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...

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

:(

The Puffa Paradox: Victim Blaming and Fashion Dilemmas

It would seem that women just can't catch a break this week.

First we hear that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised", according to a Canadian policeman giving students a talk on personal safety. Well blow me down with a feather. Or not, because the long-johns, jeans, camisole, vest, t-shirt, long sleeved top, jumper, cardigan and ankle length puffa jacket with Doc Martens is quite a heavy ensemble, and as I don't want to be raped I thought I'd take extra precautions. However, such an outfit would cause me to faint with the weight and heat generated, so I've had to make do with a little less.

But, wearing less could get me raped. So what do I do? Is there a cut off as to how much clothing is not 'sluttish'? Could I wear jeans and a t-shirt and not get raped? What about skirts? Heaven forfend that I advertise my vulnerability in something that is associated with femininity. Is there an accepted length of skirt? Should all skirts fall below the knee, or is that too much leg on show? And what about how form-fitting my clothes are?

Or, is it less about how much of me is on show, but on how attractive the clothing is? Perhaps a knee-length wool skirt won't get me raped, but a knee-length leather one will? Scoop neck v V neck?

What about the elderly women attacked by Delroy Grant? Did they dress too sluttishly for him to resist?

Clearly women are all undergoing the dilemma posed in this excellent advert by Rape Crisis Scotland.

Of course, there is a deeper subtext to the use of the word 'slut'. Women across the Anglophone world have had the word flung at them because they are comfortable with their own sexuality, revealing the double standards applied to women and men. Sleep with too many men? Slut. Yet reverse the genders and the almost reverent 'stud' comes into play. Sanguinetti is making it clear that women should be subject to a moral code, for their own good of course. They shouldn't sleep with lots of men, and to advertise their 'services' in the way they dress means that they shouldn't be surprised when men take advantage of them.

So, women who like sex, or dress in a way which might possibly make someone think they do, are fair game for your neighbourhood rapist.

But nobody asks to be raped. Not ever. And if Michael Sanguinetti finds it difficult to resist victimizing and raping women who dress 'sluttishly' then he should bloody well seek help.

Women who like sex with men are fair game, but, so it seems, women who don't like sex with men (although lesbianism is obviously not equated with this) are also OK to rape too. I've blogged before about the horrifying cases of correctional rape in South Africa - where men try to 'cure' lesbians by raping them. But reading this article which gives an estimate of 10 rapes and gang rapes a week in Cape Town alone brings a shudder to my spine.

As a women, you can neither like sex with men, nor sex with women, lest you be raped. And then it would be your own fault. Dress in a way which might advertise either of these facts and you are asking to be raped. Oh, and if you have been raped, then you'll have done something to deserve it - your sexual history will be debated, your alcohol consumption questioned and your honesty doubted - but somewhere along the line you will have done something to deserve it.

Difficult being a woman, eh?

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.

Spewing Wrath Upon the (Blog) Page: Guilt and Sexual Violence

It's been a wee while since I condemned anyone to hell (see the right hand side for more details) but in the past few months of my blogging hiatus I've gathered a wee list of new Satan-fodder.

I've dedicated a lot of my blog to arguing against the myths that persistently crop up whenever rape and sexual violence are discussed (again there's a wee category to the right for anyone wishing to read the wrath I have vomited upon these pages) but still the old favourites crop up with the alarming regularity of rent day.

From someone in a position of power last week I heard the words "she would be lucky to be raped", referring to a woman that person thought was ugly.

At first I stared in horror.

Then I silently seethed as all the implications of a statement I hoped I'd never hear came to mind - this woman had confided about her rape and not only did this man say that he didn't believe her, but that she would be lucky to be raped.

As if being raped is a badge of honour.

As if, as Hadley Freeman pointed out in the Guardian a couple of days later, rape is a compliment.

This sort of attitude not only grossly misunderstands the impact of rape upon victims, but makes all women complicit in the guilt of sexual violence. That woman was guilty of being too ugly even for a rapist to desire her, just as those who do fall prey to rapists are guilty in being pretty enough to be raped. Just as the old favourites - she was wearing a short skirt/her cleavage was visible/her ankles were showing/she had been drinking/she flirted/we dated/she married me - are wheeled out repeatedly as excuses, the guilt of rape never lies with the rapist - us women are eternally tempting and teasing and deserve it.

As for the Delroy Grant story which elicited the above story, I can add nothing to the condemnation which has already been given, other than to use this horrific example as another reason for which to condemn the dangerous drivel spouted by Mr Palmer as documented here.