Thursday 20 August 2009

A Rationalist Reviews: The Holy Bible

It’s one you have to tackle eventually. It’s not so rare in this age of screaming superlative taglines to see a story labelled as “the best ever told”, but on the basis of sales alone The Holy Bible is head and shoulders above its competitors.

It’s not strictly speaking a book, but rather a clumsy stitch-job of two completely different stories. We all remember the runaway success of The Old Testament and quite rightly thought the series was over when the original authors died centuries ago. Now though, a bunch of amateur script-doctors have leapt upon the opportunity to tack their own novella onto the original, calling it The New Testament in a shameless attempt to curry favour with longtime fans. The whole package is called The Holy Bible, after that Manic Street Preachers album.

The deluxe version of The Holy Bible, exclusively on sale in Starbucks


Regular readers will recall that at the time I lambasted The Old Testament for its po-faced take on the epic family saga, calling it "Twin Peaks without the laughs". Come back Moses, all is forgiven! This latest addition to the canon manages to retain the dry genealogies and lists of rules and regulations that made the OT so hard to read, and ditch the parts that made it interesting. They take the best character from the OT – the vindictive and deliciously fickle ‘God’ – and utterly change his character. This time round, you half expect to see Him hugging a tree, rather than setting it on fire and shouting from inside it. Replacing such a popular, in-your-face fan favourite with a proverb-spouting liberal deadbeat might be the kind of thing that goes down a storm in the literary world, but you can’t see die-hard fans in Dead Squaw, Alabama taking it quite so well.

This ‘Jesus’ is somehow both the ‘God’ we remember and an entirely new character altogether, in a lazy move that is never fully explained. He spends his time dithering around the Holy Land, throwing out glib speeches about equality and justice, all the while followed by a dozen irritating literary props collectively called the ‘disciples’. I cannot begin to express my frustration at this gaggle of faceless drones, whose sole purpose seems to be asking asinine questions so that Jesus has yet another opportunity to sermonise and patronise his audience. Considering this guy is supposed to be recruiting for some radical breakaway sect, the fact that his right-hand men seem unable to tie their own sandal-thongs without his supervision stretches the credibility of the plot somewhat.

At times it seems as though the authors haven’t even read each other’s contributions. Luke and Matthew are the only authors who can be bothered to describe Jesus’s supernatural birth, John completely omits the exorcisms that in other accounts make Jesus look like the fifth Ghostbuster, and Paul doesn’t even seem sure that the character he’s writing about actually exists in the book's setting. I know that authors are often under a lot of pressure, but I don’t think a weekly meet up over coffee to swap notes would have been too much to ask.

Overall, there are some good scenes, and some engaging characters, but the NT suffers from the same flaws as its predecessor. Promising dramatic scenes are utterly squandered almost without exception. The authors are adept at creating perfect set-ups for action scenes that would make Michael Bay weep tears of pure adrenaline, but consistently fail to deliver anything but bitter disappointment. One minute Jesus is kicking ass in the temple and the next he’s wandering around in the desert doing nothing, or healing the sick. It brings to mind the depressingly anticlimactic battle for Jericho in the OT and I’d hoped we’d seen the last of it.

Although not strictly relevant to the quality of the book, you have to wonder who authorised such loose brand control. The dizzying array of spin-offs, continuations and reinterpretations are enough to give any new reader a headache. It’s bad enough having a single story told from four often wildly different perspectives, but poorly thought-out fan fiction like the Book of Mormon and the dozens of near-contemporary Gnostic gospels hardly improve matters. It’s as though the publishers let any idiot with a pen have a stab at writing a gospel in the race to make money off the franchise. People really love these books. I mean, really love them. Harry Potter fanatics have nothing on some of these ‘Christians’. Letting so many people dash off their own non-canon spin-offs is at best irresponsible, but at worst pretty damn dangerous.

Overall score: 2/5

Verdict: if you somehow find yourself trapped in a literary vacuum then reach for The Holy Bible with a happy heart, but there are so many superior fantasy novels out there it’s hard to see why you’d bother with this lacklustre effort.

Originally published in the first issue of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

Friday 14 August 2009

Wedding Bells

Sometimes I really do hate newspapers. Jim Fitzpatrick MP was invited to a Muslim wedding in his constituency. Finding out on arrival that he and his wife would have to sit in separate sections of the church, he refused to attend. The story here is not that a Government minister is a horrible anti-Muslim bigot, but instead that he is a local MP concerned about the growing hardline elements within his constituency's Muslim community.

