Scars across humanity

I don't consider myself a particularly good person. I know - nobody else does either. But I try to do the right things, and often fail. I know that there are those who might raise times  when I have been offensive, or inappropriate.

I don't do very well at being good.

Then I read Elaine Storkeys new book, Scars Across Humanity.

As always from Elaine, it is a superbly written book, well researched, clearly and honestly written. But the subject matter is appalling, harrowing and intensely disturbing. As it is meant to be. It is detailing abuse against women across the world, from FGM, to rape, child brides to intimate partner abuse and femicide. It touches on all of these areas, in some detail, and with statistics to back them up.

As I said, I am not a particularly good person. But the wilful, deliberate abuse of another person, the mutilation and killing of other people for no reason other than their gender makes me sick. The deliberate mental or psychological injury is as bad, and the justification based on culture of religion makes me look with disdain at those cultures and religions. I suspect I am not alone in this, even among people who would, theoretically align themselves with these religions.

And yes, Christianity has an appalling record in terms of women's rights. Or rather, an appalling record of patriarchal domination and abuse, of justification for horrible, hideous crimes against women.

And yes, I am ashamed of what has been done in the name of the faith I believe in. And what continues to be done in it's name. Because my faith is about trying to be better, trying to be the presence of the divine, seeking the good in all (and many other things, of course). It is not a faith of abuse and oppression, any more than any other of the major world religions is.

And as I read the book, I became ashamed of my fellow human beings - especially men. Because when you read something like that, something that highlights the scale and degree of violence and hatred, you have to question what sort of creatures we are who wreak such havoc on ourselves. It is a disgrace.

I would love to recommend that you read it, but I found it bordering on traumatic, so I struggle to. But if you want to understand why there is a need for feminism still, when, in some parts of society there seems little real need any more, or only against the few stalwarts of paternalism, this book shows why feminism is still so needed. Across the world - in the rich, poor, "Christian" or not, wealthy or in desperate poverty, being a woman is still a disadvantage.

Until that is changed, there will be a need for books like this. That is a sad necessity.

Call yourself a feminist?

Actually, yes I do.

But there is more to me than that. The point is I am a feminist, but I am also all sorts of other things.

Some people might say "You can't call yourself a feminist, you make jokes at their expense!" Which is true - if you work with me, I will probably make jokes and comments to you and about you. I may even use your gender as part of that. Whether you are male or female. I will joke with you, not behind your back.

You see, I don't treat women as someone special. You will get treated exactly as anyone else. That is, I believe, the core aspect of feminism - it is not about treating women better as special, it is about treating them as people, irrespective of their gender.

Others might also say "You can't be a feminist, you are male." This is also true, and I am not ashamed of my gender, or of what it means. Let me be clear, I would prefer to look at pretty women, I find them attractive. That is reasonable and natural.

The point is that I don't judge women - or anyone - based on their looks. It is one aspect of a person - some are attractive, others aren't, some are intelligent, others aren't. I try to interact with people based on all sorts of factors, that combine to be a question of how much I respect them.

Feminism is - I believe - about treating women as people. I try to treat people with respect, although I would accept that do not tolerate fools. If you have a problem with the way I treat people, that is one thing. But the important thing is that I treat women as people. I do not "pretend" that they are men, or that they are not actually different.

Women are different. But they are still people. Anything else is mistaken.

Women and feminism

Would I call myself a feminist?

There has been quite a bit of discussion over this of late, with some people rejecting it, and others trying to redefine it. So where do I stand?

Well I would call myself a feminist. I accept that, as with so many other labels that I would take for myself, that others would not agree with my assignation - others might consider that I am not really a feminist. So what do I mean by the term?

I think it means - for me - someone who has respect for women, who does not discriminate against women by virtue of their gender, someone who believes that women have been badly treated throughout a lot of history, and there is a time to change this.

That is a somewhat philosophical approach to feminism, so what does it mean in practice - this is where some may disagree? I should point out that it does not mean treating women with kid gloves, refusing to engage with them in case I offend them. I think that is demeaning to women, and demeaning to myself.

I am a person who makes jokes. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes not. Sometimes I will make comments about people - to people - humourously, and sometimes jokes relating to their gender, but never demeaning, never dismissing. Actually, I will make similar remarks to men, relating to their gender too. You might not like it, but I do make these comments to the people, not behind their back.

I think that is important. I accept that a joking, humourous atmosphere has its risks, but I will make comments to everyone, not based on gender, and not behind their backs. And, when a comment is made that someone does find offensive, I apologise - because offense is never meant.

So feel free to dismiss me if you want.

I believe that for me to be a feminist means that I do not take into account a persons gender. I believe in taking into account their skills and talents, what they say, what they do. If someone is being stupid in what they say and do, I might be dismissive of them. But it is not related to their gender.

What is more, I believe that I have to acknowledge that women have historically been demeaned, oppressed, refused the opportunities that they deserve based purely on their gender. There is a need to make some changed to the system to counter this. There are times when women have to be given extra opportunities to make up for this, but not in terms of tokenism, but that women of appropriate ability need to be given chances. I am not in favour of explicit positive discrimination, I am in favour of women being treated equally, which may mean a little bias to counter a natural negative bias.

