The politics of the West Wing

I feel like being trivial today so here we go: the West Wing. Let me start by saying that I really enjoy the show. It’s well written, has rhythm and is generally well acted. Now, let me demolish it.

The boys' club: There is an underlying patronising attitude to the female characters, which I can't stand. It would have been nice if the writers had put more effort into making these characters more authoritative and credible rather than go for the good looks, shrill voice, 'I'm just a girl' character. That’s entertainment, I suppose.
However, I believe one can still be funny and goofy while making intelligent statements, such as like spilling your tea while pontificating about Rawls, a regular occurrence for some :).
The only ones who do not succumb to this fate are C.J., the First Lady and, to a lesser extent, Donna. Had it been a bit more female-oriented they could have developed the character of Donna, have a little more clash and attraction between Donna and Josh (Mary-Louise Parker as Amy Gardner can’t pull it off). C.J. should have become Chief of Staff at the end of the fourth series with Leo elected to something. With Donna working for the First Lady, the role of the First Lady could have been expanded too. They sort got stuck with a formula and didn't attempt to develop it. Shame.

It’s the economy, stupid: not in the West Wing obviously! The President is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics (whatever!), but economics and finance are hardly ever spoken of. When they are, the approach is so superficial to the point of irrelevance. I might be biased. I tend to think that there’s an economic aspect to nearly all things, especially in politics, but isn’t there? :)

The smartest kid in the class: there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance. Luckily, Martin Sheen has gravitas, charisma and tries to be a good guy so he can pull it off.

The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s. I don’t know much about American politics, but the screen-writers seem to be living in their own bubble and enclose their characters in the West Wing bubble. No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society. No wonder only a few bother to vote if politics is so distant.
Everything seems to be happening inside the White House with Congress only getting a mention in passing, never mind the rest of the country. Unbeknown to the authors, theories of government/governance have changed profoundly and gone beyond the State vs. Free Market dichotomy. I don’t expect Aaron Sorkin to know about Public Value Management Theory, but a better grip, even on traditional politics, wouldn’t go amiss. I would have certainly liked more on Congress, the Cabinet and state politics across the US, which is steadily gaining prominence.
The other two big issues, which we are witnessing in the American primaries now, race and gender, are treated with lack of understanding and superficiality. I can’t believe that Amy Gardner, the head of the women’s lobby (whatever!) is asked to comment on the dichotomy ‘stay-at-home mum’ vs. ‘career-girl’ and after thinking about it (yep), she comes out with ‘I don’t care who stays at home as long as it’s their choice’ type of reply. Err … how about some research? How about the fact that the US are one of very few countries were statutory parental pay is not provided? Who can actually choose? What determines choice? How about the fact that women managers have started giving up their careers? Why not taking a look elsewhere where men are starting to value fatherhood and flexible working? Is there a class divide? Is there still a culture of division between work (public sphere) and home (private sphere)? By the way, the ‘fatherhood’ mantra from the feminists was full blown in the 1990s in the States. It needs better articulation in terms of policies and rights, but it has been there a long time.
The West Wing chickens out from the big questions and the difficult issues such as immigration, unemployment, finance and economic and social inequalities. They like international crises too much and don’t manage even to grasp the issues there. What happened to the old saying ‘write something you know about’?

I still enjoyed it though (notwithstanding intense moments of irritation). What I found interesting is the attempt to convey the idea of the American dream, in the tradition of Frank Capra. At first, it feels ... well ... American! It makes you cringe and wince, but then it seeps into you and lets you see a bit more.
It’s the sincere belief in America as an idea, as a country to be built, not inherited. It’s the mentality of a settler society, which is perhaps rather alien to us. Nevertheless, we face similar dilemmas. We would like our country and ourselves to be hospitable, to do the right thing, to uphold the law and defend minorities but we are faced with a very heterogeneous society where 'values' need interpretations that go deeper.
Governments look for answers in definitions of Britishness or Europeanness (remember the Constitution preamble?), and so do religious figures (see previous posts 1 and 2), but I feel they miss the point. They look at the past not for guidance but to pin down who we are and should be. I feel very European (which includes British) in my ways, habits, political philosophy etc. but I am a human being and my values, I believe, are human values. Freedom and equality do not stop at the border and we do not have the copyrights. As a wise man once said:

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

- Sir Ernest Benn

Sex, the media & personal freedom

I realised I condensed a few thoughts in a very short piece in my post Sexy, so here are a few more thoughts.

Dignity: my main objection to the perpetual portrayal of people, mostly women, as sexual objects is that people are deprived of their humanity. I’m fed up with seeing mainstream media trashing our human dignity. Our imagination and psyche are being desensitised to the humanity of those around us. It might lead one to think that it is they who are the objects, not us, however by seeing others as less than ourselves aren’t we diminishing our own humanity?
Furthermore, a negative construction of gender such as that given by many music videos and similar material affects everybody in as much as we are judged against that yardstick/model of femininity or masculinity or feel the pressure to follow those images. Ideas and images surrounding femininity have changed, of course, but the construction of gender is always there to remind us that we do not own our social body.