First of all there is the implicit judgment that he was wrong to object when faced with gender segregation - which was clearly the right thing to do - swiftly followed by the more explicit accusation that he is a bigot. You have to read through the long description of the event, a picture of him looking like a grumpy little Englander (see above), as well as severe condemnations from Muslim leaders before you get to the crucial bit from the minister himself:
"The segregation of men and women didn't used to be as much of a strong feature. We've been attending Muslim weddings together for years but only recently has this strict line been taken. It is an indication of the stricter application of rules that is taking place that didn't exist before."
It is clear that Fitzpatrick knows about Muslim customs, and it is equally clear that in his opinion segregation at weddings is not only ethically wrong but also contrary to the tradition of the local community. Why should he have to shut up in the face of sexism, just to avoid offending religous sensibilities? He didn't cause a scene, he didn't condemn anyone to their face - he discovered the situation, disagreed with it and then walked out. Trying to spin his quite obvious concern that hardline religious fundamentalism is going to prevent local Muslims from integrating and feeling comfortable in Tower Hamlets into bigotry is absolutely shameful.

For all everyone from the Tories to George Galloway are slamming Fitzpatrick for trying to be controversial to win over that crucial Disaffected White Racist voting demographic, that's quite clearly not the case. He regularly goes to Muslim weddings, and it sounds very much like he is involved in the local Bangladeshi Muslim community. The fact that he has left one before for the same reason - at a time when Labour were riding higher in the polls - is a pretty good indication that there was nothing contrived about this. He's standing up for his principles, and for those in the community who do not want to see a return to strict Islamic law in their community. Oh, how horrible of him! Statements such as this are thrown out...
"Muslim leaders insist the custom is traditional at Islamic weddings as well as in mosques, and expressed surprise that Mr Fitzpatrick, a third of whose east London constituents are Muslims, was unaware of the fact. "

... when we already know from his comments that Fitzpatrick regularly attends Muslim weddings that are not segregated. Subsequent comments from the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Muslim Institute assume that Fitzpatrick is utterly ignorant of Muslim affairs and assume that his objection is born of prejudice or political scheming.

The implication is that Fitzpatrick is out of touch with voters, that he bumbled into this wedding and trampled all over the beliefs of a third of his constituents, and is woefully ignorant of Islamic tradition. Obviously that isn't the case. What has happened, and what he specifically states later in the article, is that in recent years a more hardline group has taken up residence in the area and he - and no doubt the Muslims whose weddings were not segregated - is concerned that this will be bad for community cohesion.

When I've spoken to ex-Muslims about this, they describe the interaction between fundamentalists and mainstream Muslims as a case of "keeping up with the Jones's" - nobody wants to be seen as a bad Muslim, or not pious enough, so they go along with the fundamentalists instead of stepping back from them. Whether or not this is true outside of the people I've talked to would make for an interesting debate, but in accusing Fitzpatrick of being insensitive and bigoted towards Muslims, The Telegraph has given column inches to hardliners who do not represent the community and established in the reader's mind that gender-separated weddings are a core part of Islam.

It's strange how the papers view American-style evangelism as a 'crazy' form of Christianity whereas when dealing with Islam its the extremists who are handed the microphone and the space in the public eye. It's insulting to Muslims for the media to assume that fundamentalists are the 'real' Muslims, and painting Fitzpatrick as the bad guy here is a grave error. He hasn't said anything offensive - certainly nothing more offensive than the root cause of the incident! - and it sounds like he has a good relationship with the Muslim community. The Telegraph, eager to put the boot into a Labour minister, has chosen to leap to the defence of sexist fundamentalists, instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a man trying to stand up and represent moderate and liberal Muslims. Integration, not separation, people!

Thursday 13 August 2009

The Kadir-Buxton Blogging Method

This guy is a much underrated genius:



Although some would label him a seriously troubled fantasist, those of us who know the truth realise his true value. Among other things his inventions can:

* Cure the mentally ill with the patented Kadir-Buxton Method of smacking them around the head

*Awaken the comatose using the same method

* "Brighten the day of AIDS sufferers" with the use of the Kadir-Buxton buttock-slap

* Raise the dead by punching them (as the nervous system can survive longer than the brains)

* Unblock fallopian tubes, by reaching in to tickle the ovaries

* Make childbirth into a 45-minute orgasm

Despite discovering these amazing methods he hasn't rested on his laurels, and is also responsible for:

* Inventing the 'Red Rose' logo for the Labour Party

* Inventing 'Economy 7' while only 12 years old, although he was susequently targeted for assassination because of it

* The Labour Party's focus on health and education (nicked from his 'final year' paper)

* The name 'New Labour'

* Saving the 'Dodo Tree' from extinction

Regrettably, he has had trouble getting his ideas accepted by the medical profession, and some people are even skeptical about his methods due to the fact that he isn't a doctor, or medically trained in any way. One day, we'll all rue mocking him!

