The feminists! They are everywhere!
By ‘everywhere’, I just mean that there appear to have be large groups of us around, and sometimes a lot of us gather in the same place for fun, education, and other feminist shenanigans.
It’s been a little while now since the UK Feminista Summer School, but it was fantastic. I’m still absolutely amazed that UK Feminista managed to put together such a large-scale, well-run event when the organisation has only been in existence since March this year. It’s pretty amazing. I can’t comment on all of the workshops, because my super powers simply don’t include the ability to be in more than one place at once, but the one – yeah, I only made it to one, I’m not that super – that I attended (Why Climate Change is a Feminist Issue) was really well done. Generally, it just felt that there was a nice balance to the event.
It all got a bit contentious at one point, in the last panel discussion, in part because Julie Bindel just is contentious and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that that’s the way she likes it. In all fairness, she’s also hilarious, and I rather like her outspokenness, it’s refreshing, so it’s all good. If you want a bit more discussion of the event, there’s a great write-up here.
I came back enthused with Awesome Feminist Energy, but also kind of pleased about a chance to sit down and recover from it all – and rejoice in the wonderful books that I picked up on the day. Not long to do that, though, because time stops for no feminist. Tomorrow is a fundraiser for Ladyfest Ten. What could be more fun than that? Well, I’ll tell you! The fundraiser involves both cake and books, so despite the fact that I have a mock exam on Friday, there’s just going to be no keeping me away.
Looking forward to meeting more feminists and supporting such an excellent event! Also, cake. Did I mention the cake?
Diane Abbott, the labour leadership, and racism
So, this week Diane Abbott threw her hat into the ring for the Labour leadership, and good on her. She’s pretty amazing, and what makes me particularly happy is that she actually stands for something. I’m not sure I really feel confident saying the same thing about, say, David Miliband.
More than that, though, Diane Abbott has a strong record on a lot of issues that I care about: she opposed the Iraq war, she’s campaigned actively on race equality issues, and gave an excellent speech on civil liberties. Just because I can’t resist, here’s a little bit from the speech itself:
I came into politics because of my concern about the relationship of the state to communities that are marginalised and suspected. It is easy to stand up for the civil liberties of our friends or of people in our trade union, but it is not easy to stand up for the civil liberties of people who are unpopular, suspected and look suspicious—people the tabloids print a horror story about every day.
[...] I came into politics about those issues, and I believe that if there is any content at all in ministers’ constant speeches about community cohesion we must offer every part of our community not just the appearance but the reality of justice and equality before the law.
Everybody knows that the provisions will impact disproportionately on the Muslim and ethnic minority communities. Everybody knows that we shall not be detaining the Saudi paymasters of terror for 42 days; just as happened under internment, we shall be scraping up the flotsam and jetsam of communities.
Ministers are talking about people such as my constituents, so when Muslim boys and black converts are in prison and their mothers, some of whom may not even be able to speak English properly, come to me and say, “They have had my son for five weeks and nobody will tell me why”, what do ministers suggest I tell them about a measure that has been brought in only for short-term political convenience?
I did not come into politics to vote for such a stratagem, and despite all the current pressures on the party I will not vote for it.
Her strong opposition to long-term detention without trial, in the face of the political motivations for politicians to support any legal measure that is deemed to be ‘anti-terrorism’ is courageous, honest, and admirable. Given the state of affairs in America (and I strongly recommend you read that article from the London Review of Books on America, detention and anti-terrorism measures), I’m encouraged that we have such politicians as Diane Abbott around to keep fighting for civil liberties. I’m encouraged that she doesn’t just care about the civil liberties of white, middle-class, middle England. Civil liberties, if they aren’t to be a mockery, are liberties that belong to us all.
When, close to home, we have laws fining Muslim women for wearing the full Islamic veil – complete with police powers to demand women de-veil themselves in public and that they attend ‘citizenship classes’! – it’s important to remember that the battle for civil liberties is ongoing. Let’s not have the “traditional European values” that Sarkozy is harping on about be the values of racism, fear, and oppression.
So I’m pleased that someone is standing for the Labour leadership who is not white and not a man. Diversity is important, and Diane Abbott has a lot to bring to the table. Whether or not she succeeds in her bid, her campaign is a fantastically positive message to put out there for those who feel that politics and politicians do not speak to them, are not about them. If it’s not, it should be, and I can only hope that we will see greater political inclusion in future years.