Liberation vs. Liberalisation: there is the trite and idiotic argument that women working in the sex industry comes from sexual 'liberation'. It’s a rather old and disingenuous argument, which has really past its sell by date. Some, of course, might feel ‘liberated’ by playing at being sexual objects or predators. However, I think it’s more a sign of liberalisation of sex rather than liberation.
It is true that there isn’t only one form of sex work and that not all sex workers ('Prada prostitutes') are victims (although they are the majority). Nevertheless, I think that, as a society, we should strive to ensure everyone’s personal freedom. This means that we should concentrate on those who work in the sex industry as a result of having been trafficked, abused or who are addicted to drugs. I think we should also make more available treatment for sex addiction.

Consumerism: leaving gender aside, the mainstream media have concentrated in reducing us to consumers driven by our appetites and basic instincts (that’s why I refer to my post on the Century of the Self). It’s quite interesting to see that actors smoke far less in films nowadays than they used to in the past. Times have moved on, so why can’t there be a portrayal of sexual relationship and 'roles' that is more positive?

Moralisers vs. sexual freedom: some object that to see stripping or half-naked women as degradation is bigotry. The argument is flawed on three accounts. Firstly, to think of lap-dancing or soft-porn music videos as separate from the sex industry is naïve, especially given the rise in sex addiction. I am not arguing for censorship but for responsibility by those who produce videos and films.
Secondly, isn’t degrading to be seen as body parts (mostly women) or as sex-driven robots (mostly men)?
I seriously doubt that, in the majority of cases, sex workers choose freely the profession. By the way, free choice is more than lack of coercion.
Thirdly, to the risk of patronising the body parts & the robots, isn’t this just the acting out of hegemonic images? (see Gramsci!) Doesn’t labelling detractors as moralisers suit the narrative of the ‘producers’ of ‘sexy’ material? Doesn’t it equate to being a product in the consumerist chain?

The media control the media: those working in the ‘media’ often shy away from taking responsibility hiding behind the usual lame excuses, such as the trend in depicting sex & violence being widespread and the public wanting it. Images of greed, egotism and objectification are widespread, but who shapes the trend?
The idea that it’s the public who want to be fed rubbish is nonsense. After all, the public got fed up with being fed junk food at McDonald’s and McDonald’s had to switch to ‘healthier options’. How about using imagination for once rather than the trite bad taste images that fill our space?

Masculinity and femininity might be in crisis (finally!), so what? Why can't we be human? :)

Sexy

I keep on coming across appalling music videos where women act or are paraded as if they were for sale. There seems to be a very fine line between what is deemed 'sexy' in a woman and the debasing display of body parts.
Men (and women) are fed an awful lot of nonsense about what a man is supposed to like and what women are supposed to be like. The driving force is supposedly sex, which is reduced to the physical act and deprived of everything I would personally define as sexy. We are constantly being told that half-naked women behaving like idiots are sexy, that men like that and find confident women intimidating. It might be the case for many, but I believe many more are simply victim of these messages. A few considerations:

What is sexy? No, I don’t find half-naked people sexy. I don’t like body parts, I like the whole person. I find people sexy when they have sense of humour and are comfortable with themselves. I like warm clear voices and sincere smiles. I think sense of humour is the basis of attraction.
Yet, we are fed an ugly narrative that deprives us of our humanity, of our imagination and personhood. If women (or men) are reduced to body parts or men (or women) to their basic sexual instincts severed from desires, imagination and mind, what are we?
Nothing to do with sex. Research shows that men who go to lap-dancing clubs, pay for sex and so on, are not simply reacting to basic sexual instincts, they are seeking power. The idea of sexy as portrayed in a million billboards, music videos and films is one that is constructed around the dynamic of power and powerlessness. A confident woman is intimidating because she is not powerless. Music videos seem to be the worst with half-naked women crawling around with no dignity. It is a rather pathetic spectacle.
Addictive images. The ‘producers’ do not respond to a need, rather they create a dependent consumer by perpetuating a view of the world based on the old-fashion power relations. They create identities based on domination and debasement. And they are not even subtle at that! It’s advertising after all, Bernays-style!
Sex addiction is on the increase, will advertisers start thinking about the health implications of the junk they produce?

...on addiction to sex, see this from the FT. Addiction seems to be dependent on genes. However the constant exposure to the same messages, the same iconography, the same narrative habituates us to viewing the world in a certain way, anaesthetises the brain and creates a need. We banned tobacco advertising and are trying to tackle junk food, why not junk sex? For the record, I'm not advocating censorship, just responsibility. After all, the media control the media!

