Policy Heading in Right Direction...

The Scottish Executive has laid out a new five point plan for tackling drug use in Scotland. Perhaps, its most important contribution is point one:

Recognising that tackling problem drug use will only be done through effective policies on the economy, tackling poverty, and supporting families and children.

Now, this is exactly the right approach. The areas of Scotland that are devastated through problem drug-use are also areas of massive social deprivation. They are frequently areas that previously relied on hard industry, coal, steel and the like, which have now gone and never been replaced. Such communities are marked by the complete lack of hope; lack of hope for a future; lack of hope that there is something to live for. Problem drug-taking is frequently a response to a lack of incentive not to take drugs.

Yet, while I am pleased that they realise this is the right approach, I wonder how they are going to achieve this. Rural regeneration has been a problem for the last thirty years and, as yet, no one has came up with decisive answers about transforming communities devastated by a lack of employment opportunities and the all the related problems of poverty and deprivation. Throwing £94 million at a problem will not make it go away if there isn’t a clear strategy for regenerating communities in the long-term. Knowing what the problem is, is very different from knowing the answer.

Newsflash: Abortion Statistics are News.

Today’s headlines in Scotland inform us that WOMEN IN SCOTLAND HAVE ABORTIONS. Ok, they don’t quite say that, but it feels a bit like that. Today, the statistics for the number of abortions performed in Scotland in 2007 were published and, as usual, were headline news. Please note that there is nothing new or particularly exciting about these statistics. They are published every year, but we all love to talk about abortion, so we will. There were 13,703 abortions in Scotland last year, up 540 on the previous year, meaning that around ¼ of all Scottish pregnancies (that were known about) ended in termination. Only 44 (0.3%) abortions occurred after 20 weeks, a reduction from 49 in 2006 and 67 in 2005. Rather unsurprisingly, the usual suspects also came out of the woodwork to pass judgement and equally predictably the same old tropes that we have come to expect passed their lips.

Mary Scanlon MSP, the Scottish Tories' health spokeswoman, noted, on the fact that more than a quarter of women had previously had a termination, that:

There is a general consensus that abortion should not be used as a form of contraception. Sadly, it appears that, for some women, this could be the case.

Because, as we all know, you have to be really irresponsible to fall pregnant twice.

Ian Murray, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, commented:

The reality is these statistics refer to human lives – both the babies lost and the women whose lives will be scarred by their decision forever.

Again, we all know that all women that have abortions are irreparably damaged (presumably the women who have repeat abortions are just sadists).

Another interesting statement, this time by The Scotman, was that:

Pro-life groups reacted angrily when it emerged that 372 patients having abortions were under 16 years of age.

This I am extremely puzzled at. Why would pro-life groups feel differently about underage abortion than any other type? I suspect that this is hyperbole on the part of The Scotsman, but, if true, part of me wonders if the logic goes ‘women have choices=bad; girls have choices=worse’, because the lower down the social ladder you are as a woman, the more you are hated.

Most abortions occurred amongst the 16-19 age group, very closely followed by the 20-24 age group, highlighting that women are more fertile when they are younger the follies of youth, it seems. Admittedly, this shows that teen pregnancies are high in Scotland, but also that teen pregnancies are overwhelmingly amongst women who are legally old enough to be having sex. Only 2.7% of abortions were on girls under the age of consent. I find this an interesting paradox. I realise that there is a difference between the legal age women can have children and the age when it is socially acceptable or desirable for them to do so, but it does make you wonder if the fuss about the teen pregnancy rate is really a fuss about legally adult women making decisions about their own bodies.

What has been less commented on, with the exception of the Lib Dem spokesman, is that twice as many abortions occurred in areas of social deprivation as in wealthier areas. If people want to reduce the abortion rate tackling poverty seems the obvious place to go. Yet, it is much easier to make emotive or unhelpful statements. As the spokesman for the Archbishop of Glasgow noted:

These statistics are an ever-present sign that society has failed both Scotland's unborn children and women. [Check out the order of priority.]

Well, if society has failed them, what is society going to do about it? Bemoaning the numbers doesn't seem particularly helpful.

A Sadly Unsurprising Tale.

The Daily Record this week is airing the dirty laundry of Rev. Mike McCurry at Mosspark Baptist Church. Now, the story itself is hardly the stuff of legend. Older married minister of a church and respected member of the community has an affair with a 21-year-old female parishioner, Victoria. When caught, he denies the affair existed, claiming the girl stalked him and made up false allegations. She, on the other hand, has numerous witnesses and ‘text-ual’ evidence to support her claims, showing McCurry to be a liar. Now, the rights and wrongs of their affair hold little interest for me. But, what struck me when reading this tale was the anti-women attitude taken by the Church in this case.

The Church leadership, not McCurry, told Victoria that McCurry no longer wanted to see her. When she showed up at church to confront him, having never been told by McCurry that he wanted the relationship finished, the Church leadership would not let her talk to him, essentially treating her as the wrong-doer. The scandal caused her so much heartbreak that she left her job and family to move to England. She only returned to testify at the Church hearing after McCurry claimed that she was a stalker and her mother, a member of the Church, challenged his lies. McCurry has subsequently been allowed to continue in his post as minister, but he and Victoria are not allowed any further contact. Now this seems to me, the equivalent of ejecting Victoria from her church and ‘community’. How can a church member have communion within a church where she is not allowed to interact with the minister?

