selective freedom to worship?

The first rule of polling is that the question you ask predetermines the kind of answers you will get. The recent polls on religious expression are no exception, which is why public opinion can be shown to be both in favour of the right to hold and live by certain beliefs, while at the same time rejecting religious activities as devisive and worthy of a ban.

Get the feeling that the commitment to religious expression is less than purely principled, and rather more specific than we usually admit?

a post about literature that will miraculously improve my google ranking

The Bad Sex award is out, recognising the literary achievement of Iain Hollingshead for writing that includes the following:

"She reaches for my belt. I groan too, in expectation. And then I'm inside her, and everything is pure white as we're lost in a commotion of grunts and squeaks, flashing unconnected images and explosions of a million little particles."

Squeaky sex aside, this sounds a lot more fun than my experience of literary prizes - namely the James Tait Black, open annually to any UK author who has published within the last year. I'm looking at you, Dave Hill.

For full details of the JTB go here. For full details of squeaky sex.. well, there's always google.

nothing so stupid it can't be repeated

Following up on their we were so totally wrong about that coverage of the difference between men and women's speech, the Mail compounds their brilliance with a feature by Carol Sarler titled Why we women will NEVER stop talking.

Within the first paragraph, the same non-fact is repeated ("The average woman clocks up 20,000 spoken words every day, against the paltry male score of 7,000") and space is found to scold feminine verbal rapacity:

Listen, for instance, to a man using that most hideously misused tool of our times, the mobile telephone. Yes, he will announce rather too loudly that he is on the train; however, once he has ascertained that the train will indeed be met at the other end, he’s done.

Now listen, as if you have any choice in the matter, to a woman on the same train. She will add in the crowding at the station, the queue for the loo, the ladder in her tights and, if there’s still time, the livery of the interior of the carriage. For all the world as if the poor sap on the other end either needed or wanted to know.

Hey! Check out this totally hi-larious cartoon on the same page showing, nae proving, that when women speak it not only drives men mad but means nothing at all! Woo!

This entire fiesta is, if you'll pardon my choice of words, obvious bollocks. It's a gross generalisation masquerading as fact - or in other words, business as usual.

What's that again? Louann Brizendine (author of the book being referenced)

has accepted the criticism of the numbers quoted in the book - on both volume of words and rate of speech - and will be deleting them from future editions. Nor will they appear in the UK edition, to be published by Bantam in April.

Golly. It's almost as though the "fact" on which this entire article is based is entirely untrustworthy and unsupported by evidence.

Hmm. I wonder..

tank-oo

This is my bi-annual thanks to those who comment here - to the people who bring me new information, challenge my thinking or point out when they think I'm plain wrong.

While being wrong isn't much fun, I think it's better than being deliberately ignorant: I hope I never hold an opinion that I can't find the ability to evolve, change or criticise when I learn something new.

So for your participation in all its forms, genuine thanks.

/end sappiness

self-refuting

I may have to check my own fucking facts: just got an email telling me the motivation for moving Pure off the Edinburgh campus may have something more to do with the absence of opportunity for debate or dissent within the course. If true, it's an incredibly important element of this debate that has been overlooked, not least by me.

UPDATE: There seems to be some confusion - both in many press reports, letters and on my own part - between the book "Pure" and the course of the same name. This Times article, for example, makes reference to a particular text recommended by the course in the bookstall section of the "Pure sex" session described here, and appears to be the source of much of the dispute in apparently detailing the story of a "reformed" homosexual.

Given that rhetoric, along with the title of the book - "What some of you were" [EDIT: also quoted as "Some of what you were"?]- it's not difficult to understand how some people feel a "cure" is being implied within the discussion of homosexuality on the course. That inference, alongside the idea that homsexuality is a uniquely sinful sexuality (having, unlike heterosexuality, no "redeemable" form beyond its complete refusal), seems to be the source of most - if not all - of the anger being expressed.

the hint of a tory education policy

David Willets (the Tory shadow education secretary) has spoken out against the divide between the exams offered by state and private schools, for much the same reasons I had last week. It was mainly an opportunity to attack Gordon Brown, but there's a hint of policy in there too:

David Willetts told a conference on education policy that a "new and worrying divide is opening up". He said that independent schools increasingly turn to exams such as the IGCSE and new Pre-U, which England's state schools are not funded to offer. [...]

He added: "Gordon Brown may want to match the funding of public schools, but he still keeps denying state school pupils the right to study the subjects and to sit the exams that they value." He described as "deeply disappointing" that the government voted down the Conservative amendment to the education bill giving pupils the right to study individual sciences.

"The only way to reverse this drift to educational apartheid is by a clear principle that exams that are good enough for students in independent schools are good enough for students in maintained schools as well."

One important thing missing from this critique is the recognition that different exams might be suited for different things - and that some independent schools prefer a particular approach, for example, because they think it's the best route into university for their students.

This doesn't mean that independent schooling is exclusively designed for university, but that certain schools recognise that this is primary part of the educational service they offer.

The recognition of how specific that situation is suggests the "right" for pupils to take such exams in state schools has to be matched with a commitment to a realistic and coherent alternative for those for whom university holds no interest or is not an option.

The focus on examinations and further or higher education has to be about more than feeding the university system.

debunking the gender divide, part 92

A fresh dump truck of wrrrrong arrives today via the Mail's "science" correspondent, Fiona Macrae:

It is something one half of the population has long suspected - and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men. In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 more than the average man. [...]

The book - written by a female psychiatrist [Dr Luan Brizendine] - says that inherent differences between the male and female brain explain why women are naturally more talkative than men.

There seems to be little chance of killing this "fact," even though a rebuttal pointing out the scarcity of evidence for such a claim appeared as recently as yesterday in The Guardian:

The book has not been well received by some of her fellow scientists. The joint reviewers in the scientific magazine Nature declared: "Despite the author's extensive academic credentials, The Female Brain disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance ... The text is rife with 'facts' that do not exist in the supporting references."