Is Muslim the new 'Communist'? Who is the new McCarthy?

I’ve come across an e-mail with rumours that Obama is a Muslim. The details can be found at Urban Legends and more on CNN, Washigton Post etc.
It is clearly a paranoid attack trying to induce fear in the electorate. The most uncomfortable aspect of it is the fact that it implies that American Muslims are not American. It is rather reminiscing of the McCarthy era, although I doubt this is what awaits us. It would be important, however, to see whether there is a new McCarthy out there, be it a group or just stupid individuals. Most importantly, what is causing the paranoia? The media, politicians?
This race for the White House shows that America, like most countries perhaps, has deep-seated issues with race, gender, pluralism and religion. It is claimed that American Muslims are more integrated than British Muslims. Yet, American society’s discomforts about race can potentially radicalise groups on either ‘side’ (albeit not necessarily bringing violence), when all this could be avoided.
The abortion debate in the States seems to me an example of a society that does not really accept pluralism and where fundamentalist groups (such as those who target doctors), gain a voice precisely because they are a niche and are therefore unrepresentative.
I believe pluralism is about liberalism. It is not about creating a million interest or identity groups, but about respecting one’s multiple identities and interests without labelling one. A Catholic is no less a Catholic for not wearing a cross or a Jew no less a Jew for not eating kosher (stop saying that they are ‘not practising’!). Above all, pluralism allows individuals to interpret their tradition and identity and to choose how to express it while respecting others. This is liberal democracy at its best and it does require diversity.

Trafficking of women - is anybody listening?

No, this is not a feminist issue. It is a morality one! Let's not forget the violence the living suffer: the estimated over 50,000 rapes women suffer every year in the UK alone, the women who are beaten and die as a result of domestic violence and the women and, indeed, children trafficked and used as sex slaves. Why is nobody doing anything? Here's an interview with Emma Thompson. Here's her video where she impersonates a victim, made available by La Repubblica. Now watch it.

Science and prejudice

James Watson, Nobel prize for discovering DNA (thanks to Rosalind Franklin’s research), got himself in trouble by suggesting in an interview with the Independent that blacks are less intelligent than whites. This is only the latest in a series of very unscientific statements. As detailed in the Independent,

In 1997 he suggested in a newspaper interview that a woman should have the right to abort a foetus if it was found to be carrying a "gay" gene. His attempts to justify his stance only made matters worse. He had been speaking in favour of choice for women, he said, but added "because most women want to have grandchildren ... it's common sense". …
Then in 2000 in a lecture at Berkeley University, after showing images of women in bikinis and veiled Muslim women, he suggested that there is a link between exposure to sunlight and libido. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." He then went on to show a photograph of Kate Moss and assert that thin people are unhappy and therefore ambitious. "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," he added. Fat people may also be more sexual, he suggested, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels of leptin. …
He has talked about a gene for stupidity and suggested that stupid people should be aborted.

Watson sees the world through a deterministic kaleidoscope that makes him misunderstand genetics itself. He might think that he’s a free thinker, a real scientist who questions morality, culture, politics in the light of … that is the problem. There are no facts supporting his views only prejudice. In this latest episode, Watson equates intelligence with IQ tests, a culture specific measurement of certain abilities, which leave out intelligence that is difficult when not impossible to measure. All this stuff is very similar to the countless research done trying to find genetic, and presumably unalterable, differences between men and women. In reality, genetics is predicated upon mutability, upon the interaction between environment and genotypes. This pseudo-science of seeing genetics as some sort of pre-ordained system determining one’s abilities runs contrary to evolutionary theory and enlightenment philosophy.
Therefore, the Science Museum was quite right to cancel Watson’s talk. Watson’s comments were bad science and bad morality, but there’s more. If perverting science in order to justify and rationalise prejudices wasn't enough, help is at hand from people such as Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council and a professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, who defend Watson’s ‘freedom of speech’, clearly not understanding science, ethics and freedom of speech.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Freedom of speech is not at stake. Watson can say and write what he wants, and we are free to say he’s an eejit. More to the point, if an educational institution, such as the Science Museum, engages a scientist to give a talk about science and he turns out not to be the brightest torch in the box, the institution would be quite right to decide to spend their money in a better way!
But, indeed, there would be a better way: just get them all back in the classroom to write "I'm thick" on the blackboard 100 times.

