeting with a monk.

5. The Parasites - Daphne du Maurier.

I love du Maurier, I truly do. 'Rebecca' will forever stand as the novel of my teenage years and I aim to collect all of du Maurier's works. The Parasites was ostensibly a rather dull reminiscing of childhood memories, but the disconcerting doubts raised in the reader's minds as we are brought deeper and deeper into the family's world is very, very well done.

6. The Sacraments and the Bible - Phil Layton

A wee book that said what I thought it would in defending the Salvation Army's position on the sacraments against what many would argue is contrary to Biblical teaching. Worth 30 mins.

7. The Alchemist - Paul Coelho

A graduation gift and a very quick read, I found the thinly veiled self-help philosophy a little grating and would rather the book would pick the plot of self-help and run with it rather than the absurd conflation of the two.

8. The Arabian Nights

A long read, at over 800 pages it gave the narrative frame of Sheherezade using her story-telling skills to save her live, along with a selection of the tales. I loved the mixture of genres on offer, there are moralistic tales, dramatic tales, comedic tales, adventure tales... I'm still intrigued as to the conflicting representations of women in the story and the tales will stay with me.

9. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

Recommended by Camilla, I had steadfastly steered clear of WH because it was written by a Bronte. Way back in 6th year, I compared the contributions of du Maurier's 'Rebecca' and Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre' to the feminist canon. 'Rebecca' was awesome, gave a portrayal of a woman consistently beaten down by men and a woman who will do anything possible, in life or in death, to get one up on a man. 'Jane Eyre' was an interminable whine of appalling monologues, ridiculous coincidences and the always vomit-inducing 'readers, I married him' comment.

As such, I had avoided the Bronte's like the plague, but I finally decided to rise above and goodness me I am glad. A decent plot, a good mystery, one heck of a romance and not a single character made teeth-achingly sweet. This was a proper romance, violent, passionate, confusing...

10. Appropriating Gender: Women's Activism and Politicized Religion in South Asia - Patricia Jeffrey

The start of my NLS journey, 'Appropriating Gender' hammered home the sexualized and gendered way women, and particularly Muslim women, relate to their nations and states. Women's sexuality is controlled and utilized for the purposes of the state. Fascinating.

11. May on Motors - James May

A quick and easy read, with a few giggles.

12. The Limits of Bodily Integrity (Law, Justice and Power) - Ruth A. Miller'

Particularly fascinating to read after 'Appropriating Gender' this book opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking. Her discussion of Foucauldian biopolitics, with particular reference to the womb, blew my mind. I don't necessarily agree with everything she said, but it has given me a whole new framework in which to consider my chosen topic.

13. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life - Emile Durkheim

Having studied for 4 years, certain theorists will keep coming back like a case of herpes. Instead of fighting it, I decided to actually consider these theories in their full texts rather than as the detached and abstract notions I knew them as. Durkheim has obviously been hugely influential within RS, and I do feel like I have more of a grip on his ideas now, but I found the fact that I was rather unprepared for the book to spend so much time detailing how the Australian tribes demonstrate this (with what we now know to be flawed anthropological information) to be rather tiresome and made completion of this book take FOREVER.

14. The Ritual Process - Victor Turner

As above, really. Liminality is one of the more classic theories I still consider relevant and useful, although there was nothing really new to learn by reading the entire text.

15. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State - Catharine MacKinnon

Love, love, LOVE a thousand times over. My last blog about squeeworthy moments - credit belongs to this lady. Her examination of how sexuality is socially constructed and the mass ignorance surrounding this has led to a number of discussions about how we define sexuality, and has prompted a serious consideration of my own definition. Her piercing critique of rape law as 'with force without consent' has transformed my way of thinking about rape as a crime and built up rage against the male legislators who will continue to write laws which are illogical and dangerous, as well as perpetuating the notion that there is a clear and objective line between licit sexual activity and rape is something which I will struggle with for years to come.

Well, there you go - you've seen how my ideas have been built up from a cluster of confused beginnings, to a proper thesis-baby (though still not ready to survive on paper) as well as the lighter, or at least non-academic, relief I've awarded myself with.

Things That Make Me Squee...

Tea. Obviously.

Cake. Also pretty obvious.

Not being homeless. Definitely loving that.

Family.

Friends.

Finding someone with a theory which complements my own thoughts. As fun as persistently debunking phenomenology as a dangerous and irrelevant methodology was, it's also good to find someone with whom I can agree. I was a bit worried that I had a massively skewed mind, because I'd spent so long reading articles, books and theories that were, for want of a better term, complete rubbish.

In my research over the Summer I've actively had to stop myself from loudly squeeing in the National Library of Scotland at some of the work I've come across. Consent theory is so flawed that definitions of consensual sex are misleading and dangerous for women? Yep, agree with that. Foucauldian biopolitical understandings of the womb have contributed to the extended control women's bodies are subjected to? Pretty self-evident if you ask me. Definitions of sexuality have been formulated on male terms, further entrenching women's inferior position at even the most intimate level and making rape impossible to define and hence to legislate against? Absolutely true.