And though The Mail leads with the "women talk more than men" claim, Brizendine herself has admitted

that she has accepted the criticism of the numbers quoted in the book - on both volume of words and rate of speech - and will be deleting them from future editions. Nor will they appear in the UK edition, to be published by Bantam in April.

But apart from all that, it's a tremendous scoop for the Mail.

"tolerance" of homophobia on campus

Could opinion columnists and sub-editors please check their fucking facts? Here's Richard Cunningham in The Guardian:

Edinburgh University authorities have banned the CU from meeting on campus to discuss sexual ethics. Why? Because the orthodox Christian view is deemed offensive to homosexuals.

The only parts of this paragraph that aren't factually wrong are the parts that a deeply misleading. The only thing that has been banned from campus in Edinburgh is the Pure course - an evangelical programme that recommends literature which goes far beyond the orthodox view to claim that homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured. It's a statement which is actually being deemed offensive by quite a lot of people: straight, gay and Christian alike.

It's total ignorance of the specific situation that allows Cunningham to argue:

Real tolerance presupposes judgment. You have to believe you are right and the other person is wrong in order to exercise tolerance.

Yet the problem here is that Pure is profoundly intolerant, seeking to convert or cure those it opposes. The attitude espoused by Pure shows no interest in extending tolerance in return.

The claim to "unity in diversity" is also pretty fucking redundant when one party is determined to "cure" that diversity. Whatever demands the call for gay equality might make  it's not that Christians should have fewer rights to live and love than anyone else, or that Christians should entirely abandon their faith.

I'm also getting pretty fed up with pundits on both the left and the right lauding the idea of free speech without ever recognising that such a pure and transcendental principle does not - absolutely does not - exist in this country in any form, regardless of whether you're on campus or not. All speech is moderated, either formally by law or the community in which it appears.

the moral high ground (gutter edition)

Here we go:

Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols threatened to withdraw Catholic co-operation with the Government over schools, charity programmes and adoption agencies if the new sexual orientation regulations go ahead. [..]

And he added that "those who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors. They have no mandate or competence to be so."

As opposed to the unelected, self-appointed moral tutors of the Catholic Church, one presumes. What's the parable? People who lived in stained glass buildings shouldn't throw stones?

So they're threatening to take their mitres and go home:

Catholics have threatened to shut down their adoption agencies, which successfully found familes for more than 200 children last year, if they are forced to place children with gay couples.

So dogma is more important than the welfare of children. It makes it much easier to judge the moral competence of a certain group of men in robes, who've decided that the rejection of teh queer is the rock on which they've built their Church - an emphasis which must come as a bit of a suprise to the author of the Sermon on the Mount.

For my occasional dissenters, please note wide-ranging research showing that the children of same-sex parents do as well (if not better than) the children of straight couples in every way: the rejection of same-sex parenting is dogmatic and not pragmatic, despite attempts to pretend otherwise.

Also see the second half of polite fundamentalism is still fundamentalism for further discussion of adoption issues.

male pill (not for male use)

News of the latest version of the male pill ("prevents ejaculation but does not affect the intensity of the orgasm" reports The Telegraph wistfully) has been framed in the Mail as primarily beneficial to women , who would no longer have to take sole responsibility for birth control..

Rebecca Findlay, of the Family Planning Association, said: "It gets really tiring for women to always be the one in charge of fertility. For women, it would be another form of liberation. It's great."

..rather than - as could also be the case - as a form of male empowerment. The comment section over there is already ripe with the suggestion that men couldn't be trusted to take the pill and would be forever getting their partners accidentally pregnant: so much for masculine responsibility. I'm mildly amazed that this hasn't been pitched as a way to avoid being snared into marriage by devious women, but the story is still young.

Rather more stupidly, the Mail also sells the pill as something that could be taken "a few hours before a date." Is it so much to ask that a newspaper (justifiably) obsessed with the rise in STI's at least acknowledge the possibility of safe sex?

the crucifix and the profit margin

Now that British Airways have decided to visit their uniform code, it's worth noting that BA has no real interest in Christianity or any other religion. They're not changing the dress code out of any respect for faith, or because they have to honour one women's wish to celebrate her deity in the workplace. They're also not changing the rules because they recognise they've been unfair in the past, because - as far as BA was concerned until the weekend - they thought that a crucifix was an entirely optional observance in Christianity.

BA is reconsidering the rules because of the weight of bad PR, which might have an effect on their entirely secular profits. Anyone arguing that this means that Christians are now being shown the respect they deserve in the workplace is engaging in a little wishful thinking. This was a business decision.

creationism still not a science, no, really

The most nauseating thing about The Guardian's coverage of the rise of creationism in some UK schools is the name of the group providing the teaching materials: "Truth in Science," a claim so fraudulent it's breathtaking. The rhetorical side-step at work here is one of the most traditional:

"We are not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory," said Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught."

"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs. 

Here, the idea that dissent should be taught gives cover to the notion that any idea - regardless of how lacking in evidence - should be taught in the name of "balance" and "teaching the debate," even when the debate is profoundly unbalanced and the evidence entirely lacking.

A large problem with this argument is that the intelligent design movement is entirely lacking in empirical evidence, choosing to infer a supernatural agent. As has become increasingly clear in Us court battles, the creationist critique of Darwin is not a scientific one. The positive side to this story is that the UK government wants nothing to do with creationism:

The government has made it clear the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. In a response to the Labour MP Graham Stringer on November 1, Jim Knight, a minister in the Department for Education and Skills, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum."

This is, however, a step away from active measures to prevent individual schools from teaching creationism as science, rather than as a religious philosophy.

and then my brain fell out

A letter in The Times:

Why does [Dawkins] believe so strongly that objective reason matters? Even if one can derive a basis for moral behaviour from evolution, there is no objective motive for a human being to choose it.

To espouse the cause of objective reason is not a decision arising from reason — it is a choice made on the basis of faith, in particular a faith in the power of reason to explain all that needs explaining in human life.