Wednesday 12 August 2009

Wednesday Woo: Stradivari of Cremona


Well it's Wednesday (just about) which means that it's time to roll out some aliteration and introduce what I hope will be a weekly feature.

'Woo' is a colloquial term that you see quite a lot in skeptical circles that refers to a whole host of superstitions, urban legends and unverified beliefs. Psychics, mediums, homeopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, conspiracy theorists who insist that aliens from Zeta Reticuli travel hundreds of light years to fuck with rednecks: all are in woo up to their eyeballs. But how can you tell the difference between woo and, you know, the truth? My own working definition of woo - which I'm sure will shift and change like Barack Obama when he takes his reptilian form - is one of those persistent, unkillable ideas that survives despite all evidence to the contrary and indeed when tested remains unproven. Kind of like on ghost shows where the 'victims' of poltergeists describe chairs flying around the room and light bulbs exploding, but when the TV crews arrive nothing happens. All night. And you end up with sore eyes from all the night vision on the cameras.

I thought I'd kick off with something fairly simple: the stringed instruments made by Antonio Stradivari in Cremona in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Stradivari, just chillin'

Everyone knows that Stradivarius stringed instruments are the best in the world. It's a widely believed fact. A book I'm currently reading proclaims in fairly uncertain terms that the six hundred or so surviving instruments - violins, violas, 'cellos, harps, guitars and mandolins - represent the pinnacle of their field. Furthermore they constitute:

"the ultimate rebuke to the arrogance of the modern age: science does not have all the answers; Renaissance technology still cannot be bettered"

This is indeed a fairly bold claim to make. While undoubtedly Stradivari was a prodigiously talented craftsman, were the instruments he made really so superior to his contemporaries? Can they really not be bettered even with all the powers of modern technology? Surely in an age where you can chat to someone from Brazil while simultaneously blasting the (un)living hell out of hordes of computer-generated zombies, the quality and sound of a Stradivarius can be exactly replicated. Inevitably, when claims as grand as the one above are made, we have to turn to science.

The 'mystery' of the Stradivarius violins has been of particular interest to scientists and curious musicians for centuries, as you would expect. The French National Academy put one of the surviving instruments to the test in 1817, hiding players behind a screen and inviting experts to declare which they believed to be the legendary violin. Results were inconclusive, and have been in every test performed on them since.

Soil, brightening the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Fallout 3

Testing methods may have gotten more sophisticated over time - those inquring minds of 1817 were unfortunate not to have access to X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy - but still there is no scientific proof that a Stradivarius can be distinguished from any other violin of a similar time period and level of craftsmanship. Scientists have really gone to town on this, analysing everything from likely wood sources to the consistency of the glue used to piece them together but mabye it's time to acknowledge the elephant in the room: maybe they aren't all that different to other violins.

Granted they have been marketed extremely well : the naming of each instrument after an owner in particular creates a brilliant mystique around them and hell, I'd nick one if someone left it in my taxi. If I drove a taxi of course. Or even if I could drive. Regardless, you have to wonder if owning a Stradivarius is roughly equivalent to Dumbo's magic feather. While undoubtedly absolutely gorgeous instruments, it is the player that makes them perform the way they do and if neither experts nor audiences can tell the difference between a Strad and - in one test - one put together in the UK in 1976, does it really matter?

Hammer, being mentally undressed by Baron Sugar

Maybe it is in the wood, or the glue, or the varnish but if so that hardly makes Stradivari the mystical genius that he is made out to be so often. Although the fact that we can construct modern violins that perform just as well as his in blind tests shouldn't detract from his ability to match modern science in 1680, with his own hands, let's not get carried away. I'm quite happy to settle for him being an exceptional artisan who knew his trade inside out, and produced some of the finest violins that exist in the world day. Some of the finest. Not the finest - I'd need to see some test results to say that.

Monday 10 August 2009

Harman, feminism & the Daily Mail

Words fail me. How do you respond to something like this written by Daily Mail hacksmith David Thomas?

