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.

Christopher Hitchens RIP?

This week, Christopher Hitchens died. Author, journalist and celebrated atheist, Hitchens was brilliant at what he did. His work on religion, perhaps what he is most famous for, is, at times, both infuriating and exactly what I want to shout out. He was incredibly erudite, and had a way with words which is rare. Reading his own reflections on the cancer which would eventually kill him was a terribly moving experience. This Vanity Fair article is upsetting for the honesty and the vulnerability of humanity that Hitchens came to know: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009.

We disagreed on the afterlife, but I respect his opinion on this. It was the result of a surety based on his assessment of the evidence on show. For that reason I won't say 'RIP'. To do so would be to disrespect his belief that death is the end; instead, I praise his achievements in life. For all the reasons listed above, I am grateful that he was alive.

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!

Arrogance and Ignorance: Religion vs Sprituality?

Facebook has been abuzz this week with debates about this wee article. Such buzz has even spread to the blogosphere, in the ever erudite thoughts of Chris, but I felt the need to put my own thoughts out there for anyone interested.

This whole article is symptomatic of the insidious arrogance and ignorance that we see in the Church every day. Ms Daniels has created a false dichotomy of 'religion' vs 'spirituality' where she makes up her own implicit definitions. Spirituality is something one creates for themselves because they are scared of the hard slog of working out one's religion in community, which is in vogue for those wishing to set themselves apart from traditional religion. Religion is about experiencing God "in the psalms, the creation stories and throughout our deep tradition", and is about community. Notice that she talks about experiencing God through intermediaries, rather than directly. And can someone please, for the love of all that is holy (as agreed by a council of appropriately appointed people over the course of thousands of very trying church council meetings), tell me what someone "who has been shaped by a mighty cloud of witnesses" is like?! Sounds like someone who has had one too many acid trips to be honest...

Ms Daniels has taken one of the most basic tenets of theology - the presence of God in the natural world - and has actually argued against someone experiencing God that way. How lovely, can you imagine meeting her for pastoral care?

"Parishioner: I totally felt God's presence the other day! I was walking along the beach at sunset...

Minister: Oh reaaaaallllyyyy? And was there a cloud of witnesses? A passing prayer group? No, ah, that wasn't God then. That was your own selfish interpretation of what God is like. Stop being so bland and become part of the all-encompassing community, that is original."

Delightful.

Not to mention that she seems to be advocating a theology in which God would only answer the prayers of the church-going. That would be an interesting conversations too:

"Plane dweller: So God...

God: Yes?

PD: Yeah, it's a bit choppy up here. Or is it down here for you? I get confused.

God: I'm all around. Although if you thought you saw me on that mountaintop, that was actually a selfish LIE made up by yourself.

PD: Well actually...

God: Oh ME, you're not one of THOSE are you?

PD: Those?

God: Yeah, those. Those folks who think they can rock up when the going gets a bit tough and expect me to answer their prayers?

PD: Um...

God: Honestly, I'm a busy deity, and I've got over a billion followers across the planet, why would I waste my time on you? You have to undertake at least an alpha course and three months worth of Sunday meetings before I'll be bothered with you..."

I know if I were on an 'airplane' (whatever that is) experiencing turbulence, I'd absolutely rather sit next to the person willing to share their innermost thoughts about how they relate to the world than by an eye-rolling minister, disinterested in my opinions because they don't take the exact form of their own. That, and sitting next to the heretic is surely a dangerous seat to be in...

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.

:(

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.

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.

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.

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...

Degree Woes

4 years. 4 years of Religious Studies. 4 years of phone calls mentioning my degree and my desire to continue studying Religion.

Apparently 4 years isn't enough for my mother to have got the message: my degree is in Religious Studies, not Geology as she thought. Seriously?!