Abortion, the Catholic Church & Amnesty International

If it weren’t for the Guardian, my pedantry would be forever frustrated. I share, at least in part, Zoe Williams’ indignation at the Catholic Church’s opposition to Amnesty International due to their campaign in support of safe and legal abortions for victims of rape and incest. However, this latest episode has nothing to do with faith schools. As far as I understand it, government funding to faith schools is not being used to support external organisations. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, as a totally separate entity from the government, is free to invest its money as it sees fit. On the contrary, government money, as previously argued on this blog, could and should be used to impose certain conditions on faith schools, such as equality training, anti-bullying policies etc.
The issue at stake here is the moral dilemma the Catholic Church is ignoring. The Church considers the foetus as a human life and abortion as murder, it follows that one would be guilty of murder under whatever circumstances (except in case of danger to the mother's life). Furthermore, the Church would argue that the foetus is not responsible for the violence perpetrated on the mother. On the other hand, it can be argued that forcing victims of rape and incest to continue their pregnancy is a further violence and humiliation. In this instance, Amnesty International are asking for safe and legal abortions when sought by victims of rape or incest. This means that abortions are being carried out every day and this is because victims of rape and incest do not want to continue the pregnancy. Yet, by not having access to safe abortion, many of them die. A moral dilemma is facing the choice between two evils, not between good and evil. As such, if you know that a person who is a victim of rape/incest, is seeking an abortion, would you make sure that she has access to a safe abortion or would you let her undergo an unsafe procedure carrying a high risk to her life? Is an absolute principle worth so many lives? These are the questions that should be put to the hierarchy, not a blanket boycott of faith schools.

The importance of being Nice

… why women are paid less.
Recent research has finally made official what we all knew already: that women asking for money are judged ‘less nice’ and are penalised. This has always been the case, in particular in the context of personal relationships. A common occurrence in divorce cases is the woman having spent her money on food, cleaning, petrol, house repairs and the man having bought the car, the house and all those things that actually stay and are not simply consumed. Another common occurrence, when the breadwinner is the woman, is that she supports her husband, pays for his university course, the mortgage (his share too) and then she gets a very heart-breaking and pocket-bursting goodbye. To do otherwise would have been ‘mean’, but now that she is saddled with the kids and the mortgage, she has no claim on him, who, in fact, can claim half of the house and, if without a job, money. Yep, I remember how common it was deemed in legal magazines.
Women are expected to be nice, not to make a fuss about their salary, their job, their life. I still don’t get why people are still so oblivious of their own sexism and double standards. I often hear people complaining about religious people for ‘thrusting it down your throat’. Really? When was the last time you were approached by a religious person who wanted to convert you? How many times do you come across religious adverts?
And how many times do you come across sexist adverts? Sexist jokes, comments and behaviour? Of course, to realise that one has been blind to injustice is a courageous step. It is much easier to follow society’s narrative without having a stake in shaping it. It is much easier to conform and perpetuate the same oppressive norms. It is much easier to believe that the women who demand respect are ‘less nice’. I have been penalised and I will be penalised, but at least I will have been Blunt & Disorderly with plenty of personality!

Circumcision - what's your view?

The FT magazine today carries an article on the potential health benefits of circumcision. The author stays clear from taking a side in this rather controversial topic. I won’t comment on the religious meaning of it, partly because I believe that most religious practices are vested with religious meaning once they have become customary for whatever reason (political, sanitary, social …). Circumcision, dietary laws, dress (of whatever religion) were not ‘invented’ by a religion, rather they were employed by the religious authorities/community and have thus received spiritual meaning. This does not mean that I consider them devoid of religious meaning or value. I just think that it’s up to you! And I won’t state where I stand personally (and theologically) because I’m not that sure and as I’m female I don’t need to worry!
There are Jews and Muslims, though, who would advocate circumcision on hygienic grounds rather than religious grounds. I believe this is an apologetic stance aimed at rationalising something that touches one’s emotions deeply. So what’s the evidence?

"In March, the World Health Organisation and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAids) urged countries to consider implementing circumcision programmes to combat Aids. The scientific basis for that statement was the combined evidence from three substantial clinical trials conducted in Africa that compared the rate with which circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men contracted HIV. The studies – one in South Africa, another in Kenya and a third in Uganda – showed that men who had been circumcised had a roughly 60 per cent lower risk of becoming HIV positive than their uncircumcised counterparts."

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, yes, but as Tim Hargreave, a urologist from Edinburgh, who has written the WHO/UNAids manual on performing circumcisions, explains in the article:

“In countries with high prevalence of HIV, cost-benefit analyses would suggest circumcising this group is the most cost-effective thing that can be done.”

What about Western countries?

"Most mainstream medical societies’ positions on the practice broadly agree: in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere, the relevant bodies say that, for the most part, there is no good clinical reason to subject infants to it. “There is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision,” the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says, although it adds that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections (which affect fewer than 2 per cent of boys) and penile cancer, which affects one in 100,000 men in developed countries. Balanced against a complication rate from circumcision of up to 5 per cent, the Australian doctors say, it just isn’t worth it."