I don't think this person knows what the word "objective" means.

de cock speaks, you listen

Quote of the day from the appropriately named Kevin De Cock of the World Health Organisation:

[He] welcomed the news that condoms could be sanctioned for married Catholic couples where one partner has HIV. "We're very pleased to hear this," he said. "But our concern is that these deep theological decisions take account of the biological consequences of infection. Could we please have this debate in a hurry? Lives are at risk and time is short."

While it's nice that certain parties are going in pursuit of a theological explanation for the change in policy, couldn't we just change the rules now and make something up.. uh.. discover the scriptural precedent.. later?

there is a raptor in my office

I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't be reading The Adventures of Dr. McNinja:

NI equality consultation document

Here's the Northern Ireland Office consultation document (pdf) on plans to rule out discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; I can't find the published conclusions. Anyone have any beter luck?

anti-discrimination laws to hit northern ireland first

Another (more convicing) claim that the laws banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation are going ahead without religious exemption - this time in The Telegraph:

The Sexual Orientation Regulations, which the Government appeared to have dropped a few weeks ago, are being fast-tracked in Northern Ireland, using direct rule powers.

They have even be toughened up in what critics believe is a dry run for a similar move in the rest of Britain next spring. [...]

The UK-wide regulations were due to be voted on in parliament last month but the Government put them off for six months because of an unexpectedly high number of responses to a consultation exercise.

However, they have now been slipped out in Northern Ireland after just a few weeks of consultation and are due to come into force in the province on Jan 1.

I'll go looking for the details of this; aside from this story, there's been almost nothing in the mainstream UK press.

The Department for Communities and Local Government, in charge of the policy in England and Wales, has delayed implementation of the regulations while it considers some 3,000 responses to the public consultation.

But in Northern Ireland, which is run from Whitehall in the absence of a devolved administration, the consultation closed only in September and the new regulations were tabled just six weeks later.

What do you think? Is it really going to happen? Has our government found a spine, but just doesn't want to talk about it?

blessed are the meek

As The Times continues its coverage of the recent wrangles between "Christian" groups and student unions, there's more than a trace of irony of certain Christian groups calling others of being "intolerant" when those are the grounds on which the very same groups have been asked to leave campus.

Though The Times has printed a number of letters condeming university authorities, they've yet to find space for a single letter from the universities themselves offering a defence: I have it on very good authority that such letters exist.

Most accounts are also still ignoring the degree to which all Christianity has been reduced - by players on both sides, to different ends - to issues of sexual morality. Lost here is the degree to which an evangelical minority is assuming the name of Christianity in general - literally, in the case of Birmingham, where the word "evangelical" seems to slip from the formal title of the group in press coverage.

It's also worth paying attention to the specific facts of individual cases - though The Guardian runs together the situations in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh to suspend Christian groups from membership or use of premises, there's no explanation of the individual rationale that has applied in each case.

In Edinburgh, for example, the Christian Union has not been "banned," only told that a particular course - Pure - cannot be run on campus, though today's letter from a number of bishops and religious figures includes Edinburgh while focussing on the detail of conflicts at other institutions, which involve whether non-Christians (or Christians who won't sign a particular declaration) can assume particular roles in societies. At best, such tactics are lazy: they certainly don't advance the debate.

hallelujah: catholic church may reconsider condoms

This is plain good news:

The Roman Catholic church has taken the first step towards what could be a historic shift away from its total ban on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI's "health minister" is understood to be urging him to accept that in restricted circumstances - specifically the prevention of Aids - barrier contraception is the lesser of two evils.

It's less appealling that contraception still counts as any kind of evil, but it's a minor pill of condemnation to swallow if the Vatican can bend a previously intractable rule and potentially save some lives. It's a potential step forward, and in the right direction, which is more than has been on the table before.

It might also provide the minor entertainment of a series of pieces of seemingly inviolate dogma being re-written on the fly, and a number of outspoken bishops becoming slightly less so. It could also make it slightly harder for the Catholic Church to make the argument (in opposing comprehensive sex education) that condoms encourage sex, because we'll be in a position where the Church itself is also somehow encouraging sex.

I suspect we're going to hear a lot about the "context" of loving relationships - which also works towards a greater recognition of how narrow the definition of such relationships can be. It will also be nice to hear the voices of some progressive Catholics in the press for once - they do exist. No, really.

a little bit introspective

I occasionally get emails - or comments - declaring that I must have some kind of massive persecution complex to feel the need to write about the politics of equality: it's a fairly brilliant way of avoiding whatever it is I'm talking about, by arguing that the very fact that I'm raising the issue is proof of its pointlessness. Bravo, circular logic and farewell human empathy.

But whatever my apparent obsessions might be it's absolutely nothing when compared to those who think that certain sex acts between consenting adults in private (in other rooms, other towns, other countries, of which they cannot even be aware) are a threat to their way of life.

It's nothing compared to the mental gymnastics of those who think that ignorance will protect the most vulnerable from disease, as if not teaching someone about boxing will stop them from ever getting punched. Donkey-punched, even, if you're looking for some kind of horrible sexual metaphor.

The point of this post? Two things. I write about a limited range of topics, so it's easy for me to stay on top of an issue. It means that I'm not going to forget about Ruth Kelly and Opus Dei - for example - anytime soon, even though the media spotlight has moved on. For past Kelly action, go here. I'll also be passing on those kind offers of holy intervention I've been getting.

Second, if you like this kind of thing, I'd be horribly pleased if you'd head over to the Verve Weblog Awards and vote for me in the Best UK GLBT blog category:


And then you should go and take a look at the other finalists: London Dan, bob's yer uncle, Tranniefesto and Trunk Guy. You see? There's even more out there than pictures of tiny monkeys and tirades against the Daily Mail..

[EDIT - To be fair, I guess you should look at the other entrants before you vote. But only if you still promise to stick with me. :)]

ruth kelly: fresh platitudes

I can't find any evidence to support the Mail's claim that Ruth Kelly has now fully committed to introducing anti-discrimination law, free of religious exemptions. It's possible that the Mail's panic was triggered by the prospect of any law tackling discrimination on account of sexual orientation, regardless how full of holes it might be.

