My Scream Got Lost in a Paper Cup

I have, upon reflection, decided to make most of this journal, i.e. stuff about me and my life, friends-only. But don't let that put you off. It's very interesting. Really. So if you'd like to read it, just comment here, and I will duly add you. I'll be friends with anyone, so there's no need to fear rejection. Be nice if you added me in return though! I will however (as of Feb 2007), post publicly on more 'theoretical' things, mostly ideological, but with some of my tongue in my cheek, as I'm not one for ever being entirely serious.

I haven't written in this for over a year, but just wanted to let my flist know that I do still read your posts from time to time, and that I've moved to Knitting, Sex and God. I'll keep the journal here as a record, but I won't be writing in it anymore. xxxxxx

I don't know why I'm not writing here much at the moment. I have little better to do, and I've been doing plenty of online reading - here and all over the place - but I don't seem to be posting anywhere. That includes keeping in touch with people. I have plenty of thoughts buzzing around my head but I just seem to have nothing that's worth saying. Including this, probably!

I don't know what to make of this story
As for the case, and who's telling the truth and who acted wrongly,  that's not my business and it's certainly not for me to make pronouncements on. But I know that I would be making pronouncements if the accused was a man. When I read the headline and clicked on the link my thoughts were the standard bristling feminist tenets: 'just because a woman sends a man intimate text messages it doesn't mean that she loses her right not to have sex with him if she doesn't want to.' And then of course, I saw that the story concerns two females. And the whole issue becomes less black and white, in a way that it wouldn't for me if it was a 29 year old man and a 13 year old girl. It's uncomfortable to realise how prejudiced I can be about this sort of thing - because I'm gay and because I'm a feminist, and because of my own experiences.

Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: I'm halfway through, and as of yet unable to decide if it's a lovely manifesto for wonderfulness, or a smug description of one family's happiness as expressed through growing vegetables and cooking and being generally smug. I have to remind myself that Kingsolver knows pain and reality - think of her novels! - but in this rural and familial idyll she describes little account seems to be taken of the fact that People Suck and Life is Often Miserable. I'm sure I'm just jealous. Her daughter, who I suppose is about twenty, has her own sections in which she talks about her own enthusiasm for nutritious home-grown/cooked food. As I read them I keep thinking - 'you think exactly the same as your parents on these matters! Don't you realise that all normal teenagers rebel?!?'  Part of me would love a family that grows and cooks together and has the same values and ideals. But that's not my family, and I wouldn't exchange them. And I do hope that when I raise my own children on organic beef and homegrown vegetables, dressed in recycled knitwear and getting the bus everywhere because I refuse a car, that they shout and scream at me and go out and eat McDonalds and buy clothes made my exploited Bangladeshis, because that's what healthy kids do, dammit!

This is an interesting post.

We had my grand birthday present opening today, whilst Bethan was still here. I'd bought the presents for myself off the internet, in anticipation of being given money, but it was still quite exciting, because I couldn't quite remember what I bought! In keeping with my recent decision to buy things that are as least ethically objectionable as possible, I got

- books from the new Oxfam on the internet thingy [still very squee-ish about this] and from an independent bookshop in Sandwich via localbookshops.co.uk, rather than from Amazon.

-a kit of natural yarn dyes from an indie vendor [I want to give natural dyeing a try for The Fun, rather than for environmental pretensions: the chemicals one uses to mordant are pretty much equivalent to those in acid dyes]

- a 'natural' shampoo/body bar and conditioner - again, not because I think that the chemicals and processes that go into making this are much more ecofriendly, but because I don't agree with the marketing or corporate ethos of the usual cosmetic/personal care products. I also got one of those mineral deodorant things - that work by preventing bacteria rather than sweat. I got it because I'm curious to see if it works; there's less packaging and it will probably last longer than normal sprays or roll-ons. But I couldn't help laughing at myself when I read on the label that the company that supplies it is based in Texas and the thing was made in Thailand, after explaining to my family that the parabens found in most deodorants build up in the body and could be linked to breast cancer, whilst rolling myself a cigarette!