Percentages aside, what is interesting is that there are very strong views on both sides. It is also interesting to note, as the article mentions, that the prudish Victorians were quite keen on circumcision as they turned against the foreskin with vengeance and blame it "for everything from syphilis to masturbation and bed-wetting."
In my view, in the context of a contemporary Western liberal democracy, circumcision has very little to do with health and very much to do with religion and sexuality, gender and identity. But I'd like to hear your view.
That aside, it seems rather obvious to me that better hygiene, starting from the regular use of the bidet, is essential. I wonder whether there’ll ever be a study establishing the percentage of risk as a result of poor hygiene. In the meantime, wash your bits!

Italy, the land that feminism forgot?

The FT had a very interesting article on the death of Italian feminism. I share Adrian Michaels’ frustration with the explicitly sexual (and sexist) imagery dominating Italian television and publicity. However, in his comparison with Britain and the US, he seems to paint a too stark picture of Italy as ‘the land that feminism forgot’. After all, I remember a similar frustration and surprise at the relatively ordinary ‘nakedness’ of young women in Britain going out clubbing, when I first moved here nearly ten years ago. I'm afraid sexism is alive and well across the globe. The dire state of Italian publicity has more to do with its clients not seeking creativity than Italians being comfortable with it. Nevertheless, it is true that the situation in Italy is indeed worse; however it is primarily due to structural rather than cultural reasons. There are, of course, cultural differences, such as an understanding of sexual explicitness as rebellion to Catholic predominance and therefore as a liberating tool. There is also a more open attitude to sex than in Anglican/Protestant cultures, hence censorship being less rigid. Regrettably, across the western world, the sixties’ revolution liberalised sex instead of liberating it from its male-centredness and its objectifying nature.
However, Italian publicity is saturated with naked women for the same reason why economic structural reforms are extremely difficult. Italy is a country still steeped in corporatism, dominated by the vested interest of a myriad of groups. Italian politics and economy are in crisis due to their subservience to groups of power, traditionally dominated by (older) men with strong political links to ensure influence. Such groups hold the key to personal and corporate success. They are boys’ clubs making the rules on who is on television, in politics and in the academia, to name a few. So far they have excluded women, young talent and innovation. It is a deeply felt crisis resented by all. When I visit Italy, I see men and women just as embarrassed and angry at the ubiquitous display of female flesh on billboards and television as they are at the tight grip with which Italy’s elders are strangulating the country.

nakeditaly

Fighting honourably

An article on today's Guardian by Dr Victoria Basham highlights the problems with "the all-too-familiar tale that the presence of women in the military causes boys to be boys". Following an article reporting of the court case where a service man was convicted of the rape of a female colleague, Basham criticises the reporting slant, which "reinforces the notion that problems with servicemen are an outcome of allowing women to serve in the armed forces". Quite. This is a timely reminder that we have stopped scrutinising society's misogynistic assumptions. In the belief that equality has been achieved, we often forget about our psychologies, which evolve over longer stretches of time than those required to change the law.
However, it leaves untouched the problem of our 'psychologies at war'. I believe there is a strong link between sex and aggression. In conflict situations, soldiers have always sexualised violence which was perpetrated on men and women alike. The enemy becomes the Other, the (sex) object, onto which one projects one's misogynistic fantasies. The rape of Nanking is but one such example. Do men engage in war in a different way from women? Is there such a thing as a 'positive' aggression or is it necessarily fed by prejudice and hatred? War is changing as combatants engage less and less in physical combat and 90% of victims are civilians. What are the consequences on our service men and women? I cannot help but think that violence is always destructive and affects one’s psychology deeply. Can one really fight honourably?
I believe it is possible to channel aggression positively (although I'm not a psychologist so I have no idea how), just as I believe that sex needs to be dissociated from violence. Somehow, I don't think I'll see the end of violence though!

Artificial Equality

As reported in Reuters, the government aims to give students from poorer backgrounds more chance of entering university, by letting admissions officers see family occupations and whether their parents have a degree themselves.
And once they know that the parents have degrees, what happens? Do applicants whose parents have no degrees get points? The government’s initiative aims to widen the social mix in universities, presently skewed heavily towards middle class students. Presumably ‘widening participation’ means that Universities will give precedence to candidates from ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’.
I wholly agree that selection should not be solely based on candidate’s performance at A-levels. There is a need for a more complete picture in order to assess one’s attitude and abilities. I think there should be exams and interviews, and maybe CVs.
There are people who have had fewer opportunities than others, whose social background has affected one’s learning. There are those who have suffered from a mental or physical illness and so on. There is also discrimination within the educational system. However, these are separate issues that should be tackled separately instead of being labelled ‘disadvantage’ or made to fall under an equality strand. I’m not convinced that one’s intellectual abilities are seriously jeopardised by one’s social-economic background, unlike learning. Social background affects one’s opportunities to learn and acquire knowledge. People whose parents speak various languages are more likely to speak more than one language. In my childhood, I was traumatised when taught maths, so I don’t ‘do’ maths, however I can still understand the concepts and I have a strange liking for local government finance. 'Social determinism' is just as flawed as 'biological/genetic determinism'.

