Dear BBC

England is not the UK. [and yes it is England that is getting the heatwave, not Scotland- are you shocked?]

That is all.

[ETA: Ha! They changed the title- who says random blogging doesn't work.]

Why do a Humanities PhD in this Economy?

Recently on a number of websites, there has been a lot of discussion on whether academics should encourage the young to do PhDs. There has been a lack of real [aka non-temporary, well-paid] jobs for the recently qualified PhD-er in academia and as studying for a PhD is not well-paid, if paid at all, and it takes years, many people question the wisdom of pursuing this career path. Now, if you are doing a PhD because you want to be rich, or because you see academia as a easy career choice, then you probably shouldn't be doing a PhD in this market [if any]. And if you are doing a PhD and you are not enjoying your research [ok, the academic politics can suck, but I mean your own actual research- and I don't mean that you can't have bad days], then you shouldn't be there- because our love of the subject is why we do this. But, as someone who was paid to do her PhD, I really enjoyed the experience and I earned about as much as a full-time job in a supermarket. It was a lot of work, but I made my own hours, and I did something that made me happy. The loss in theoretical income that I would have earned in a graduate job was more than worth the experience.

Now, I was fortunate to get a job after the PhD, although it is contract work, so I am not suffering some of the angst of yet another year's miserable pay, multiple jobs, and scraping by, in the hope of hanging in there. And I understand that if you really want to be in academia, then having to hang-on in there isn't really a choice, but on the other hand, you wouldn't even have a shot at academia if you hadn't done the PhD. And, PhDs do not just qualify you to work in academia. There are a number of organisations that like researchers with PhDs, even those in the humanities, including the government- at local and national levels, and in the civil service; there are private organisations that do social research for the government and for private companies; the NHS employs researchers for health studies; there are also plenty of companies that just like to employ over-educated peoples. And, I know people who have got these jobs, so they're not imaginary. So your PhD is not worthless just because you don't work in academia, and indeed in the non-humanities, many people do PhDs with no intention of ever working in academia. The trick, and the angsty-bit, is knowing when to change paths.

Now, I know that there is the line of thought that if you need to go into a non-academic career than you have wasted time that could have been spent working up a career ladder. But, in this day and age [and annoying historical note, this seems to be true for a lot of history], few people remain in the same career for their entire lives and wider experience (such as a PhD) can translate into real financial benefits or advancement, just like other forms of life experience. People with PhDs have transferrable skills!!

So I guess my point is, if you want to do a PhD and you go in with eyes open knowing that there is no cushy guarantee of an academic post at the end, then do it. Life is more than money and, well, who wants a real job anyway?

Advertising Sexual Health.

In what is a rather confusing article on the BBC, apparently the Archbishop of Westminister has responded to a public consultation on allowing advertisements promoting safe sex and sexual health services on TV and radio, by asking for all adverts from organisations that refer women for abortions to be banned. “Archbishop Nichols urged Catholics in England and Wales to respond to the consultation, saying that the country would not expect abortion to be advertised "alongside a packet of crisps".” Somebody else, or perhaps him as well (bad writing journalists!!), ask for organisations that refer women for abortions to clearly state that in their ads. The need for such advertisements on TV and radio is due to the dramatic increase in STDs amongst under 16s and a desire to tackle these issues.

It seems to be that there are number of problems with this issue. First, seeing as in the UK, the vast majority of (but not all) sexual health services and sexual health advertisements are provided by the NHS, who also provide abortions, this would mean that the NHS could not advertise, so no stop smoking ads, no stop drinking ads, no phone the NHS hotline, not your Dr, ads etc, etc. Alternatively, they may just have to state that they provide abortions services in their ads, so look out for: ‘Stop Smoking Phone 0800 *****, ps you can also get an abortion with your nicotine patch’.

Second, the fact is that equating the advertising of sexual health services with advertising abortion is really just a bunch of scare-mongering to turn a rather banal issue into a hot topic. These adverts are to stop STDs, not ‘encourage’ abortion. By providing info on contraception it might even help prevent the need for abortion. But, if we must imagine that advertisers are lining up to sell abortion: How exactly does one advertise abortion anyway?

‘Hey, you’re pregnant and you thought having a child was the thing for you-Stop, have an abortion, it’s an experience of a lifetime’.

Or perhaps,

‘it’s a Saturday night and you’re bored- you were going to have a packet of crisps, but instead, have an abortion?’

Perhaps the adverts are to make sure people are aware that organisations that provide abortion exist and to ensure they can make an informed choice, but it seems unlikely, and frankly demeans women, to suggest that they will or will not choose to have an abortion based on a TV advert. Abortions are not life-style accessories (perhaps unlike children?). They are a necessary service that prevent women’s deaths, help protect their fertility, and give women control over their own bodies. The only way that an advert will improve the likelihood of a woman having an abortion is by offering her information to get one that she previously lacked. And, do you really want to argue that you think enforced pregnancy is a better option that a 30-second advert, next to the one about a packet of crisps?