However, I did find this from Kelly's most recent appearance in the House of Commons on Monday :

We want tolerant and inclusive communities, in which discrimination of any kind is unacceptable.

Please keep this one on file under "hypocrisy, advanced warning." The law in question is the Equality Act, 2006 and the consultation paper addressing the sexual orientation provisions can be found here (pdf). Though the consultation closed in June, we're still waiting for the formal government response.

If the provisions are going to be introduced in April 2007 - as has been suggested - Ruth Kelly, and her deputy Meg Munn, are running out of time to voice pleasant platitudes.

milking it

It's nice to read other people catching the Daily Mail's passive-aggressive scaremongering - in this case, Dr John Crippen:

So, the Daily Mail would have us believe that there are 60,000 babies in the UK being made ill by ignorant parents who, supported by ignorant doctors, are continuing to give them milk. Note the passive tense again. "It is feared..." By whom is it feared?

It's actually feared by almost no-one - that is, until they've read a story telling them they should be afraid.

The third person anonymous critic allows the Mail - and less frequently the Times, the BBC and the Guardian - to create talking points and controversy where none exist. It's a particularly lazy way of either creating "balance," inventing straw-man arguments for perceived opponents ("feminists won't let you.." or "the homosexual agenda is..") or introducing fringe opinions that have not been offered but sought.

As such, any article that includes the phrase "critics argue..." (much beloved during discussion of the HPV vaccine) can be safely ignored until those critics are identified - preferably as someone other than the newspaper's editorial board. More often than not, it's the beginning of a fishing expedition: phone around family interest groups asking loaded questions until someone takes the bait and demands a government investigation into nothing at all.

It also depends on spokespeople being sheepish enough to be shepherded: are you concerned by reports of life-threatening milk allergies? Do you want to run the risk of being quoted saying that you're not concerned, just before someone dies?

Read the Doctor's more extensive discussion of the media's handling of the alleged milk-allergy here.b

ruth kelly commits to gay equality laws?

Here's something worth checking out, an important detail hidden in the middle of another story:

Fears that Christian ministers and churches will be targeted by gay campaigners were raised after Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly agreed that the rules will go through next April. [...]

Miss Kelly - a devout Catholic who is viewed with deep suspicion by gay lobby groups - had been holding up the new rules following objections from the Church of England and other religious organisations. The delay caused a row inside Cabinet.

Last month Education Secretary Alan Johnson wrote to Miss Kelly demanding that the laws go through without compromise. Yesterday's promise that the rules will go into law signals that Mr Johnson has won the battle [emphasis added].

Did I miss something? When did Kelly make this commitment? Anyone?

UPDATE: I think that Kelly answered questions yesterday in the House of Commons as secretary of state for Communities. Hansard is running few days behind: any idea if this was a specific commitment or boilerplate promises? Or just a Daily Mail phantom?

those awkward facts

For dullards about to write newspaper columns, remember that the wearing of the crucifix is not a mandatory observance of Christianity: it is an entirely optional practice (insofar as it's religious), unlike the dress codes of certain other religions we could mention. It's also worth checking the rationale of the British army for permitting turbans: a small clue - it's the same argument.

Guns don't kill people, guns bruise beauty queens

Because the last thing you want is to be shot by a model with unsightly welts:

Miss Israel has been given permission not to carry her assault rifle during service in the Israeli army because she says it bruises her legs.

Right, off to do some marking.

privately educated rebels

The Times slavishly reports Eton's plans to switch from A-levels to a "pre-University" diploma as part of a coming rebellion, suggesting that this will create a two-tier system:

Eton is among at least 100 leading independent schools to have shown strong interest in the Pre-U. Others include Harrow, Dulwich College, Winchester and Charterhouse.

But there are fears of the creation of a two-tier examination system for rich and poor pupils, with independent schools opting for the Pre-U and state schools remaining with the discredited A-level system.

Graham Able, Master of Dulwich College, who is on a steering group advising on the Pre-U, said the diploma would better prepare pupils for university. "It will take us back to the original idea of A levels from the 1950s as a qualification for university entrance," he said.

which appears to be the point.

Despite The Times' claim to a stampede away from A-levels, it's blindingly clear that such a move is only appealing to schools where a large number of students are headed to university and want to get more of their prospective applicants into the top institutions. What use is this "reform" to students (and families, and future employers) where university isn't the whole of their ambitions? Very little - but then it's not a measure designed to serve those people.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this is a system designed for the benefit of a rather select minority - and a minority whose main shared characteristic isn't ability but the fact they were able to attend public schools. The degree to which this qualification is embraced by Universities should be watched carefully; we should see two waves of protest - a quiet one from from teaching unions who want to know why the pursuit of university places overrides everything else, and then a rather louder one from middle-class families who fear they've been cut out of the loop.

god ignores plight of the faithful (redux)

There's a bit in this story I don't understand:

Miss Eweida, from Twickenham, south west London, claimed she had worn the cross throughout her seven years with BA and accused the firm of religious discrimination. She said she did not want to hide the cross because "Jesus has to be glorified".

She added: "I am not politically motivated or minded, I just follow the Biblical truth."

Why is the claim to being apolitical supposed to make her case more valid? Surely public expression of faith must be political activity - or is this some kind of claim to a higher spiritual  importance? It has no real consequence, and that's a good thing?

religion and teh queer on campus

As the next wave of stories about religion on campus hits, the case of Pure - an evangelical pro-abstinence, anti-homo course - deserves a little interest. Pushed off campus by the University of Edinburgh, the "ban" of Pure has been framed extremely broadly by its opponents - with Laura Stirrat, vice-president of Edinburgh University's Christian Union claiming "the university is effectively closing down free speech." The reality is rather more specific.

First, let's not pretend free speech exists in any kind of pure sense. Speech on campus, as elsewhere, is moderated by its community: it's part of creating an environment where students and staff can feel safe. The commitment to equality and diversity is a policy that's down in print at most universities for any prospective student motivated enough to find it and read it. So in short, tough shit: you agreed to abide by that policy when you chose to study.