That might be all too subtle. You might want to dismiss me as a feminist if you want. That doesn't bother me.

So let me get less subtle. You can challenge me on my feminism, when we have no more page 3. You can challenge me on my feminism when the Church of England makes women equal, rather than having parishes where women priests cannot exercise their ministry, and where women can rise to the highest levels of the church. You can challenge me on my feminism when the institutionalisation of far more explicit sexism in the business world, in politics, in so many areas of life.

I am not a perfect feminist. I am not a perfect person, in many ways. But I do believe that people should be treated as human beings, irrespective of their gender. That means that don't treat them any worse, or any better than anyone else.

And I will continue to call myself a feminist.

--it also means that he demeaning page 3 stuff is broken.

Hilary Mantel and Kate Middleton

If you have had any connection to social networks at all, you will probably have heard some of the fuss over an essay that Hilary Mantel (award winning novelist) wrote, and its supposed criticism of the Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton). I have found this an interesting experiment in social media.

There are a number of important issues about this whole episode. Not least that the reports of what she said were rather mis-reported. The entire article was actually a balanced and interesting exploration of royalty and fashion. It was not critical of Kate Middleton, rather, it was supportive of her position and place, an acknowledgement of the difficulties she has. In fact the comments and supposed criticisms have more to them than appears - more than David Camerons naive comments about them.

However I want to explore something else first. The thing is, I first heard about the fuss on twitter. There were a few comments and links to people making a fuss. However there were also a number of people who had actually read the article and making sensible comments about what was actually in it. People making more reasoned arguments about the content of the article, and properly understanding it. The article itself is not one I would normally have read, but I have flicked through it, having had my attention drawn to it. Also, I can draw from a range of other people who appreciate and understand it better than I can, and I can draw from their wisdom about it. this wealth of informed, intelligent discussion helped me to realise that some people had got it wrong - and I could do that reasonably easily, because the comments and messages are short.

Of course it depends how you use twitter. It is quite easy to follow people whose posting style is "OMG!! Totes amazeballs!" - not that there is anything wrong in that - or people who just make stupid comments. I follow some of both types, but I also follow people who keep me in touch with other stuff that is going on, people who can give me an insight into events that are happening. It doesn't remove my responsibility to check things out properly, but it can help me to know what is significant, what is mere fluff, what is worth pursuing.

For example, I got a running commentary on the Brits this week, and realised that I didn't actually need to watch it on catch up. Discussing minority TV with others is also interesting and informative. It is like having all sorts of people with you, chatting about stuff.

But what of the comments made about Kate? The problem is that she is, to an extent, exactly what was being criticised. She is not ONLY that, but she is an attractive young lady in the very public eye. Her fashion choices will be discussed and dissected, her food and pregnancy will be a talking point, that is the society we have, where "celebrities" are constantly discussed and debated. It is not her fault, or her choice, it is ours - we decide that we like to know every nuance of her details. I think, in honesty, that she copes remarkably well with it.

What is more, one of her important roles is to have children. Rather like one of William's roles is to behave himself, to maintain the respect and dignity of the monarchy. Everyone has a role which they have to play, or have to reject and accept the consequences. Some people have more responsibilities, others have less; some people get more benefits from their role than others. Kate does get some significant perks from her role, let us not forget, and she made a choice to marry into the family. This is not to justify the intrusion, but it is part of the role.

The problems - and the core lessons form this debacle - is that we need to know and understand the truth. Twitter can help to get some insights, and give some pointers as to what is important, keep me in touch with events. But we also need to have a realistic view on facts, information, ideas. Some people talk rubbish, some don't. It is not always as easy as it should be to identify the difference.

Feminism is not an issue

No, actually I mean it. Feminism is not an issue any more, not because there is equality but for a completely different reason.

Making feminism an issue - or even THE issue - is to assume that gender is the primary issue of prejudice in our society. It isn't.

Making sexism an issue is based on an assumption that sexuality is a primary issue of prejudice. It isn't.

The primary issue of prejudice in our society is other people, different people, a form of xenophobia. the answer is not to identify gender, sexuality, colour, faith, or ay other aspect of a person. Xenophobic means "a fear of those who are different", while normally used for those from foreign countries, it applies just as much to those who are different in any aspect.

The answer is to simply treat ALL others as human, with respect, with dignity.

The danger of identifying "...isms" as the indicators of prejudice is that people can identify that they are not ...ist, and not ...ist, and it becomes a list of things to not be. That is not very helpful, because there is always some other ...ism to worry about.

Let me be clear, I make jokes and comments that some people would consider sexist or racist or whatever. However I always do this in a humourous way, with people who understand my humour. That doesn't mean that I just say "I'm only joking", it means that those I am joking with know I am only joking too. And I would support these same people against any real ...ism even more strongly.