Straw men abound, and the whole thing is written in a way designed to convince the Mail’s readership that equality legislation - and feminism - is a ridiculous idea on a par with "elf 'n' safety" and the feared "PC gone mad". Although there are plenty of shameless half-truths and purposeful misinterpretations, it also leans heavily on the Mail’s own language: certain words and phrases designed to give the reader a thought-free way of making an instant judgment about an issue. Out of interest, let's count the amount of times they throw in a sexist insult, belittle women or completely fail to get the right end of the stick.

TITLE

"My womanifesto"

The second word! He doesn't waste any time does he? Here he’s making light of the fact that predominantly throughout history language has grown to be exclusionary towards women. You only have to read something from the 1970s to see that this is indisputable. However, Thomas completely misses the point, because everyone knows that the 'man' in manifesto has about as much to do with masculinity as homogenous does with with homosexuality. It actually comes from the Latin for hand - manus - and using it in this way openly mocks the idea that language could be sexist. It tries to make out that feminists are demanding special treatment when in the real world (as opposed to the Mail’s fantasy land), no feminist would seriously suggest amending the word in that way. The criticism also fails because even if the 'man' was gendered, replacing it with 'woman' is the last thing that a feminist would do, because it's about equality, not dominance. The
Mail seems to accept this principle when referring to 'Harriet Harperson' but curiously fails to do that here. Maybe internal consistency is too much to expect from editors these days.

"anti-male blitzkrieg"

Feminists are Nazis for demanding equality. Equality legislation, where it tries to redress the balance of centuries of institutionalised misogyny, is the kind of crazy thing Hitler would do. Oh come on, you know him! Killed about 50 million people by starting a horrendously destructive six-year war and ordering unforgiveable atrocities - just like Harriet Harman. Oh no, wait,
nothing like Harriet Harman. Also, feminists hate men count: 1

"zealously feminist agenda"

Unhinged and irrational. Because treating men and women as individuals with equal capacity for achievement and disappointment is crazy, whereas buying into stereotypes that were invented to keep women oppressed is totally sensible. Bloody hell, and that's just the title. Buckle up kiddies, this might take a while.

MAIN ARTICLE

"making rape laws even tougher against men"

Because obviously they're so tough already. The conviction rate for rape is approximately 7%. That means out of every hundred reported cases only seven people go to trial. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the other 93 women are just making it up to seek attention, or lying because they were unhappy with the person they'd slept with in the morning. Actually the police categorise only 3% of cases as 'probably' or 'possibly' false so if we were to use our 100-case example above, even if three people were wrongfully convicted in addition to the seven who actually did rape someone, that leaves 90 rapists at large. Remember too that only takes into account cases that go to trial - a rape is reported every 34 minutes in the UK, and the latest news is that the police suspect about 95% of incidents are never reported. Is anyone surprised, when the law is so ill-equipped to handle rape cases? Better to suffer in silence than to go through a traumatic and expensive court process, which is most likely to result in the rapist walking free. I think that this sentence is the most hateful of the article so far but then again, it's early days. Feminists hate men count: 2

"staging a secret attempt…"

Here David Thomas uses the word ‘secret’ to imply deception and espionage that will hurt you. Like ‘stealth’ taxes, here is a government minister sneaking something in on the sly to avoid the ever-watchful gaze of Mail readers, who spend all their spare time scrutinising every White Paper and policy plan that comes out of Westminster for sneaky goings-on. What he is actually doing – and this is either willful deception or utter ignorance – is confusing ‘secret’ with ‘private’. What exactly is secret about suggesting a rule change? Party officials discussed, and ultimately rejected her proposal to ensure that a woman was always in one of the top jobs in Cabinet.

Whatever you think of the actual policy, it is fairly obvious that ‘secret’ is utterly the wrong word in terms of inconvenient things like truth, and journalistic integrity. It’s definitely the right word if you want to get Mail readers’ spleens working overtime. She’s absolutely right that an all-male leadership is unacceptable considering how few of them seem to have any policy concern for women’s rights. Women, after all, only make up 50% of the population. Whether or not her proposal is a sensible way to deal with the overwhelming male majority in Parliament, and most
governments, is a valid topic for discussion – not something to be filed away under “aren’t feminists crazy”. You can’t really get more patronising.

"But these are just trifling details. Behind the trivial statistics, it is absolutely clear that women are oppressed..."

No need for sarcasm Mr Thomas. Girls may perform better at school but at university they don’t – Oxford for example has a huge finals gap. While it is again true that more women are entering high-salary professions like medicine and law than ever before, women on average still earn about 17% less than men in the same roles. More women in traditionally male roles means nothing unless they're being treated equally! This is even covered elsewhere in the Mail!