No funding troll can strangle the academic squee within.

Funding Saga Part II: The Troll Shows Who is Boss

Yeah, the troll won. There was a tiny moment where I had him confused, a bit like when Ron sticks his wand up the troll's nostril in Harry Potter, but I was defeated. Well, given a bit of bruising.

The 5 grand fees of Edinburgh require one to dig a hole of debt so deep that my thesis would be burned up in the heat of the Earth's core, so that was out. Then came a last minute 'what-the-heck' application to Cardiff Uni for their course looking at Islam in Contemporary Britain. Although it was a little outside what I had anticipated, the content of the course looked relevant (a dirty word to some academics) and purposeful. A short while later, one ridiculously nice e-mail from a lecturer there and the quickest scholarship application you ever did see, I was shortlisted and had an interview in Cardiff. A day-trip ensued (never, ever, EVER take a day-trip to Wales folkies. Just don't. Make it a proper holiday) which entailed four hours in the city, including the time set aside for interview and I left sure that I had been unsuccessful.

I was right.

However, the feedback from the scholarship committee was so positive and constructive that I feel the 5am start wasn't wasted. Yes it means I can't study this year and that makes me sad. Really, really sad. But I am only 21 after all, and I haven't experienced life outwith full-time education since I was 4 so this opportunity could be rather formative. I will work away at my job (which I am *loving*), take the advice of the committee and get some practical voluntary experience with the Muslim community under my belt (something I'm really excited about!) and, best of all, I will study in my own time. This way I can mature my ideas in the direction I want to take them, and see where that all ends up for funding applications early next year!

On the topic of my self-study, I had a bit of an epiphany this week when I was in the NLS. It was one of those moments where I get so excited that it actually requires a concerted effort to not squee very loudly at the fact that what this person is saying is so true, is something I've often thought and fits into my work perfectly! Yay!

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...

What do you do when you meet a Troll?

I've always thought of myself as a pretty straightforward kinda gal. Decisions come along, tap me on the shoulder and I consider all options before making my choice. Alas, it would seem that this quality has deserted me when most required.

About a year and a half ago, I had a niggle. Just under the surface something was brewing that would blow my plans out of the water. Instead of the sensible route of teaching, which suited me so well, I wanted MORE. Yup, I got a bit greedy and wanted to learn more, to teach at a higher lever; in short, I wanted to do a postgrad.

Dun dun DUN!

After months of suppressing these desires, I began to make progress in making my dream happen. I researched options, funding issues and consulted with staff. Applications happened. Offers were made. It was all going swimmingly and I'd made it to the bridge to postgrad land. Alas, under that bridge lived the Funding Troll(tm). Funding Troll(tm) is grumpy, greedy and (in my head anyway) green monster lurking to suck the momentum out of potential postgrads. For both courses I had one main source of funding, which would cover fees and living costs. Time ticked by and I found that I didn't receive either of these, so I was left with a rather unpalatable decision - continue with my plans and self fund through loans (aka selling one's soul to the bank) or find a job (which in the current climate is basically selling one's soul to a private corporation).

So I considered.

I thought.

I debated.

I asked for advice.

And what was I left with? A decision as hard as it was in the first place.

I am currently leaning towards the debt option, but that all lies in the hands of the bank advisor I'm off to see on Wednesday.

(EEK!)

Graduand No More...

... for I am a GRADUATE!

I robed up, clumped up a ramp, was whacked on the head with a bunnet made from John Knox's britches and clapped for others. A lot.

I found the whole experience to be rather stressful actually. Minute directions throughout Edinburgh, a dash for robes, being made to sit through photos, skipping lunch, dealing with the partners of my parents, dashing up and down to New College for returning my robes... I didn't get a chance to properly reflect. All that was going through my head was - I can't be late - and a rather whingy little graduand-zilla protesting that it was MY day, and that my parent's partners shouldn't be getting in the way. I was annoyed at them hanging around, at them being places they had no places to be, at being an inconvenience meaning that I couldn't see my parents... How selfish of me.

I also felt rather alone after the rushing was over. Everyone else was celebrating with their parents and I was left to my own devices. Given my increasing sense of, well I suppose you could call it mourning, I was rather upset. The best four years of my life are over, numerous very good friends of mine are gone and I'm not certain about my future. Reconvening with friends for a few drinks afterwards kind of cleared away my maudlin mood - the future is full of opportunities to make new friends and may be even better.

But still, I had to have a wee cry when my supervisor e-mailed his dissertationists/'Islamicists' to congratulate us and tell us that "you're all good judges in your own hearts as to how much you've progressed and developed as researchers and thinkers."

Aww.

Commencement Address

On Wednesday, I don some robes and the purple hood referenced in the title as I graduate with a Master of Arts in Religious Studies with honours. Since I don't know which 'hood I'll be in come September, let alone what I'll be doing there, I've decided to create a wee blog to let you all know what I'm doing, where and with whom!

But as decisions pile up, I can take comfort from Philippians 4:13:

"I can do everything through him who gives me strength."