Note that the nature of that agreement means that a queer-positive group holding a course on campus teaching that religious belief was a form of dementia that could be cured by pre-marital sex would most likely also be halted. At the very least, we could expect letters to newspapers and religious spokespeople demanding it and we'd have the same fight, albeit with the roles reversed.

However, I'm not sure how picking that particular fight would advance anyone's interests, or more importantly make the campus a better place to study and work. Speech that was minimally "more free," perhaps, but at what cost? Be sure to let me know if I need to start drawing up lecture plans, though.

The reason that Pure drew so much ire was that it went far beyond what might be considered the minimal scriptural line regarding sex, instead suggesting that being gay was something that could be cured - and by inference, some kind of disorder or illness. This detail in particular appears to fallen foul of the University's commitment to equality and diversity, because such teaching refutes the idea that gay people are equal to everyone else but are instead less than and in need of help.

It's rare to the point of non-existence for any news report to recognise the nature of this detail, or to point out the startling obvious: that the entire body of Christianity has been condensed into a minority held view - a fervent dislike of teh queer. Am I happy that anything has to be banned from campus? No, but I accept that it's inevitable that beliefs on the fringes of our community are going to test the nature of that community - whether gay people, for example, are full members of it or not.

warning

New rule: people using my comment section to advertise will find their products mocked into tiny bits.

almost forgot the monkey

I nearly forgot the bi-annual tiny monkey which stands in for a lack of posts:



Phew.

bloggers v. mendacious bastards

I'm pretty sure Matthew Taylor - outgoing Downing Street strategy advisor - didn't quite mean what he seems to say here..

"What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are."

.. which is that politicians are venal, stupid and mendacious and it's hard work when people keep pointing it out.

It's a story worth reading for how the centre likes to dictate terms to the margin: only the centre gets to define what counts as "mature discourse": the question of "the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of citizens" is something only government can answer, under the pretence of "empowering" citizens.

Likewise, only the centre gets to decide when a complaint is justified, and when it can be dismissed as the "shrill discourse of demands." The voice of government is balanced, objective and responsible - mainly by defining what those things mean. So claiming that ID cards will help credit card fraud is responsible; pointing out it will do no such thing and that the people who make that argument are frauds or fools is not, regardless of the facts but simply because of who makes the argument.

Foucaultian analysis aside, one quick way to reduce being called a mendacious bastard is to stop being a mendacious bastard. Abuse wouldn't be quite as popular on the web - in the style of DK, for example - if people didn't feel frustrated enough to imagine that the people on the receiving end deserved some portion of it.

Can rage blogging fuel a crisis in the culture of politics? Yes - but you need to have a crisis to begin with. Blaming bloggers seems a rather convenient excuse when the vast majority are't foaming at the mouth (and when the foam is oftentimes highly justified) and when tabloid newspapers with vastly superior circulations misdirect, plain lie and whip up division on a daily basis. Could it be that a blogger has yet to sway an election?

the beautiful (sexist) game?

This is just about the least convincing defence of sexism ever, which amounts to "well, it's kind of traditional." The appeal to mindless tradition is a description of the problem, not a working defence of anyone.

alice miles: fatherhood, entitlement and the ontology of the Gruffalo

Alice Miles' claim that fatherhood has been dangerously undermined seems to lack any detail as to who exactly is to blame other than society in general. Oh, and women, obviously. But not men.

Somewhere along the line we have stripped men of their primary functions and made them miserable. First went supporting the family. In making it so easy for them to deny responsibility for children, from making access to children difficult to simply not expecting them to be there, we rid them of fatherhood and the responsibilities, pleasures and self-esteem it brings. Rid them? Yes. I don't believe men are worse or less loving parents than women. I think the State fails to expect much of them, helping women to push them out of the picture when they become inconvenient.

Anyone notice the problem with that logic? "In making it so easy for them to deny responsibility for children, from making access to children difficult to simply not expecting them to be there, we rid them of fatherhood" - in giving men freedom to assume responsibility or not, we actually impinge on their freedom?

The major problem here is that Miles' response to her continual assertion that the "the male role has been undermined" is that the State has to get involved. Here, fatherhood is something that has to be forced on men - or else they'll be to feckless too resist being manouevred out of the picture by women. Once more, men are too weak to avoid being made weak.

It's also a damn strange definition of male entitlement: the only way too empower men into being fathers and return the responsibilities that have been cruelly denied is to have a third party force those responsibilities on them? It's a pretty new Labourite solution, missing only the benchmarks for successful masculinity overseen by some kind of phallus csar appointed by the cabinet office.

The idea that fatherhood - and the all the responsibilities that go with it - might be something that men have to assume for themselves never appears, nor does the idea that having someone force you to do something actually frees you of a certain degree of ethical responsibility. While state-sponsored parenting qualifications might be better than having wolves raise our children, it's a false dichotomy to think we have to choose one or the other.

A state-oriented approach might be a pragmatic solution but it has nothing to do with men discovering (or apparently recovering) a sense of purpose for themselves. A cultural problem with male identity - and how that does or doesn't include family - isn't going to be solved by threats of legal consequences for absent fathers, not least because those kind of laws are intended to serve and protect the family threatened by being left behind.

Most curiously, the image of male purpose which bookends Miles' piece has very little to do with fatherhood and everything to with purpose oriented outside of the home:

Four men in suits had a brief conference then strolled to the car park together and laughingly climbed into a car. I was struck by how relaxed they were, how distinctively happy they looked, jackets slung over their shoulders, despite the fact that they were obviously all going to be late for work. Men usually look so miserable and whiny these days. But these were commuters, they were successful, they live in a nice part of the country and they were tackling a challenge together. They had a purpose.

Middle-class contentment, much? Not a problem in essence, but hardly the least specific definition of male identity which to decry a general decay of men.

Finally, I'd like to call complete bollocks on this bit:

The overwhelming majority of books for toddlers no longer even have dads in them, which may explain the popularity of Postman Pats and Bob the Builders, the only male authority figures left. We have even edged fathers out of the literature.