"[Harman] certainly encountered crushing discrimination…"

I am actually astounded that the Mail considers this quality journalism. Taking the experiences of a single person and using it to dismiss any wider problem. Well you know what Mr Thomas, I’m an atheist but I’ve never experienced discrimination because of it, so discrimination against atheists doesn’t exist. Harriet Harman is a woman and has had quite an easy life, so therefore we can completely ignore the 30,000 women every year who lose their jobs illegally due to pregnancy, or the fact that 25% of women will be victims of domestic violence sometime in their life. Both men and women face gender-based discrimination but you'd have to be pretty blinkered to deny that women have it worse, and to do what David Thomas does – to imply that this oppression just doesn’t exist – is astonishing. You can feel the bitterness bleeding through every word in that sentence.

"I am determined that our daughters will never have to bear that terrible yoke
..."

While the word ‘yoke’ is clearly meant as sarcasm, I just find myself wanting to applaud the sentiment as though it were serious. Oh yes, says the Mail, let’s sneer at a politician who is standing up for her principles. It doesn’t matter that we’ve been going on for months about slimy career politicians standing for nothing but office; because we disagree with this woman we’re going to savage her for even trying.

"...so I'm going to make our sons endure it instead
"

Feminists hate men count: 3

"I should not have referred to 'Lehman Sisters'. I should, of course, have called it ' Lehperson Sisters'
..."

It’s political correctness gone mad! I can only assume that since the nickname Harriet Harperson is all over the comments on articles about her, this constitutes Mail-level wit. Of course, she never said ‘Lehman Sisters’. Another example of taking a sound objection to male-dominated language, applying it to something ridiculous, and then laughing because what feminists believe is ridiculous. This is solid gold material, providing you're in nursery school.

"As we all know, women are, by nature, far more financially responsible than men, who are fuelled by a testosterone-driven madness that makes them take risks no woman would consider. Particularly not if there was a handbag to spend the money on instead."

Statistically, it is true that women are more fiscally responsible, although no one is arguing that it's down to some fundamental genetic nature. We’re clearly meant to disagree with this bit, judging by the sarcastic tone, but the fact remains that women in banking generally take fewer risks of the kind that sparked this whole financial meltdown. Testosterone encourages risk-taking. Look, science!

This doesn’t mean that all men take more risks financially than all women. You and I know this, Harriet Harman knows this, and I suspect David Thomas knows this. He is, however, doing his very best to paint things in a simple, easy to understand black-and-white way. He finishes of course with an old stereotype intended to be the dazzling sucker-punch that hits the unwary reader right in the frontal lobe. Women are more cautious with spending? Yeah right, have you ever been to a sale at Schuh!

A perfectly valid observation provided you’re able to comfortably equate a shopping spree with, say, causing the century’s largest global meltdown and losing millions and millions of pounds of investors’ money. I can’t really be bothered tackling the whole shopping thing right now, but I’ll just say that the media can be awfully selective when it looks at spending habits, and it’s rare to see men criticized for the amount of money they spend on products that are actually marketed at them like video games, DVDs, gadgets, cars etc.

"…so that no silly little boys make naughty economic decisions without getting her permission first
"

You’re allowed to make crap jokes about this only on days when the corporate officers of the world’s largest corporations – 84% of whom are men – have not just destroyed the global economy. Furthermore, this is totally twisting Harman’s argument. She has repeatedly said that she believes that in big business and in government it is better to have a gender-balanced team running the show, considering that any decisions made are going to affect millions of people of both genders.

What David Thomas has done here has taken that comment, made it out to be a man-hating feminist ploy, implied very strongly that men are the real victims here and then – to top it all off – relegated the hypothetical female CEO to a motherly, scolding position. He doesn’t seem to understand how he’s demolished his own argument. Real decision-making power? No, all she’ll do is tell off the ‘naughty little boys’ who make risky financial deals. Maybe she can make a fucking pie for the board of directors while she’s at it? Or how about a lovely roast? Fuck you David Thomas. Feminists hate men count: 4

"a man may be prosecuted - with a minimum 100 per cent conviction-rate - for any 'romantic' act not preceded by a full risk-assessment, a signed contract of consent - and a Breathalyser test
"

No matter how drunk you get, you know when consent has been given. I can’t believe that this was in a national newspaper. That someone deemed this worthy of publication. I’ve already mentioned the statistics but even if the picture was a lot better how can you excuse referring to rape in that coy little sarcastic phrase "a romantic act"? It's utterly despicable.

