Post from my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

Below is an excellent and interesting critique of the recent announcement by Dave (Cameron) et al that said that we need to halt the over-sexualisation of our young girls. Dave et al are backing several proposals (from a Christian organisation, it’s worth noting) that aim to protect children from sexual imagery (e.g., by selling top shelf magazines in brown sleeves). In predictable Tory fashion, Dave said that such change is about “social responsibility, not state control”. The conservatives are always keen to giveth autonomy with one hand and to very quickly taketh it away with the other. Whether it’s their plan or not, any measures introduced to combat over-sexualisation of young people will, inevitably, result in greater state control. But that’s an aside (for now).

Now, don’t get me wrong – over-sexualisation of young girls is a very serious issue and is unavoidably an aspect of our patriarchal objectification and sexualisation of women, and the impossible centrality of their physical appearance (they must be attractive but not too attractive because that’s inaccessible, they must be thin but not too thin because that’s emaciated, they must be curvy but not too curvy because that’s slutty and/ or fat, they must be lightly dressed but not too lightly dressed because that’s also slutty, etc. etc.) In short, they must be perfect but not too perfect  because then they’d never bang you. These norms are communicated to our young people everywhere they look, alongside the image of women as (available and willing) sex objects. So, should we do something about all of this? Yes, we absolutely should. Though we should be honest about it. If it’s about addressing the issue of pervasive sexual imagery and messages, that’s one thing; if it’s a cover for something else entirely, though, then we have a whole new problem. Laura Woodhouse from the f-word unpicks what is really going on with this conservative policy.

… the real problem with thongs and padded bras being marketed at young girls and pop culture being defined by women writhing around half naked is that it encourages children and teenagers to have sex.

…

For these right-wing, often conservative Christian types, the commercialised vision of sex being thrust in kids’ faces is dangerous because their view of “normal” has no place for anything other than sex between one man and one woman, bound together for life, who are willing to accept the tiny wee bundle of a consequence that may result. Sex for pleasure, sex outside relationships, sex that results in abortion – any sexual activity that deviates from their norm – is a sinful, threatening act that tears another rip in the moral fabric of a fading social order they are doing their darnedest to resurrect. This kind of sex is dark and dirty, while children are pure and innocent. By bringing the sinful world of sex into childhood, we defile our children.

So is it about saving our children’s innocence, protecting them from the horrid world of the patriarchy, and teaching them that they don’t have to subscribe to these messages? Or is it just that the right-wingers don’t want anyone (apart from a happily married man and woman) having sex? I’m inclining towards Woodhouse’s argument. Nadine Dorries, for example, is notoriously anti-abortion. By and large, if I may generalise, anti-abortionists are also anti-non-marital, non-procreative, sex-for-the-hell-of-it sex. But here’s the rub: sex is “normal”, teenage sex is “normal”, teenagers are horny little rascals, teenagers are walking frickin’ sexers. Teens have been having sex for as long as anyone’s been having sex. Teenagers living in a vacuum would still have sex.

Yes, girls need to know that they don’t have to be anything for anyone, that they don’t have to do anything for anyone, that the messages they see every day present a patriarchal view to which they do not have to subscribe, but if Dave’s new bandwagon is about preventing sex and little else, then the conservatives are once again barking up the wrong tree.

From my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress)

We all  need to speak out about this. Nadine Dorries, the now notorious anti-choice, anti-women Conservative MP, is calling for the sex education bill to be amended to require that sex education in schools include content promoting abstinence to teenage girls. Only girls.

Two things:

1. We know that abstinence-only education does not prevent teenage pregnancies or the spread of STDs in that demographic (google it; this post is brief because my time is brief), so introducing it for any reason is pointless. Realistic, honest and respectful sex education is the only approach worth considering.

2. The sexism of targeting young girls for abstinence-only education is astounding, and reinforces the centuries-old convention that women and girls should not want or be allowed to have non-procreative sex (and should be prevented from doing so, if necessary), while men and boys can do as they like (they have their wild oats to sow, after all).

Speak out (in whichever way you can) against this misogynistic MP and her offensive, puritanical proposals now.

facebook: Stop Dorries’ abstinence for girls sex education bill

theyworkforyou: Sex Education (Required Content)

Post from my blog (tenderhooligan/ wordpress).