Perhaps, I don’t want to know the answer to that.

Blaming 1920s Style

These are my summary of an article, with quotes in apostrophes, printed in the 1920s in Ireland on women's rights within marriage, suggesting that perhaps our blaming has not moved as far forward as we imagine. Sorry for not copying it word for word, but that's time-consuming, and I'm lazy. Now, you also get to see what I get to do all day...

The Great Unpaid: State Endowment of Motherhood,

from the Irish Times 28/11/1922

This article is replying to something written by Evelyn Grogan (a man) who attacks the idea that wife and mother's have economic status. He says 'Most people consider a home and a husband of one's one worth something.' The article replies : 'Agreed. But unfortunately in its actual working the marriage contract means that a woman must consider these appendages worth everything- worth her leisure, her economic independence, her interests; all in fact that goes to the composition of the individual and differentiates it in some degree from the herd.' Before marriage, woman (who do not live in poverty), had friends, interests, ideals and leisure- a personality that made her desirable in marriage to at least one man. After marriage any quality not necessary to the maintenance '(not economic maintenance- the other more arduous kind)' of a home is crowded out and atrophied, excepting of course patience, endurance, self-sacrifice, which neither attracted your husband in the first place, nor will keep him.

'"Few husbands" (we are told) "deny something spent on amusement or special desires." (Oh, beyond praise these beneficent ones and blest their handmaidens who have found favour in their sight!.) Imagine the sensations of a man confronted with the privilege of "something to spend on special desires and amusements!" Imagine the temerity of her who would suggest that men could exist without clubs, hobbies, drinks or tobacco! 'No the money and leisure to spend on special desires are not a man's privileges- they are his inalienable rights; and by all the standards of an outworn convention the more "special desires" a man has and the more he cultivates their gratification, the more manly he is.' It is curious and instructive to realise that it is by the diametrically opposed process we get the conventional 'womanly woman' - 'one who has no interest apart from the care of her husband, her home and her children.'

The writer [Grogan] also comments that it costs a pretty to keep a wife, when what he means is a home, and this is true, but it costs more to keep a housekeeper.

There are exceptions- women who are not unduly handicapped by marriage- they are the well to do women, the women without children, endowed with a talent, that like murder, will out '(and incidentally command an economic market).' But nothing can redeem the majority of woman who depend on another's bounty, which marriage inevitably means. The contributor's suggestion that a financial agreement should be arrived at before marriage is fair but does not go far enough- it is not possible for those in straitened households. The only solution is the state endowment of motherhood- not 'a miserable dole like maternity benefit', but something that would prove of substantial assistance, not only to parents but the child- that "most valuable asset to the state", about whom so much is talked and so criminally little is done. KM. [Note: we have received several other articles on this subject and they will be published in due course.]

Otters

This otter has been stolen from the internetz, but tonight driving home a real live otter ran out in front of my car (and didn't die). It wasn't a baby, but it wasn't quite fully grown. I am so excited... a real live otter....

That is all.

Fat Acceptance

Over at Bitch PhD, Ding discusses her decision to actively diet and lose weight, choosing to place her health above 'fat acceptance'. In her post, she talks about her struggle with choosing to diet, due to its implications for her feminism and her desire to accept her body the way it is. The fat acceptance movement is about helping women to love their bodies despite living a patriarchal culture that places a premium on being unachieveably thin. It is supposed to liberate women from obsessing over their body's seeming imperfections and to give them solidarity in that choice. It is meant to put women back in control of their own bodies; to wrest it from the grip of a patriarchal culture. Yet, increasingly, fat acceptance has come to mean never doing anything about your weight or body shape; never being allowed to change it. It is as if we are expected to imagine that our bodies just exist beyond or outside our control and we must just accept them, and never be actively seen to be adjusting them. If we do, we must dress up this choice as 'healthy' or about 'fitness'.

This is problematic as it once more removes a woman's body from her control. She is denied choice over what her body should look like or what size it should be. And, while our bodies can be frustratingly resistant sometimes to change (and certainly we are limited by our physiology), we do have some choices over what we do with our bodies, how we want them to look and behave. If we want to diet, we shouldn't have to say 'it's for health reasons', we should be able to say 'I am dieting because it's my damned body and I'll do what I like with it'. What this does not mean is that our bodies should be dictated to or that, because we can, we should change our bodies. It certainly doesn't mean condemning woman who have different bodies from us. It's about recognising that feminism is about putting us in control of our lives and our bodies and that we shouldn't have to apologise for what we do to our bodies.

Happy International Women's Day!

2009 is the year of ending violence against women, so I thought a message from a victim of domestic violence may be appropriate.

Mrs Maud Coleman, Dundrum, to her husband, James Bryne Coleman, during their separation proceedings for his cruelty in 1906.

"If in the event of my death, you should marry again, take my advice and do not go to lawyers and friends to ask how to behave to your wife, but remember that she is a human being."