If you remember, the police estimate only about 5% of rape incidents are ever reported. People wonder why the conviction rate is so low, and they wonder why ‘arguments’ like “well what does she expect dressing like that” are still rolled, but they need look no further than the Daily Fucking Mail. All they do is reinforce the idea that women overreact about rape, that it's mostly a fuss made over nothing: an editorial position which I'd be willing to bet has been taken without any significant research being carried out. Who needs evidence, or scientific reports, when you have gut instinct?

Out of interest I did a search on the Mail’s website for the word ‘rape’, as it’s never far from their front pages. From the first 50 results, 23 were about women who ‘cried rape’, or were written in a way which cast significant doubt on the veracity of the victim's claim. Included in that delightful selection was Peter Hitchens arguing that “drunk rape victims deserve less sympathy”; that’s right Pete, flaunt your compassionate conservatism! So considering that approximately 3% of rape cases are ‘possibly or probably false’, how can the Mail justify the fact that 46% of their articles about it encourage the idea of women using rape as a weapon against men?

"What's more, any man who tries to seduce a woman by means of sexist gifts such as flowers, chocolates, jewellery or poems, shall be arrested for unfair inducement"

When was the last time someone you know said flowers were sexist? I mean come on David, are you even trying any more? What happened? Did you give a woman flowers and chocolate as part of an unwritten contract of “I gave you a gift, now have sex with me”? Was she not keen? Can’t imagine why. Frankly anyone who seems to have trouble distinguishing between seduction and rape shouldn’t be dating at all. Also note the creeping hint of “feminists are making a fuss over nothing – they’re so crazy they’d ban chocolate!” Creating a straw man like this – feminists think flowers are sexist – allows Thomas to again attribute an opinion to Harman that she has never vocalized and then points out how crazy it is. We know it’s crazy, pal, because you made it that way to prove your point.

"...precautionary sterilisation of all males at birth
"

Ha ha ha – that’s just the kind of things those crazy feminists would do! You know why? They hate men! Why else would they want financial independence, or the right to vote, or equal pay, or an end to gender-based discrimination? It's probably worth taking a moment to fully consider how monstrous an accusation that is against feminists, and another moment to think about just how fucked up David Thomas must be if he actually thinks that this is something Harman is likely to do. Feminists hate men count: 5

"Across our nation, millions of ordinary women are too afraid to leave their homes at any time of day or night
"

Well, surveys consistently show that women are apprehensive about going out at night – the most recent one I have access to was carried out by women’s magazine More and the figure was 95%. Thomas is here trying to make people scoff at this idea but he clearly hasn’t done his homework. He mustn't have heard of Reclaim the Night either, which last year had 2000 participants.

"All men are b******s
All men are wrong, all the time
All crime is committed by men
All crime is committed against women"

None of these are feminist beliefs, or the views of Harriet Harman. A total straw man that fails to stand up even to basic scrutiny. Feminists hate men count: 6, 7, 8 and 9

"It is time to do away with tired, sexist notions such as 'innocent until proven guilty'..."

Stop it Mr Thomas, please just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

"…based on my principles of gender equality, a man accused of a crime will be asked his name, offered the chance to make a formal apology, then told the length of his sentence."

Feminists hate men count: 10

"If women ruled the world, there would be no wars..."

Where the hell did this one come from? I mean, I understand that the rest of this ham-fisted attempt at parody was based on comments Harriet Harman has made this week, but as far as I can see this one was just pulled straight out of David Thomas’s ass. It goes without saying that no feminist believes this. Fuck, no person in the world believes this. It’s twice as much of a failure because even if we descend into his weird little world and take this at face value, he’s giving us two examples of female wartime leaders and then sitting back with a smug look on his face. “See, Harman claims that women aren’t aggressive (she doesn’t) but look at Thatcher and Elizabeth I!” Mr Thomas, I think you might find that over the course of history, most military leaders have been men. Do please list the world’s current female dictators for me, or all the women wanted for war crimes by the UN.

"I will speak to him slowly and clearly, in a way that even a man can understand"

With a deft flick of the wrist, Thomas devastates Harman’s opinions on gender equality with self-deprecating irony. The implication that feminists think that men are stupid is also false. In actual fact the more aware people are of gender issues, the less likely they are to be sexist. It’s people who’ve never given these ideas a second thought that uphold traditional gender stereotypes; at least that’s what science says. Feminists hate men count: 11

"That said, it is quite wrong for women to be denied access to front-line infantry combat, just because they are the world's natural peacemakers."