And I had ensured that my mum wrapped the presents up in the paper I salvaged from Christmas. Which I proceeded to fold up and put by for another time. Check out my eco-credentials! I envisage opening presents wrapped in the same paper when I'm eighty :-)

Every year I watch Wimbledon and every year I get increasingly pissed off by the commentators' emphasis on what the women players look like, something rarely mentioned in men's matches. And the cringeworthy BBC 'interviews' in which some middle-aged man gives 'compliments'  to young women infinitely more talented [and rich!] than him about how pretty she is. Urgh.

Just watched a very thought-provoking and saddening documentary on Channel 4 -  Afghanistan Unveiled - about the current situation women in Afghanistan. It seems that, in the main, they are not 'liberated', as George Bush would like to think. Obviously the attitudes about women's roles that prevailed with the Taliban still run deep, for example educated men said that when they see a woman not wearing a burqa they fear that they will be driven to sin by lust; a young girl has to go to her grandmother's house to do her homework as her father cannot stand to see her with a book, and there's a huge rate of infant mortality and women dying in childbirth because the medical treatment of pregnant women is left up to the decision of the husband.

The programme made me sad that not enough has changed in the last few years, that the terrible cost of war has done so little to buy freedom. I also felt, as I often do, so lucky to have an education, a democratic government, rights over my body, and the freedom to wear what I want, as well as living in a rich and peaceful country. I really should appreciate these things more and make the most of them.


I looked up RAWA, a thirty-year old Afghan feminist organisation, and was really inspired by their website detailing their aims and achievements. One can donate to them by buying items from their Amazon wishlist, but post the items to Friends of RAWA, P.O. Box 30693, Santa Barbara, CA  93130. There is also a UK Supporters' site, which has information on donating stationery items for schoolgirls.

-----

The latest F-Word has a feature on cartoonist Jacky Fleming, I like these cartoons of hers in particular:







Today is International Day Against Homophobia. I really recommend a visit to their website, which has loads of info about the situation in individual countries. There is very little, in comparison, about my country, in which the last few years has seen gay people gain pretty much total legislative equality. But there are some things you just can't make laws against. Today I was considering what to say to the venue that is hosting the LGBTa ball I'm organising, ensuring that they know who is coming. Obviously by law they have to serve us, and there's no reason why I should forewarn them what kind of a uni society we are. But I feel I ought to, so that the staff are not shocked and surprised at having to serve lots of queers, and are prepared for any deviant behaviour they might witness. And I wonder if this is just internalised homophobia here, feeling that there is something weird about us and people should be warned in advance. Or am I just being pragmatic - people often are homophobic, and I should take steps to ensure that no unpleasant incidents happen that would upset our members and ruin the event. Plus I'm embarrassed at having to say what the society I run the socials for is - not that I'm ashamed, though it always is as the back of my mind that people will disapprove - just that I hate having to tell people what my romantic and sexual desires are when all I'm trying to do is organise a ball.

Also, I read in the_barlow's journal that an RE teacher in his school doesn't know what Stonewall is, and didn't want him to mention them in class because the kids would get silly. This is bad, but hopefully that kind of ignorance and attitudes among teachers responsible for children's moral and social knowledge is the way out. I'm glad that these days it's perfectly legal for teachers to mention organisations like Stonewall in class, especially thinking about my own experiences of homophobic bullying, and the school's reluctance to do anything about it, less than a decade ago. So yay for the steady decline of homophobia in the UK, and long may it continue

...you can't watch the latest episode of Doctor Who without wincing.

First, the whole witches thing. 'Witches' were women who were marginalised in their communities for whatever reason, and then blamed for whatever tragedy had befallen said community and horribly put to death. It's not a part of our country's history and mythology which should be taken at face value and made into evil aliens who want to bring about chaos and blood (symbols traditionally associated with women).

