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.

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.

:(