This "fact" has little to no basis in reality; it's also red-herring. If trends in children's literature are culturally significant, then we need to start talking about the ontology of the Gruffalo - who, incidentally, is pictured on his website sitting, playing his Gruffalo child on his lap.

checksum error

Transparency? Accountability? What the hell is going on?

Shadow chancellor George Osborne unveiled a new Bill that would require ministers to set up and run an online search engine to enable voters to "Google" their taxes. The Government Spending Transparency Bill - to be introduced in the Lords - would require all spending above £25,000 to be published in real time.

Is this one of those things that might actually happen, or one of those things which is just an opportunity to score points in the knowledge that few politicians of any stripe actually want their sums checked?

headline decapitated

Marvel at the least coherent story of the day, beginning with the headline:

Pope to consider easing celibacy rules for priests

What's this? Dogma suddenly not quite so dogmatic?

The meeting, to be held on Thursday, was announced by the Vatican's press office on Monday in a short statement that a spokesman said did not imply a review of current rules that priests remain celibate.

Ah, so that's the opposite of what the headline suggests, then.

Asked for clarification, chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the meeting was not being called to consider major changes in the celibacy rule but to discuss the issue generally and certain individual cases .

This meeting is actually about damage limitation - given the increasingly well-publicised work of the ex-communicated bishop, Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo who is planning a convention for more than 1,000 married priests and their wives in New York next month:

"The Holy Father has called on Thursday, November 16 a meeting... to examine the situation created following (Milingo's) disobedience," the statement said.

So the Pope isn't planning to change the rules, and is in fact meeting to discuss how to deal with dissidents who do want the rules to change. It's actually about the tightening of control - and not even slightly about easing the rules that govern priests.

Do sub-editors actually read the stories they're working on?

asexuality and evolution

There's an article on asexuality in The Telegraph that's worth reading, though there's one point I'd challenge:

Ashley Grossman, professor of neuro-endocrinology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, believes that in most instances asexuality has no biological basis. "There is no advantage to it – it would have died out through evolution." Instead, he says, it is generally deemed to be psychologically based. "Most biologists consider asexuals to be at the extreme end of the normal behaviour range."

The declaration that there's "no advantage to it" is more than a little precarious - I'm reminded of PZ Myers discussion of possible evolutionary mechanisms that could account for homosexuality, and which might also account for asexuality. Cribbed from Myers, here are a couple of the arguments which would seem to fit asexuality:

1. Asexuality is selectively neutral. Heterosexuality is not a guarantee that an individual will have children, nor is homosexuality a guarantee that an individual will not. Likewise, being asexual does not prohibit reproduction: it might be pursued with any fervour, but it's not automatically ruled out.

A number of the accounts of asexuality I've read seem to involve people who begin to identify as asexual after a number of unsatisfactory relationships where sex was only experienced because it was an expected (or even obligated) element of that relationship: it's certainly possible that someone who is asexual could be a biological parent. I'm also not prepared to discount the possibility of people who want to have children (for any number of social reasons) but are not interested in sex or motivated by sexual desire on a routine basis.

2. Asexuality promotes community bonding. To rephrase Myers, "some degree of [asexuality] confers a direct advantage to individuals living in a community, because it facilitates bonding between same-sex individuals. It's a tool for avoiding expensive, wasteful conflicts."

The one limitation here is that Myer's arguments seem to be predicated by the prevelance of gay people, though if the spiralling membership of online communities for people who identify as asexual indicates anything that might not be a problem here.

Interesting, no?

another tiny post

I should point out that the proprietor of EdinburghSucks already owned the web domains (and for several months) when the "Inspiring Capital" slogan was announced (see here, via EdinburghSucks.com).

Why my sudden interest? The full-body shudder of being told about a large publicly-funded body looking toward the Edinburgh Brand as an example of how to get the job done right. Fortunately, the web team involved in this particular project are a little more keyed up on the obvious..

"like three Scud Missiles coming in from the Forth"

It's all coming back to me now. The consultancy behind "Edinburgh Brand" - Interbrand - first enjoyed the attention of the blogosphere when EdinburghSucks.com demonstrated the consultants apparent lack of web savvy by registering the domain names relating to the campaign's slogan, "Inspiring Capital." Then there was the less than glowing reception from the man and woman on the street for the logo described by EdinburghSucks as looking "like three Scud Missiles coming in from the Forth, over Arthurs Seat and slamming into Edinburgh."

Entertaining stuff, but rather too expensive to be really funny.

branding my arse

Anyone in the Edinburgh area should take a look at Edinburgh Brand for a hint at how our elected nearest and dearest spend our money. My favourite part is in the "tone of voice" section which is intended to help us "find the right words for Edinburgh":

Bold striking headlines that grab the imagination, question our assumptions and challenge us to think differently. We use vibrant words that capture people's enthusiasm and create the same impact as seeing the city for the first time. Our headlines should be alive with excitement - we let our passion and enthusiasm shine though.

followed shortly - without a hint of awareness by:

We don't need to use excessive exclamations or gushing descriptions.

Finally, there's the slightly defensive statement about Edinburgh as a whole, though it might as well be about those who approved this project:

We are not cold, aloof and superfluous.

Oh, the irony. Right, I'm off to climb the brand pyramid. A prize for the first person who can tell me how much it cost.

insta-fisk

A little bit of Phillips-fisking is due. Let's take a look at the rhetorical tricks in just a short passage berating Norman Lamont. It beings with Phillips quoting Lamont:

For the Iraqi people, it has also been a disaster. Iraq has held elections, but no longer has an effective government. If there is one thing as bad as life under a tyrannical dictatorship, it is the anarchy of a failed state. They are merely different rooms in the same hell.

So the Iraqi Shia and Kurds (and doubtless many Sunni too) would like to be living again under Saddam Hussein, would they? I think not. Yes, the Iraqi government is not able to deliver order because it has been infiltrated by the militias. Yes, the carnage is appalling. Yes, it's a mess. But the fact is that the terrorists' aim, to destroy the Iraqi government, has not worked. The Shia leadership resolutely refuses to go down the path of civil war with the Sunni. They and the Kurds are still working together. That is a remarkable achievement which few thought would ever be possible.