This initiative is an example of the essentialisation of ‘disadvantage’. It also means that ethnicity or some parents’ occupations end up being considered a disadvantage.
A parallel issue is the low number of women MPs, which is a real concern, however the reasons behind this are discrimination, the lack of support women receive and the prejudices they endure within their party. I’d like to see a political party offer training on gender equality (to men in particular) rather than patronise the women with segregated training on how to campaign. I’d like to see a more open and inclusive mentality within political parties.
Instead of labelling people, the Government should have the guts to tackle discrimination, poverty, the widening gap between rich and poor with an adequate politics of redistribution and civic education (including gender, racial stereotypes etc.).
The ‘equality strands’ agenda paints a simplistic picture of people’s diversity. It essentialises strands leaving no room for complexity, for different interpretation, for overlapping identities. It divides society into groups competing for the same resources instead of creating a society where the common good is paramount and to which each one of us has the duty to contribute.

Babies do better with fathers

Err... Told you so!

Acoording to a report by the Equal Opportunities Commission reported today in the Guardian:

Children are more likely to suffer development problems if their fathers do not take paternity leave or spend enough time with them when they are very young, according to an analysis of thousands of babies born around the turn of the millennium.
...

Children are more likely to suffer development problems if their fathers do not take paternity leave or spend enough time with them when they are very young, according to an analysis of thousands of babies born around the turn of the millennium.
A report published today by the Equal Opportunities Commission and based on research tracking 19,000 children born in 2000 and 2001 found emotional and behavioural problems were more common by the time youngsters reached the age of three if their fathers had not taken time off work when they were born, or had not used flexible working to have a more positive role in their upbringing.

Previous research has highlighted the importance of a mother's involvement when a child is small, but the EOC says this is the first study to confirm that the close involvement of a father also has a significant impact on a child's future.

However, it also warns that British families face an income divide, with poorer families less able to afford the time away from work and the access to good quality childcare that will benefit their children.

The findings come as the issue of parenting, and fatherhood in particular, has shifted decisively from the private sphere to the political agenda, with Conservative leader, David Cameron, stressing the need to support families and proposing tax incentives to boost marriage. Meanwhile the chancellor, Gordon Brown, will tomorrow discuss children and parenting with a group of 70 parents at an event hosted by the EOC and the Fawcett Society.

The EOC research, The State of the Modern Family, shows how the once standard model of homemaker mother and breadwinner father is firmly in retreat. By the time children reach the age of three, just 29% of families tracked in the Millennium Cohort Study featured a working father and stay-at-home mother.

The most common pattern now, at 35% of families, is a full-time working father and part-time working mother, while in 11% of families both parents are in full-time work.

The analysis finds no evidence that mothers' employment influences the extent of development problems in three-year-old children - in contrast to research published in 2005 by the childcare expert Penelope Leach which suggested young children looked after by their mothers did better than those cared for in nurseries or by relatives.

Indeed, it suggests that children who, at nine to 10 months, received formal childcare while their mothers worked had a lower likelihood of development problems at age three than those who were cared for by a parent or in other informal childcare such as by grandparents.

For fathers, though, early involvement is linked to positive development once a child is three. The EOC points to a "social revolution in fatherhood", in which fathers are increasingly involved with their children's upbringing and feel confident as carers, yet 63% felt they did not spend enough time with their new baby.

Flexible working, my dear, flexible working!

(for articles where 'I told you so' click on feminism or economy)

The reluctant feminist

So what's feminism all about? God knows! There are various types but I can't see feminism being prominent, in fact I believe there's been a backlash which has not brought about a new direction, only negative reactions, especially from women wanting to be 'women', which for them equates to making babies and baking. Am I being dismissive? I hope so!
I don't generally call myself a feminist and when I do I feel no pride, no self-confidence, rather a melancholic and powerless feeling. I call myself a feminist when I hear people talking about the essential differences between men and women, the ‘natural’, biological or genetic characteristics of male and female. Most of these differences are in their heads and that’s the problem. Joe’s post on women’s social fear of men is quite insightful. If I were a man I wouldn’t want to be feared, if I were a man I would like to be with a human being, equal to me, not a ‘woman’ identified with a set of ‘natural’ characteristics. I often hear men saying that they cannot understand how some men can ‘hate’ women and that they ‘love’ women. That’s the perfect example of misogyny. It starts by categorising a gender and objectifying it. You stop being a human being and become a woman, whose essence has been shaped and decided by a male society (and a male society’s interpretation of genes). The problem is that misogyny has been around for a very long time and we have internalised it. It is not just hatred and often it’s expressed in its ‘benign’ form such as stereotypes that, however, ‘disable’ women. Men are still the ‘I’, the ‘Self’ and women the ‘Other’, the ‘Second Sex’.
Women’s bodies still belong to society: from what they should wear, how they should look, how they should give birth (regardless of the woman’s choice or safety), how many months they should breastfeed etc. We live in a society that has a seriously unhealthy relationship with the body, where being ‘fat’ (or not skinny) is the ultimate sin. And the body is still primarily that of women.
Nevertheless, feminism for me is partnership. It’s about recognising men and women as human beings and going beyond societal structures and ideology. It’s about going beyond our fears and desires, it’s about belonging to the same oneness.