• I was shocked this morning to hear a report on Radio 4 that there is something of an “adoption apartheid” in Britain (reported by thetimes). White children in care are three times more likely to be adopted than black children, and the waiting time for initial decisions about black children is up to six months longer than it is for white children. Delays and discrimination are apparent at every stage of the adoption system, the report says. One would think that as the little brown babies are all the rage nowadays in some circles, young black children would not be discriminated against in this country, but perhaps the little brown babies are only desirable (read: fashionable) if they’re born to mothers more than 1000 miles away. The Times is subscription only these days, of course, but I’m sure there will be several other reports about this story throughout the day.

• How is this going to work? Nearly two-thirds of universities in England want to charge the highest fee available (£9,000) for all of their courses (BBC). Now, far be it from me to pass judgement (ahem!) but I can think of about four institutions in this country who would get away with charging nine grand a year, and the rest can sing for their supper. The government (in its infinite wisdom) initially stated that universities could charge £9,000 only in exceptional circumstances so I have no idea how two-thirds of England’s universities are going to argue that one. But there’s a larger and more important issue at stake here. If it wasn’t already blindingly obvious, higher education has, once again, become the preserve of the elite in England. There is lots of tokenistic chatter about continuing to widen participation and ensuring the less-well-off can still afford higher education, but at £9,000 a pop, we all know how ridiculous that is. The current social mobility rhetoric of David Willets et al is now bordering on offensive.

• Libby Brooks’ Guardian piece - beware the anti-abortionists’ tiny steps towards reform - discusses worrying progress being made by the anti-abortion movement in the UK (which has utilised some of the same movement’s tactics from the US).

The modest group of protesters standing vigil outside the office of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service may not initially appear to embody the alarming infiltration of US anti-choice tacticians into the rather less noxious abortion debate on this side of the Atlantic. But the presence of 40 Days for Life, a Texas-based, church-funded anti-abortion campaign, in London’s Bedford Square over Lent is a reminder that, with a coalition led by the traditionally choice-sceptic Conservatives, peddling a localism agenda that favours the involvement of voluntary, charitable and religious organisations, the concomitant dangers for British women may be more real than they seem.

These campaigns are being helped along, of course, by the now notorious Conservative MP Nadine Dorries who appears to be prepared to say and do anything to get abortion restricted in this country. It’s a pity (for her) that a recent report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists refutes many of Dorries’ favourite lies which claim that abortion always negatively affects mental health. It might not be enough to get her to be quiet but it might be a start.

In other “news”, while looking down my Comment is Free RSS on google reader, I must have noted at least ten pieces about Kate Middelton. Enough already! I don’t care. Who does care?! Seriously!

The anti-abortion message her schoolmates wore inspired Alexandria Szeglet to don her opinion too. Instead of the word “life” written along strips of red tape, the 15-year-old Thunder Bay resident wore the word “choice” written on strips of green tape stuck to her Catholic high school uniform.

She was minutes into her first-period drama class last Thursday at St. Patrick High School when she was called to the office and sent home.

Alexandria left, but the soft-spoken Grade 10 student had started a movement: In a show of solidarity, 24 of her peers followed suit, adhering green tape to their uniforms. Four of them were also sent home, some for a two-day suspension.

The suspensions, and the faith-fuelled debate behind them, are the latest evidence of growing friction between religion and public education in Canada.

Having been to Catholic school, this doesn’t surprise me. Choice and free speech are not options in Catholicism.

(Source: politicalcanuck)

Well, this isn’t really a surprise now is it? One -ism is normally closely followed by another -ism. What I cannot understand at all, though, is how members of the Christian community can hate certain groups with such vitriol. Surely that goes against everything that Christianity is supposed to be about?

Welcome to Jacksonville, Florida, where a federally-funded abstinence-only program taught to more than 50,000 students has some shady and scary ties to a Ugandan pastor who wants to see gay people locked up in jail forever or executed.

Andy Kopsa over at The Florida Independent has an amazing investigative piece looking at the organization Project SOS, an abstinence-only program founded in 1993 by a woman named Pam Mullarkey. Turns out Mullarkey is best buds with a pastor in Uganda who has been championing a piece of legislation known as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. That pastor? Martin Ssempa, the religious leader who travels around the country showing graphic pornography to men, women and children in order to whip up anti-gay sentiment, and who has said that LGBT people in the country deserve to be locked up in prison for life, or sentenced to the death penalty.

Ssempa’s beliefs have been criticized the world over, and he’s been marginalized by many religious leaders who once used to work with him. But that’s not the story with Pam Mullarkey, who in addition to founding Project SOS, still serves on the organization’s board of directors. In fact, Mullarkey has praised Martin Ssempa, and a quote from her is even featured on Ssempa’s own web site.