Anyone notice that massive, clanging, oh-my-that's-a-big-one straw man? The idea that criticising the war in Iraq is the same thing as saying the people of Iraq would prefer Saddam might be popular with columnists, but it is neither logical nor coherent. At the very least, it's not one Lamont makes. In fact, by arguing that anarchy is as bad as a tyrannical dictatorship, a person might assume Lamont is implicitly arguing the case for a third option where the carnage isn't appalling - either by design or accident of circumstance.

Speculation aside, we have the argument where a government unable to deliver order and infiltrated to the hilt by the militias is actually a positive sign - even though we're admitting that that government doesn't really have any control. The fact that they refuse to "go down the path of civil war" is largely irrelevant if you've just argued that the government is impotent when it comes to restraining such unrest.

Oh, and for trollish readers - a close reading of pundit logic isn't the same thing as a defence of Norman Lamont. :)

misreading sex surveys

I'll be coming back to the new YouGov survey on sex as soon as I get a chance, but here's a taste of the kind of media narrative we've learnt to expect when it comes to sexual health. From the Daily Mail:

The rise in underage sex has also led to an increase in sexually-transmitted diseases with 750,000 cases reported last year.

Bong! A rise in unprotected underage sex may have led to an increase in STI's, but underage sex alone does not automatically cause or "lead to" disease. Coming later, discussion of the news that "twice as many girls as boys lose their virginity before they turn 16," delivered without any mention of who it is they might be having that sex with.

further adventures in cosmetic surgery

Offered without much further comment:

When it comes to understanding what women want, they are the perfect operators. Challenging the traditionally male-dominated bastion of cosmetic medicine is the UK's first all-female plastic surgery team. [...]

"For me it doesn't matter what sex you are, just if you are good at your job or not," said Mrs Nield. "But the patient sees it differently. I noticed a lot of people were coming to me for breast work primarily because I was a female surgeon. To a certain extent, they believed I could better understand how they were feeling because I am a woman." [...]

One of Mrs Nield's satisfied customers is Sarah, a 35-year-old office worker from London, who recently underwent a vulvoplasty ["cosmetic gynaecology"].

"To begin with, I saw two consultants, who were both male, and I just felt that they didn't understand how I felt about myself. I walked out of there feeling uncomfortable and almost invaded. I've got to admit that if I hadn't found Dalia, I don't think I would have had the procedure done."

The other thing to note is the side-bar explaining that the main motivation given for having breast augmentation or nose surgery is "to look normal," with no indication - of course - of what "normal" might be. Presumably it's not quite the same thing as "average," no?

buffoon watch

Spurious logic, a touch of self-loathing and side-order of "feminist" bashing: ladies and gentleman, I present the latest bulletin from the mind of Jeremy Clarkson.

If you were an Iron Age man and you came home from a hunting expedition empty-handed because you wanted to play with your children, you’d starve.

But I'm not, and you're not, so that's not something we have to worry about. In fact, it's entirely irrelevant.

There must be a special rule-book somewhere that says anyone discussing the perceived decline of manliness must include the "they don't make film-stars like they used to argument":

Look at the film stars who melt the hearts of womankind these days: Johnny Depp, Judy [is that a typo, or a hi-larious joke?] Law, Orlando Bloom. Are they hunter-gatherers? Maybe they’d pass muster on a Saturday morning in Carluccio’s but in a jungle they’d be eaten within 10 minutes.

Back in the 1960s Paul Newman and Robert Redford were much loved as they trotted around Wyoming on their horses shooting people.

Ah, tongue in cheek bluster. I think the shortest answer to the argument "why aren't some men like other men?" is that "men are not identical." Not everyone lives or works in Wyoming, for example, or owns a horse.

There's also plenty of space for the "men have become weak because they were too weak to resist becoming weak" argument, though today's villains are not merely "baggy-breasted feminists" but "very single girl from the age of puberty to the menopause." Oh, if only men could decide how to live their own lives!

seighart: romanticising the female vote?

My problem with Mary Ann Sieghart's assessment of David Cameron's desirability to women voters isn't the huge generalisations about how men and how women vote ("Women in particular want their politicians to follow a cleaner, greener agenda") or even how she registers that class might have something to do with voting but then leaves the issue untouched.

It's actually this bit:

His wife adds to [Cameron's] political appeal. She is a working mother with her own career. But she isn’t scarily glamorous. The two epitomise modern family life: sharing the breadwinning, sharing the domestic tasks, supporting each other. That one of their children is severely disabled prevents their world from being too impossibly perfect.

You might think it shallow that women voters should even care about these things. If you do, you are probably a man. Men tend to be more embarrassed about admitting that personality matters in politics. For women the personal is political, and vice versa. It seems obvious.

The problem here is that Seighart tries her hardest to discount the role that traditional political issues might play in women's political allegiances. Even issues thought of traditionally women-oriented (pay discrimination, reproductive rights and the like) are minimised.

Declaring that the personal is the political and vice versa doesn't mean abandoning mainstream political process: here, Seighart seems to collapse the whole spectrum of women's political interest into the personal identity of the candidate. Even though a party's policies are "important,"

when we vote for a party we want to believe that its leader understands our concerns, has the right priorities and is competent enough to lead the country.

Anyone else confused? An argument that the personal and the political can't be separated being put forward by the argument that.. the personal trumps the traditionally political every time? And isn't that a pragmatic argument about competence and issues, anyway?

I'm not saying that voters - men and women - aren't emotionally invested in their candidates for different reasons and to different degrees. But recognising that doesn't mean abandoning the idea that voters might be issue-led, and sometimes coldly, logically dispassionate.

further reasons to loath john reid

You'd expect that the most serious crimes which carry the threat of the most severe penalties would require a heavy burden of proof - or at the very least probable cause. That is, unless you're the Home Secretary John Reid:

The battle to block "fast-track" extraditions to the United States was finally lost last night after Conservative peers backed down hours before the end of the current session of parliament. [...] Critics of the extradition arrangements point out that the US needs to outline an alleged offence and provide "evidence or information that would justify the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK", while British police must provide US courts with evidence of "probable cause" if they wish to extradite someone.