This saddens me most of all, firstly because I was unaware that women cannot serve on the front-line and secondly because the fact that men have to shoulder that burden instead is a pressing issue for male rights. It's no more acceptable to forbid female soldiers from doing what they signed up to do than it is expecting men to take all of the brunt of the fighting. You’d think someone as rabidly anti-feminist as Thomas would be all over masculism (at least the troglodyte woman-hating end of it), but it’s quite clear instead that he’s never given it a moment’s thought. That’s right, it’s an opinion piece about the gender debate written by someone who has clearly never read anything on it. Bravo, Mail!

"Far too often, they concentrate on boys' toys, such as guns, tanks, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. From now on, the focus will be on battlefield creches, nappy changing facilities and transgender support groups."

What exactly does transgender have to do with feminism? It seems very strange to parachute this in with no explanation into a list of perceived ‘feminine’ interests. Because all women love babies and transgender people? What? It’s probably worth pointing out that transgender people face prejudice from pretty much every corner and it's entirely possible to find feminists who will discriminate against them – just look at Germaine Greer. So it's hardly something fundamentally feminine. I honestly don’t understand what Thomas is trying to do here; it just doesn’t make sense. Please, someone, enlighten me! I’m also fairly worried about anyone who considered ‘guns, tanks, jet fights and aircraft carriers’ to be of a kind with gadgets from Firebox. No, they’re not boy’s toys. They’re designed to kill people.

"Despite my fierce commitment to state education..."

This has very little to do with the gender issues I'm trying to highlight with this critique, but I couldn't resist commenting on this. It may surprise David Thomas to know that children generally do not choose which school they go to, and it’s hardly Harman’s fault that her uncle was a lord. Does it matter to the Mail that Harman is pretty much the polar opposite of Lord Longford, the famed homophobe? Of course not! She’s got a posh uncle, therefore she cannot understand people who aren’t landed and wealthy! Who cares if her roles in Parliament have mainly been in social security and welfare, or that she was responsible for a guaranteed minimum wage? Her relatives are posh!

For some reason, David Cameron and George Osborne – both heirs to baronetcies – tend to escape this criticism. It’s weird too, how the Mail absolutely slammed Labour for running a by-election campaign highlighting that the Tory candidate came from a rich family. I remember various stories and debate articles referring to the mocking of Timpson’s wealthy background as “vicious”, “shockingly personal”, “puerile and poisonous class war tactics”. Hypocrisy, from the Mail? Surely not!

Finally, although it has nothing to say about the topic in question, this sentence is so bad I had to share it:

"What would Harriet do if she were given the keys to Number 10 for real?
"

For real mister? Really? Gee willickers!

Reading back, it’s clear to see that pretty much the whole article is brimming with barely-repressed misogyny. David Thomas hates women, and he hates uppity women that don’t know their place most of all. He is fuming – absolutely livid – that Harriet Harman is in a position to push through equality legislation, and is impotently stamping his feet and tearing out his hair because his fragile masculinity feels threatened by the idea of women in positions of power. He believes that basic logic like “I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions” is an indication that Harman wants to put bromide in the water to sterilize men. He is, in short, a dickhead.

It’s not that this is particularly atypical for the Mail, or that this is a particularly bad example. Its just that it is a brilliant summary of the way the paper views women. I couldn’t have put into words that heady mix of sneering superiority and raging impotence, but David Thomas has done it for me. What I can’t work out is why most of its readers are women – what attraction is there in being told that your equality is a ridiculous, dangerous concept? One of the paper’s former reporters is on record as saying that the perfect Daily Mail story is “one that leaves the reader hating somebody, or something”. I don’t think it’s quite what he meant, but I’m certainly leaving this one hating David Thomas and his colleagues at the Mail for letting this inaccurate, insulting trash get published in a national newspaper.

Saturday 8 August 2009

Thank God for extremists!

Three cheers for fundamentalists! Every non-believer has seen over the last few years, the growing sense of frustration within the fundamentalist community. Atheists, Humanists and a myriad of other sub-human monsters have been crawling out of the walls and demanding that religionists pack up their special privileges and go home. The push for a secular society has not been as strong in decades and non-believers have never been as vocal. Although they invariably make us angry, these fundamentalists don’t really do us any harm and are, I propose, probably one of our greatest assets.