 Secondly, poor Martha. I always found the whole male Doctor travels round with female 'assistant', showing her wonders and teaching her about the universe, a little bit offensive before I ever watched the programme. Then I watched it, and I loved it, so I forgot. Now it's bothering me, that they fall in love with him, that he casts them off when he chooses, that he even implies to Martha that he might get rid of her at any point. That a woman can't have a friendship with a man without becoming all simpering and googlyeyed, no matter how intelligent or ambitious she is. They tell Shakespeare that they come from a future where women are free to become doctors or whatever they choose, but the script seems to say that women are still not free to have a friendship with a charismatic stranger without becoming emotionally dependent and having their future subject to his arbitrary whims.

I know that I'm taking a children's programme far too seriously. But then again, it's something that a lot of people watch and love, including myself, and I think that the stuff you watch on telly, especially as a child, does effect what you think about the world. In the case of Doctor Who, this is brilliant as regards the character of Captain Jack, and the Doctor's flirting with him, making same-sex desire and relationships normal and probably contributing to rather than just reflecting an increasingly inclusive culture. But, I always imagine children in the playground, the boys getting to play the Doctor and the girls having to play the assistant...The programme started in a time when patriarchal patterns and attitudes were more strongly entrenched than they are today, and it saddens me that it's moved with the times in terms of sexuality but not really that much in terms of gender. In the 70s a major character feature of the assistant Sarah Jane Smith was that she was a feminist (probably one of the first positive presentations of feminists on television), but when she's reprised in the 21st century she ends up bemoaning her abandonment and fighting with a younger, prettier girl over her man.

I still love it though. I'm hypocritical like that.

I've been have great fun looking at all the e-petitions to the Prime Minister here and exercising my democratic rights in signing dozens of them. As I have little faith in the essential goodness of The Great British Public, the fact that many of these petitions can be described as hateful at best was of little surprise to me. But I was shocked that 24 thousand people have signed this one: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ScrapMegaMosque/

The blurb for the petition is worth quoting:

We the Christian population of this great country England would like the proposed plan to build a Mega Mosque in East London Scrapped. This will only cause terrible violence and suffering and more money should go into the NHS.

What is going on here?  Why would Christians gather together to oppose a building for another religion, and why on earth would they think that a mosque 'will cause violence and suffering'? I don't like people hijacking Christ's name this way. I suppose I tend to think that people like this are a very small minority in the UK, but that so many bothered to sign a petition worries me a little.

I'm writing an essay on interpretations Abraham and the near-sacrifice of Isaac. One writer (Carol Delaney) argues that this story exemplifies and legitimates a culture in which children are the possessions of their father, and he can do what he chooses with them. So I thought the huge taboo on infanticide and how maybe this doesn't quite square with her theory, not as regards Isaac. Jephthah's daughter, maybe. But that's all by the by - I Googled 'infanticide taboo' , and was led here


This is the bit that really upsets and angers me:

So Infanticide is the next taboo to be stalked and killed….

The way to destroy a moral rule is the same.

You start with a taboo: Something that everyone agrees is wrong.

First, a professor or philosopher argues the rule should not hold in hard cases.

The next step is we need as a society to discuss the moral problem, and consider the problem “rationally”, not just automatically follow outmoded moral traditions.

The next step is that some people actually do it. They are frowned upon, but then the press writes up the action as actually moral, and starts pointing to those condemning the action as bigots.

Soon the law changes, often by courts, not by social consensus.

The next step is that those who still oppose the activity and condemn it are now labled as immoral, and we are told they are the ones who should be social outcasts.

This has happened over and over again. First it was premarital sex, then abortion, then living together, then drug use, then homosexuality, then partial birth abortion, then starving the handicapped…

So for infanticide, we are now at step two.

Never mind an idiotic attitide to things like abortion, I can believe, I just can't believe that someone would put homosexuality on a line, or even on the spectrum of, infanticide. It pains me.

Lame on it's own, in that it didn't really respond to any of my points. But particularly lame in that it is EXACTLY the same as this letter here I knew they must have a stock letter they send in reply to complaints abouts that sort of thing, but they could at least have tailored it a bit, apart from the patronising and univited insertion of my first name. Grr. And telling me it's 'men's lifestyle', when I referred to them as ''men's lifestyle' magazines' in my subject heading!