Feminism & the family

Feminism is much more pro-family than 'traditional society'. The problem is that nobody has bothered to listened.
Oliver James on the Times this morning rightly identifies the benefits of flexible working practices. However, he fails to understand feminism entirely. Feminists have been campaigning for flexible working and ‘fatherhood’ for over twenty years. Whilst James would like to see “men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children”, he assigns the main responsibility of childrearing to the mother. There is no rational basis for this except a prescriptive differentiation of roles that has excluded women from society for millennia. It is not based on biology. Breastfeeding (as recommended by the latest medical research)should last up to 6 months, childrearing lasts for many years. This division of labour has discriminated women and put many in a situation where they must decide between a family and work.
Recent research has shown that women returning to work after starting a family are around 40% less likely than the average white, able-bodied man to be offered a post. As I argued on this blog and in my letter to the FT The industry’s reluctance to embrace the work/life balance agenda is myopic and ultimately counterproductive. Flexible working arrangements have been shown in several studies to reduce dramatically sickness absences (26%), increase savings (£5-6m for BT) and innovative thinking. If both parents worked flexibly,they would spend more time with their children and thus give them better care. However, as long as men and society at large see flexible working as a woman’s issue that comes with her ‘role’ as a mother, it will remain the second-class form of working that traps women into poverty and jobs for which they are overqualified. It is feminism that is promoting a family where children have finally both parents and the nation is not deprived of talented workers. The rest is nonsense! (and has forced me to create a new label!)

Happy Valentine's Day!

Breastfeeding magic, File under Bollocks!

Here we go again with another surreal claim according to which breast-fed babies are more socially mobile than bottle-fed babies.
For how long are we to endure this pseudo-science?

1. If you take a big enough sample of the population and 1 factor (breastfeeding or bottle-feeding) you can make all the connections you want. What about all the other factors to the equation?

2. The sample population in this case were people born in the 1920s and 1930s. Presumably these people have also experience the war and its impact on social mobility.

3. err, actually it's not significant at all, says researcher!

Richard Martin, reader in clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol, who led the new research, admitted that the findings should be treated with caution as there was only a small difference between the chances of moving up a social class - with 58% of those who were breast-fed moving up a social class compared with 50% of those who were bottle-fed.

4. What's intelligence?

"One of the most consistent findings in the published literature on the long-term impact of infant-feeding is that breastfeeding is associated with improved neurocognitive development, which could influence future educational and occupational success and hence social mobility" the researchers write.

err, no actually! This is today's ideology and nostalgia. There are associated benefits with breastfeeding, although for up to 6 months not over, but intelligence is a far more complex quality. This fantasy comes from the study published on Lancet (not a very serious journal, I'm afraid) claiming that breast-feeding increased IQ by five points in preterm babies. However,

'research published last year by the Medical Research Council indicated that the reason breastfed babies were more intelligent was because of other factors such as a more stimulating home environment.'

The problem is that IQ does not tell you whether a person is intelligent. I'm afraid intelligence (which means linking together) is not quantifiable and has many different aspects. The attempt to measure one's intelligence is clearly an indication of idiocy.

Masculinity in crisis, yawn!

Seventies Man is back, we are told. The new drama series Life On Mars will take us back to the 1970's where men were 'men', meaning boorish sexist, racist, alcoholic and chain smokers. How delightful. The article suggests that the makers of the show did not have a problem with the sexism because "we've overcome that". Maybe on Mars, certainly not here. If we've overcome that, why has the consumption of pornography increased drastically? Why have 'lads' mags' made their appearance relatively recently? Why are women still being paid far less than men (18% for full-time work and 40% in part time work)? And why are men attracted by 1970's masculinity? Rather than the 'heroic rebel', the seventies man is affected by the Peter Pan complex, he's a child who is afraid to grow up and take responsibility. Nostalgia signals insecurity and lack of vision. Masculinity is in crisis, but looking back will not help.