The problem with being loud and irrational is that people start to notice. You see this time and time again, not least in the case of the UK’s blasphemy law. Christian Voice, a self-proclaimed “prophetic ministry” led by go-to-guy-for-crazy Stephen Green, objected to the BBC showing Jerry Springer: The Opera and consequently tried to prosecute the broadcaster for blasphemy. The result of a religious fundamentalist bringing an anachronistic religious privilege to court? It brought people’s attention to the fact blasphemy was still a crime, and soon the wheels were in motion that would scrap the law completely. The court costs almost crippled Christian Voice - something they definitely didn’t prophesise - and I don’t know about you but I get a warm, fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Were I inclined to theism I would hypothesise that indeed there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of irony.

The idea of a blasphemy law in a country that – while admittedly not a democracy – praises and encourages freedom of expression was utterly ludicrous. It was a relic from times when religion was a vital and powerful force in England, when religion was woven intrinsically into the fabric of society. It fell into the same category as the succession law that bars non-Protestants from becoming monarch, the tradition that means bishop sit in the House of Lords and the endless dirge of Songs of Praise on our taxpayer-funded broadcasting service. You know I really wouldn’t mind the requirement for the BBC to show religious programming half as much if it were actually entertaining or interesting.

The problem with all of these things is that most people see them as harmless tradition. Certainly most people seemed to recognise the abolition of the blasphemy law as a good thing, but even with bishops the general consensus seems to be that their presence in Parliament is harmless: just a lovely part of British history. Kindly bishops in their funny robes, drinking tea and providing the House with wise and sagely counsel. It doesn’t really matter how many reports you show them that demonstrate how the bishops vote en bloc in a House increasingly filled with independent lords, or that they consistently stand in the way of social progress: reasoned argument just lacks that spark of excitement that gets people motivated. That’s why we need the fundamentalists.

They’ll lambast atheists, Humanists and secularists as being just as dogmatic as they are, they’ll cry offence at the slightest perceived insult to their religious beliefs and they refuse to give ground even when what they want is clearly only in the interests of a tiny minority. Religious zealots unquestionably have a talent for making a scene, for drawing attention to themselves and consequently the issues in question. In short: they bring the drama. The best part is that not only do they bring these issues to mainstream news with a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth, they simultaneously sow the seeds of their own destruction. Ultimately, their views represent hardly anyone, and rarely have logic on their side. They can never widen their popularity because their arguments are just not as inclusive as those of secularists, and all it takes to shatter their credibility for good is a verbal kicking by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

There’s no doubt in my mind that secularism will ultimately win out over fundamentalists, because it reaches out to people regardless of their beliefs and demands equality without seeking to advantage atheists, Humanists or any other non-believers. The more extremists scream, shout and throw their toys out of the pram, the more attractive secularism seems.

That isn’t to say we should just let them get away with keeping abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, pushing to give the Church of England the right to select the bishops who enter the Lords or any other number of flagrant abuses of religious privilege. On the contrary, they must be fought at every turn and their agendas must be brought to public attention as often as possible. Once they’ve got the spotlight, they can only make bigger fools of themselves.

The suggestion to scrap the blasphemy law at the turn of the century was met with a plaintive response from the Bishop of Oxford: “is there nothing left that is sacred?” Well actually, no, there isn’t. Not in a society that wants to be seen as free and fair to all in any case. So let’s applaud Christian Voice, Nadine Dorries and other religious fundamentalists who would seek to exercise their archaic rights over non-believers; the more they try to enforce them, the more people will move to have them abolished. Imposing their narrow, divisive views on a multicultural society is like kicking a hornet’s nest, and they get badly stung every time. Their special pleading draws in thousands of people who wouldn’t usually care and almost always brings them in on our side, not theirs. Let’s just hope they don’t figure that out.

Originally published in issue two of Secular Future, the quarterly magazine of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

First thing's first

Well, I thought since I seem to have a knack for writing Facebook notes that make people argue a lot, the best thing would be to start a blog to save Mr Zuckerberg some bandwidth. No need to thank me Mark, I know we're cool.

I've also been prompted by a couple of my friends who have just stepped out into this brave new world: Chris at Katatrepsis and Stuart at Time Out Of Mind

So really this blog is just a tool for me to express my usual mixture of exasperation and annoyance at the state of the world as well as flag up the things that I love, from obscure foreign films to long-forgotten history. I've decided to call it Alms For Ashes, partly to pick up the odd bit of traffic from confused fans of Bats For Lashes, but mainly because it's a quotation from a hero of mine: Domenico Scandella, a sixteenth century miller known locally as Menocchio. His story is an interesting one, but at the moment I'll just leave you with his habit of needling priests at funerals with the question:

"What are you doing giving alms in memory of those few ashes?"