This joking would not work if people did not know that I was not ...ist. I will NEVER make a comment that is denigrating someone because of their gender, sexuality, race, whatever. This is not because I am very "right on", it is because I do not think that these issues define people. If someone is being a jerk, they are being a jerk because of who they are, not because they are a teenager or a Presbyterian. They are a jerk because they are a jerk.

So if I don't jump on you bandwagon against ...ism, this is not because I am an ...ist. It is because your vision is too small. It is because I believe in treating all people as humans made in the image of God. Even those who are ...ist.

To me that is an even bigger challenge. And, of course, I don't always get it right. But I still follow these principles as much as I can.

Casual sexism

There has been a lot of twitter activity in my timeline about casual sexism, and the fact that it seems to be increasing. This made me wonder, and I am not entirely sure that this is true.

I should point out that sexism is wrong. There is no way that I would support or agree with sexist behaviour, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is sexist behaviour around, that there are many people who will denigrate others, based purely on their gender. The problem is, I think, rooted in the fact that men no longer know who they are meant to be.

It started in the 1960s, with the feminist movements. Actually, it started earlier than that, but I have to find some place to begin. the more aggressive feminist movements told men that they were not wanted or needed. They were hated. And we felt that anger. This is not to say that the early feminist movements were wrong in principle, just that they did not endear themselves to men, rather, they put men on the defensive. Actually, in some cases, they were wrong, because some of them wanted to build a new female hierarchy to replace the male one they so despised. If you want to know where that would have led, then Margaret Thatchers style and government is probably the closest we have experienced to this, and it is not good for men or women.

Then we got the "new man" - the man who was perfectly happy with the feminist equality principles; who would take on tasks around the house that had been female preserves; who would take their part in baby care, nappy changing and feeding. For some men, this was perfect, but for many, it had the effect of feminising them - while quite rightly encouraging their more "feminine side", it tended to dismiss and disparage their "masculine side". This, incidentally, is where the church, by and large, still is, and part of the reason for many of the problems the church as a whole is facing.

Then we had the "men behaving badly" phase, where ladishness became more acceptable, at least among younger men. It is easy to dismiss this as a simple return to an earlier stage, but it isn't. It is a reasserting of the masculine aspects, while not dismissing the feminine aspects of a person. The rise of the "ladette" is a part of this, where women are allowed to explore their masculine side too.

Incidentally, this is not my original analysis, although I cannot remember where I heard it - it may have been Elaine Storkey, but there were others who I heard and read, and it was a long time ago that this was being explored. I need to bring it up to date. This specific exploration is mine, however.

So where are we now? We are in a situation where men are very unsure of their position, and of their behaviour. What is more, we are now in a state where children have been brought up by New Men and Men Behaving Badly, and are also struggling to find their role model and place in society.

The result, sometimes, is that men are very confused. Please bear with me, as I am not excusing anything. The problem is that women have also developed differing styles and approaches - the aggressive feminist; the strong woman; the ladette; the sexual person (not object). Women, I think, are also confused with their roles, with so many different styles. So a confused man compliments a woman, and it comes out slightly wrong, because he is not sure what he should be. She hears it and doesn't know whether to be complimented or offended, and so may take the offended line.

OK, this is not how it always happens, but maybe it is more often than it should. Men flirt with women in work environments - I see it everywhere. Usually, it is not about wanting sex, or even wanting to sexualise them - it is about them trying to identify what the relations between them should be. This is often something that needs to be reassessed daily. Of course, sometimes it is about abuse or sex, and as such is unacceptable, but this "unacceptable" is not always as clear cut as it may seem.

Yes, some things are always unacceptable - treating others as objects is always unacceptable. But treating others as if they are also sexual beings is, often, intended positively. Sometimes the messages get mixed on the way out and/or the way in, but, more often than some people would like to admit, the intention is not sexist.

I would emphasise again that some people are sexist and see other people as sex objects, and nothing more. Their behaviour will often reflect this (although not always, so don't assume that the lovely person sitting next to you does not see you as a sex object), and this behaviour is also - separately - unacceptable. If you make it clear that you don't like being patted on the bottom, and they continue to do it, that is unacceptable. If you see him staring at your breasts, and then wear lower cut tops, then don't complain when he continues to stare at your breasts. Maybe, take it as a compliment that he considers your breasts worth staring at, and he assumes that your choice of garment means that you like to have them stared at. And slap him if he tries to fondle them.

I am not putting all of the responsibility on the women either. Remember that people that you work with are people first and foremost. They may be very attractive, you may consider that sex with them would be extremely pleasurable, but they are also people and it is important to respect that. Find, define, and remain within the boundaries of the relationship that you are in with them. Don't make assumptions.

Oh, and this works both ways. Women do make men into sex-objects as well as the other way round. Which only helps to confuse matters even more. Sex is one important part of all relationships, but never the most important.

And if we can stop shouting "sexism" to stuff that isn't, but keep it for the stuff that is, that would help everyone, I think. Most of the time, I suspect, it is not active sexism, it is just confused people trying to work out how to get on with each other.