Speaking of 'products aimed at children', there's the kiddies' stationery with the Playboy logo - go here to sign a petition against such vileness. (Incidentally, there's a photo of me aged five at a party with a homemade hat thing my mum had made, which was a big cut-out Playboy bunny. The other kids had cats and elephants and things. My mum didn't know that this particular bunny she used as a stencil was a porn logo. Bless her.)

( Excerpt from Tori Amos interview on feminism, religion and politics )

Posted to toriamos by angel_inthesnow 

full article on the journalist's website

Interesting to hear her talk about Jesus getting hijacked, as I don't actually know what she thinks about the figure of Jesus, only her experience of guilt and repression from the religion based on him.
As for her 'the political is personal' message, I think that's very right and true, but I'm intrigued about her wedding a message of transformative power and becoming 'warrior women' to to the contemporary US party political context, as surely this is a message worth telling for its own sake, and something that I think she's always done in her songs.
Also, since when is high heels and lipstick 'the woman's way'? I think I know what she means - 'I'm going to look fabulous and impressive because I am powerful and strong and witch-magic flows through me down to my fingertips' - but it could be open to all sorts of horrid misinterpretation, stilettos and power-dressing in the City, or having political blat via means of seduction. Not to mention the implication that the proper political machinations of Western democracy aren't appropriate for a woman to get involved in.
I like the image of 'warrior-woman', the Amazons and all that, but I'm always a little uneasy about essentially violent symbols for feminist struggle (like the fist), as I think that fighting and violence belong to the patriarchal, hierarchical, originalsinful structures that feminism seeks to undercut. I wish we had any images of challenge, struggle and victory that aren't based in war and violence in one way or another.

]

:-(

(photo taken by Milly, on our North East Feminists Facebook group)

Good old Rowan. I do think that he tries to be sensible, it's just such a difficult job, and he's trying his best to maintain unity in the church without alienating either side. Not easy.
I went to a talk on LGBT people and faith this evening. It was basically an advert for the MCC church, which I don't really agree with, as I don't think splintering off from the rest of the church is the way to go - we should try to show that Christians who are gay really aren't that different from Christians who are straight, and the way to do that is to be present in the church. I think that James Allison expresses a lot better than I could the task that God has for gay people in witnessing to the church, however difficult that may be in his drawing an analogy between the queer Christian and Jonah.

Vile men and their vileness
The horrible things one sees via Facebook.

Right, lots of people will be aware of the debacle which was The Verdict (if not, read Louise Livesey's summary of it here). Now today, I was both surprised and gratified when I sat down for my daily dose of Neighbours to see that they (yes folks, you heard correctly Neighbours) handled a similar issue a lot more sensitvely. Janae, a goodhearted but archetypal 'dumb blonde' with a colourful sexual history at a young age, was sexually harrassed and nearly raped by her new boss. And there was no hint that she was 'asking for it', despite wearing skimpy outfits, and thanking him for his compliments when going for drink after work. The male policeman investigating said that there is a difference between the law and justice in these matters, and was pained by how women alone at night cross the road to avoid him when he's not in uniform. Now I know that Neighbours is rubbish (deliciously so) and that there's a myriad of issues that they handle extremely badly (e.g. when they thought Janae might have HIV and it was only ever referred to as The Disease), but I thought it was telling that the small bunch of mad scientists living in a cupboard (as I picture them) that come up with Neighbours storylines dealt with this matter a whole lot better than the sharp-suited focus group sitting round a table, paid by our licence fees, that conceived of the nightmare that was The Verdict, in which rape was described and discussed without them even bothering to consult victims-advocacy groups.

Very pleased that Wimbledon is finally paying equal prize money, and also loving the 'menstrual activism' :0) of the promo art for Tori's forthcoming album: look here to see what I mean.

( My Interests Collage! )