Sexuality & God

What has God got to do with sex? Sexuality has been treated with suspicion when not rejected altogether by religious authorities throughout the ages. ‘Primordial’ fears of the body, its functioning and sexuality have led to a rigorous control and even regulation of sexual activity. Sexuality has thus been socially constructed in, primarily, a negative way. Women’s bodies were often seen with disgust (and I assume it still happens in many quarters), with rabbis referring to the womb as ‘place of rot’, not to mention patristic misogyny. Women have been associated with sexuality and have come to represent ‘the body’ and thus despised, needing regulation. They have been kept at a distance from … anything really! From the ‘sacred’ so that it would not be ‘defiled’, from political and economic power and, of course, from the intellectual sphere.
Those who wielded power created a ‘space’ for women and endowed them with domesticity. The traditional female role was (and still is) a self-denying one, at the service of others. The regulation of sex has been vital part of this process of ‘putting women in their place’. (By the way, the rejection of homosexuality falls under this category for it represents a challenge to heteropatriarchy, the gendered structures of power).
It was oppression, but it was dressed up as tradition and tradition was mistaken for authenticity. What I most object to is the fact that religious authorities used God to justify their prejudice that women were something apart. They thus sanctified oppression.
Many still think in this way, that there are ‘natural’ gender characteristics, that women are best at nurturing, caring and bringing up children. This obsession with establishing difference comes up every now and then. I wonder why people are so afraid of freedom, of being able to shape their lives without complying with mythical gender (or other) stereotypes. Why are people so keen for society to decide who they are?
But God has to do with the body. After all, it is through our body that we relate to others and it is through relationships that we encounter God. Me thinks God is a feminist! :)

How to stop the march of the theo-cons

In recent months articles denigrating religion and calling for secularism have multiplied, from Polly Toynbee to David Starkey (or was he just publicising his book?).
Britain is quite an interesting case: it is not secular, which means prayers are recited every day in schools across the country, representatives of the church sit in the House of Lords, and blasphemy laws are still in place, notwithstanding the successive attempts to repeal them. In fact, the Religious Hatred Bill is pretty much the same, only for all faiths. At the same time, British society is fairly lay, and I reckon a lot of it has to do with the Church of England being established. In the wake of the Islamic militant fundamentalism that drove suicide bombers to attack civilians in London in 2005 (I like reminding myself that they were civilians, it puts things into perspective), but also faced with the forceful rise of the theo-cons, journalists and the so-called intelligentsia are panicking. They see as common denominator religion, therefore religion must be the cause of this evil. Wouldn’t the world be a better and safer place without it? Isn’t religion contrary to reason and driving people to intolerance and hatred? Err, no. In fact this is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard. One might question whether religious fundamentalism is worse than other ideological fundamentalism, although I don’t think there’s convincing evidence to support this, but to blame religion for the abuses perpetrated in the name of a faith is frankly absurd. Should we do away with science because of the atomic bomb? Should we do away with the legal system for any miscarriage of justice? Should we do away with politicians because of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and friends? If you answered yes, don’t bother any further.
It now seems acceptable and ‘intelligent’ to brush away religion in its entirety.
Religious wars happened because of political reasons. Contrary to David Starkey’s understanding of history, Christianity's distinction between the sacred and the secular has always been more philosophical than historical. Since the edict of Constantine, Christianity enjoyed political power, saw it increase exponentially during the Middle Ages and very gradually wane until the XIX century (the last Pope King was Pious IX). When the Popes weren’t actually controlling land, they aligned themselves with temporal power. It was a joint venture between Emperor and Pope, and it was political. This is not to dispute the fact that behind the horrors of the crusades and massacres of the ‘New World’ Indios, there was an ideology of religious supremacy. However, this is common to all ideologies (Nazism, communism, nationalism), it is not the inherent characteristic of faith. By doing away with religion you do not prevent intolerance, bigotry, violence and authoritarianism.
The ideas of religious tolerance and pluralism come from ancient Greek and Roman political thought and have gradually developed in particular in connection with liberalism, but also as a result of the sheer exhaustion caused by successive religious wars. Secularism is NOT religious tolerance but separation between religious power and state which happened in Europe in relative recent times. Nevertheless, Toynbee ascribes almost magical qualities to secularism. Secularism has never protected women’s rights, this is because violence against women does not originate in religion. It is rooted in misogyny and reinforced by the political, economic, social and physical oppression of women.
Ironically, liberal democracy, being based on liberty and equality, is the fruit of monotheistic morality. Ethics is what makes us say that intolerance is wrong and comes from religion. Fundamentalism will be defeated by the concerted effort of all to preserve liberal democracy. The rise of fundamentalists and theo-cons is a challenge and an opportunity to liberal theology. Liberal movements are growing in various religions and could be central to philosophical renewal. It is essential that we grasp this opportunity and support the come back of a liberal rationalist religion rather than fear religion.
The great difference is not between religious and secular, but between liberal and illiberal.