I would not like to paint Victoria as victim with no agency. At 21, she made a choice. But, it isn’t too hard to see that McCurry is significantly more culpable in this affair. He was the leader in the Church, holding a position of authority over Victoria, who was half his age. He was the person betraying his wife and congregation (and presumably God) through rejecting his vows of fidelity to his wife and faithfulness to the tenets of his religion. So why is it that Victoria is effectively removed from the congregation and forced to leave her community, and he remains?

I don’t necessarily think McCurry should lose his job- this is a decision for the Church. But, I do think that the Church has to consider that they have a responsibility to more than McCurry; that they should have taken action to protect Victoria, to listen to her side of the story, and to ensure that she remained welcome in her community. It seems to me that if the Church wants to continue to have a place in modern society then it needs to treat women with considerably more respect. It also seems to me that if I were a member of such a Church, I wouldn’t want to be led by a man who happily lies to save his own back at the expense of another.

Canadian Club: Men Only.

Racialicious has a project up critiquing a sexist set of American Canadian Club adverts. In response, she created her own version of the ads and asked readers to send in their versions. Some of the responses are really great. I especially like 'your dad was a real man', portraying an alternative version of masculinity to that portrayed in the adverts.

I also really love the idea of this project, reacting in a creative fashion to the advertising by producing effective alternatives. The adverts created are all really well done and professional looking, highlighting that feminist advertising is effective advertising. I agree with the commentator at Racialicious that if they want to punish Canadian Club, creating new adverts for them doesn't really work. But, I think as a project that shows that there are alternatives to the mysogonistic BS that is frequently created, then it's fab, and as a project that allows feminists to define what it means to be a man or a woman, then it is a really interesting historical project.

All Feminist; All of the Time.

There has been a discussion at a number of websites recently about what feminist TV looks like. What do we want from our female characters? What do we want from the world in which our feminist characters live? In many respects, this comes under the much bigger question of what do we want from the world as feminists? What changes do we want to happen, and what does a post-patriarchal future look like? So, in many respects, this is a horribly difficult question, and one that I don’t have an answer for. Today however, I would like to address one part of this question, which is the tension between real women’s experience and the behaviour of feminist characters on TV.

One of the frustrations that many women have with the TV characters they watch, especially those characters who are feminist or proto-feminist women, is that they don’t behave in feminist ways all of the time. Saranga at Paiwing, for example, expresses frustration that despite Buffy the Vampire Slayer retaliating against the man who tried to sexually assault her, she does not challenge him or disagree when later told her clothing provoked the attack. Buffy’s response suggests that she buys into this mythology. Now, how is the viewer meant to read this scene: should we be annoyed that Buffy failed to follow through on her feminist credentials? Or, do we say, well that’s how a real woman, perhaps caught off guard, may respond in this situation?

What about a less clear cut story plot such as in Lipstick Jungle? Top female exec (beautiful, mega successful women in a man’s world), who loves her husband, but isn’t getting any sex, has an affair with the young hawt male. At first I think this is a bit ‘ew’, but why hold her to a different standard from men. Then, she wants it to be only about sex; then she thinks she is falling for him, guilt about husband etc. Cop out or just one of those things? What is the feminist action in this story plot: to remain faithful to her husband and never have an affair??

The problem with demanding feminist TV is that some of the time the feminist decision, in a patriarchal world, doesn’t exist. Instead, you have female characters making a myriad of decisions, some right, some wrong, in circumstances that they can’t control. (In many respects, exactly like the real world). And, the thing is, this doesn’t mean that such television isn’t ‘feminist’. One of the longest-running aims of the feminist movement has been to get women’s experience recognised; to destroy a world where the white, middle class male’s experience is considered normal and proper. Television that shows women’s experience in all its ugly and imperfect detail legitimises the experience of women, by bringing it into the public sphere. It allows other women to recognise that their experiences are not unique; that they are not alone in the inequalities and problems they face.

So, perhaps, when looking for feminist TV, we should not ask ‘did she do the feminist thing’, but instead, ‘did she behave like a real woman would’? Does her character have depth and complexity and does her behaviour feel real, remembering that different women have different experiences? Does she have a central role within the show, or is she a sounding board or prop for the male characters? Is she human?

Ova Captures Sperm.

I know I am years late with this news, but I thought it was a rather cool fact when I came across it. The ova is actually the aggressor in the conception process, not the sperm. Indeed, the sperm tries to escape, but the ova sends out chemicals to draw them into her orbit. The analogy of the assertive sperm, winning the race, and fertilising the egg is not the real story. Now, I wonder why such a myth exists? [sarcasm]

Another faulty metaphor oft used in the medical sphere is that of menstruation as a form of death, where the womb and egg is destroyed and passed out, but, on the other hand, when sperm is ejaculated it is talked about as fertilising and spreading of seed, thus life. In fact, the endometrium constantly renews itself, so could be talked about as constantly living, whereas the vast, vast majority of sperm find only death.

Just a turn of phrase, perhaps, but the significance for how we conceive of the operation of the body are massive.

Day Seven: Sunday.

Yesterday was mostly a lazy day, sleeping late, reading some of my book, and writing a blog entry of length and substance. I spent a couple of hours looking up articles for my research in the afternoon.

So, what’s the conclusion after a week of work? 37.5 hours of productive academic working time, not including time where I was trying to work but actually procrastinating. Hey, that means I worked exactly the amount that academics in the UK are contracted for- how cool. This doesn’t include thinking time, like when I plan articles or to do lists in my head at the gym. I think this was fairly typical for a week where I have marking, doing adminy type stuff with just a bit of writing thrown in. If I am researching in archives or having to write something (rather than tweaking), I would work at least twice this many hours- but then that is not every week. I don't think I ever do much less than this.