“Martin Ssempa is the man to watch. He’s the most powerful voice for abstinence in the world and his passion, charisma and character make his vital message irresistible,” Mullarkey says of the minister who wants to see LGBT people locked up in prison forever or killed. Now that’s some charisma.

Two teenagers are seeking a judicial review into the government’s decision to allow university tuition fees to almost treble to up to £9,000 from next year.

Public Interest Lawyers, which specialises in human rights cases, is representing Callum Hurley, 16, from Peterborough, and Katy Moore, 17, from London.

The pair claim minsters broke the law in the way in which they decided to raise fees from £3,375 a year this autumn to up to £9,000 next autumn.

They believe the increase penalises students from poorer homes and from ethnic minorities, who are disproportionately from lower-income homes.

Well this is interesting. The new UK coalition government has single-handedly excluded an entire generation from higher level education. So much for the Great British Social Mobility…

At Wichita East High School in Kansas, a student got the green light to author an editorial, and have it published in the school’s newspaper (The Messenger), that said same-sex relationships were not normal, and then quoted from a Leviticus translation that says men who lie with other men should get the death penalty. So much for creating a learning environment where all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, can feel respected and safe. In Wichita East High School, you can just get on the Internet or open up a copy of The Messenger and be told that you’re not normal, and that some people think it’s moral to have you killed. The article, “Homosexual Teens Alienated By Current Societal Trends,” is still available online here. (Here’s a PDF in case they take it down.) Among the points that the student author makes: “[Same-sex relationships] relationships just are not normal. One thing to notice is that there is legislation against homosexual marriage. However, there are no legislative restrictions to same-sex dating. Dating does often lead to marriage, so same-sex dating should be frowned upon.”

redlightpolitics:

Posted on the BBC a couple of hours ago, Afghan Taliban ‘end’ opposition to educating girls:

The Taliban are ready to drop their ban on schooling girls in Afghanistan, the country’s education minister has said.

Farooq Wardak told the UK’s Times Educational Supplement a “cultural change”…

Also sceptical.

Wardak plays down Taliban attacks on women and girls because he has become a leading government proponent of the need for reconciliation with the Taliban. It suits his agenda to whitewash continuing Taliban crimes. And, like many Afghan politicians, he prefers the conspiracy claims – that the Taliban are an entirely Pakistani creation, rather than confronting the messy reality of a home-grown movement that is as much a product of Afghan reality as of Pakistan’s intelligence agency.

There is a risk that some politicians in the UK, US and elsewhere, nervous about mounting casualties and dwindling public support for the war in Afghanistan, will seize on such claims. Governments seeking an exit strategy may also find it convenient to play down Taliban abuses against women and girls.

While most women in Afghanistan desperately want peace, they don’t want a peace deal that is blind to the price they may pay. That requires realism about the nature of the insurgency. Although a comprehensive peace deal seems distant for now, small local deals are already taking place under the name of “reintegration” of Taliban fighters, with the promise of jobs and other enticements. But there is no vetting system to stop a commander who is notorious for attacking girls’ education from becoming a local security chief, or even a district governor, with all the obvious risks to women and girls.

Instead of trying to soften the image of a group synonymous with the oppression of women and girls, the education minister should focus on increasing opportunities for their schooling, and on protecting girls’ education from attack. Attacking schools is a war crime and should never be glossed over. Those who threaten, bomb and burn down schools should instead be held to account.

(Source: thefeministhub)

Are the humanities about to disappear from our universities? The question is absurd. It would be like asking whether alcohol is about to disappear from pubs, or egoism from Hollywood. Just as there cannot be a pub without alcohol, so there cannot be a university without the humanities. If history, philosophy and so on vanish from academic life, what they leave in their wake may be a technical training facility or corporate research institute. But it will not be a university in the classical sense of the term, and it would be deceptive to call it one.

Neither, however, can there be a university in the full sense of the word when the humanities exist in isolation from other disciplines. The quickest way of devaluing these subjects – short of disposing of them altogether – is to reduce them to an agreeable bonus. Real men study law and engineering, while ideas and values are for sissies. The humanities should constitute the core of any university worth the name. The study of history and philosophy, accompanied by some acquaintance with art and literature, should be for lawyers and engineers as well as for those who study in arts faculties. If the humanities are not under such dire threat in the United States, it is, among other things, because they are seen as being an integral part of higher education as such.