Welcoming the Lords climbdown, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: "[The treaty] will bring real benefits to British victims of crime and help ensure that serious criminals will not be able to escape justice by hiding abroad."

Reid seems to conveniently forget that "abroad" is actually the UK for people like the "NatWest Three," British bankers extradited to the US over the collapse of Enron - or indeed any other British subject that the US state department decides is looking at them funny.

And what's this bollocks about "real benefits"? How is it beneficial to have an uneven treaty that allows a foreign government to trump our justice system? Is there any way we'd put up with this from any other ocuntry on the planet?

The only silver lining is that it has now become marginally easier to have the FBI arrest John Reid.

convenience bigotry

Just in case anyone was wondering whether it was the purity of religious doctrine or the hatred of gay people which comes first: it's queer bashing every time. First, in Jerusalem:

Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem have found common ground in their fierce opposition to a gay rights rally due to be held in the city this week.

Leaders from both faiths have united to denounce the parade, which has prompted nights of street protest by ultra-orthodox Jews, who regard homosexuality as an "abomination", and death threats against those taking part.

And then rather closer to home:

A HARDLINE Christian party which is campaigning against new rights for homosexuals has won significant support from Scotland's Muslim community in its bid to win a seat at next year's Holyrood elections.

It's The Scotsman's reporting so the claim of "significant support" needs to be taken cautiously - as carefully as we'd treat any claim that the Christian Peoples' Alliance Scotland represents the Christian community.

Still, it's amazing how dogma and fundamentalism can be pushed to one side by people on the fringes of religious groups when the opportunity for a little legislative queer-bashing raises its head.

voting for a nice man in a suit

The Times leader speculates on the possible reasons for the gender divide in current UK party polling:

One possibility is that the impact of the Iraq war has varied by gender. From the outset, women been far more hostile to the war than men. Another argument is that Mr Brown’s perceived reliability as Chancellor matters more to a male electorate that is more likely to focus on economic matters than its female counterpart.

Is there anything at all to support this idea, or is this a "women are instinctively uninterested in numbers" kind of argument?

Or it could simply be a matter of image. Mr Cameron has made much effort to sell himself to women (and upper middle class) voters while, at this stage, Mr Brown has yet to find his feminine side.

And we're off in pursuit of the magical feminine again - a mystical quality apparently unrelated to policy positions - because that would be the kind of thing women aren't interested in:

Yet while he has devised many policies designed to interest women voters, notably schemes to make childcare cheaper and less complex, the personal touch remains important. If Mr Brown has a weakness here, the solution may not be to back a woman for the post of deputy leader of the Labour Party but to recruit a younger man, such as David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, who may have an approach that emulates that of Mr Cameron.

It's hard to think how The Times could be more closely wedded to conventional political logic when it comes to gender: the true source of the feminine touch isn't a woman, but a man that women will like. This faux-logic extends to fitting Cameron into a narrative that is largely an invention of the media:

The Tory leader, similarly, could be preparing to move on from “hug a hoody” and “love a lout” to more macho terrain yet may not be credible with men if he attempts it.

It's worth thinking carefully about how silly this is: the idea that being "soft on criminals" (a convenient tabloid distortion of Cameron) is naturally more welcomed by women than men.

Also note that nowhere does The Times consider the possibility that women are more drawn to Cameron because they're more fed up with Blair and his policies - because that would raise the faintest possibility that women are more politically astute than men and not merely pining for a nice man in a suit.

somebody loves bookdrunk

Woo! I seem to have been nominated for some kind of big gay blogging prize: I'm a finalist for the Verve Weblog awards in the Best GLBT UK Blog category. Thank you to whoever put my name forward as I've been completely blindsided by this.

I'm actually about to head away for the weekend so will be away from a computer until Monday - so I'll just say thanks again - and point out that if you want me to win (sickly grin) you'll need to head over and follow the instructions to vote by email.

Back Monday. Have a nice weekend.

blogging ahead of the curve

The Scotsman catches up to where we all were last week to report the growing dispute in the Catholic Church over those perfidious queers - namely that the Bishop of Motherwell really doesn't like gay people and doesn't understand why other people are backing away from his increasingly outlandish proclamations.

The only new detail is that the Scotsman has the split between Cardinal O'Brien (gay adoption is "gravely immoral") and the Bishop of Motherwell - though the idea that O'Brien represents some kind of moderate stance on homosexuality is pretty ludicrous in itself. I suppose that even a mad man looks sane when you put him next to the prince of crazy.

both sides declared winners

Covering the continuing story of the firefighers disciplined for refusing to work during Glasgow's Pride march (see here for previous posts), the BBC leads with Gay snub crew 'appeals rejected' while The Herald emphasises Firefighter demoted over gay leaflets is reinstated.

Both headlines are technically accurate - but isn't implicit editorial bias a wonderful thing?

Oh, and the Daily Mail - whose story is not online - led with something along the lines of "Queers destroy family with evil homo-flames." I may not have that one quite right.

alastair hates david

I'm stuck in my office waiting for students to ignore their appointments, so here's a quick one from the student newspaper:

Former Downing Street press secretary, Alastair Campbell, launched a scathing attack on David Cameron at Teviot [one of the student unions] last Friday, branding the Conservative Party leader as little more than a "spin doctor" who "thinks it's all about presentation."

Ah, irony. It's one thing to tell a lie, but quite another to start believing it yourself, no?

Campbell then goes on to criticise the media for thinking that politicians are either continually lying or believe the opposite of what they've said. This incredulity is apparently the faulty of a biased and scandal hungry media, and not in any way the result of.. oh.. the dominance of professional spin-doctors, shysters and liars at the heart of 10 Downing Street.

Presumably, we're to believe that not only is Campbell totally uninvolved in the change of the relationship between the media and politicians but also that he pees spring water from the magical fountain of truth.

Still and sparkling.