The sad state of UK politics
I’m not the only person to be angry about the huge under-representation of anybody who isn’t a rich, white, man in the ministerial posts handed out after the UK elections.
You can see the full list of people in the cabinet over at The Guardian. So much for a politics of change. Men have a stranglehold on politics, and it seems unlikely to let up anytime soon.
Some articles:
Times Online
Fawcett Society on GMTV
Katharine Viner at Comment is Free
Jess McCabe and Lynne Miles at The F Word
Incidentally, I couldn’t agree more with Katharine Viner’s nod to Lynne Featherstone. Theresa May as Equalities Minister, with the most appalling voting record, is a slap in the face to anybody who really cares about equality in the UK. Whereas Lynne Featherstone has experience in that area and a much better voting record. (She’s also my MP, and I think she’s a pretty good egg.)
This is not the best we can do.
No ‘Marquette’ for feminist-lesbian sociologist
Recently, Marquette University, a Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, offered a lesbian-feminist sociologist called Jodi O’Brien the position of Dean of the Arts and Sciences faculty. Not long afterwards – but after O’Brien had accepted – that offer was rescinded. Unsurprisingly, there’s been some controversy. Equally unsurprisingly, the controversy is between faculty members, students and other commentators who believe that the decision was based upon O’Brien’s sexuality, and Marquette University spokespeople who say that it’s not.
It might seem all a bit of a tangle, but when you read through what’s been put out there from both camps, it’s really not that complicated.
The first thing to note is that nobody in this process has suggested – to my knowledge – that O’Brien’s academic credentials are at fault. I grant that if such allegations had been made, they would have had to be carefully considered; poor academic work wouldn’t be an unreasonable ground for not appointing (note my wording there, more on this later). The University itself has commented, Catholic News Agency reports, that O’Brien has “an excellent background, a record of achievement and a strong academic track record.”
Quite right. I’ve had a look through O’Brien’s CV myself (you can find it on the Marquette University website, here) and her list of work and major lectures is substantially longer than my arm, and published in perfectly reputable academic journals. She’s also written some pretty fascinating looking books, which I’m going to have to look into getting some day. A catalogue can be found at Pine Forge Press and includes Everyday Inequalities (Basil Blackwell), Social Prisms: Reflections on Everyday Myths and Paradoxes (Pine Forge Press), and The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction, Fourth Edition (Pine Forge Press).
So why was she rejected, after an offer had already been made?
A Marquette spokeswoman, Mary Pat Pfeil commented that O’Brien was not an “acceptable candidate for permanent appointment.” So far, so ominous. She was backed up by Rev. Robert A. Wild, the President of Marquette, who commented that “it was decided after further analysis that this individual was not the person who could best fill this very important position.” You’ll note that they’re being very coy as to why so far. The New York Times has, however, got Wild stating that once O’Brien’s academic writings had been reviewed by himself and other senior university leaders, “We found some strongly negative statements about marriage and family.”
A-ha.
So a university has made an offer to a reputable academic only to turn around and whip the carpet from her feet because she’s not sufficiently supportive of marriage and family. As if marriage and family does not have enough support in America already.
And as LGBTQ News points out, why on earth did it take so long to think about that? O’Brien wasn’t exactly hiding her academic work away. She lists it all on her CV, and explicitly talks about her research on her cover letter.
O’Brien says:
Most recently I have focused my research on the relationship between religion and sexuality. As a sexuality scholar, I am interested in the ways in which the social organization of sexuality reflects cultural, economic and political beliefs and patterns. In this way, sexuality can be seen as a kind of prism through which we learn about other social practices and institutions. I have been exploring these connections through an ethnographic study of Christians who are openly gay.
She also emphasises her commitment to Jesuit education (she currently works at another Jesuit institution, Seattle University), and her research interest explicitly include religion. So what we are really left with, is O’Brien’s writings on sexuality. When you throw this at the Marquette people, they seem to be uniform in their denial (in the “But some of my best friends are gay!” style of arguing):
Pfeil states that “We have on our faculty and staff individuals of various faiths, ages, ethnicity and sexual orientation. These differences help us to promote a culture of learning, appreciation and understanding” While in Catholic News Agency, Wild discusses the “journey of inclusion and diversity that we have already been on.” Clearly, they’ve decided to take a diversion on that ‘journey’.
To me, one of the more sinister comments of the University is the statement that “There were certain oversights in the search process, and we regret that deeply. As a result of this search, the university will revise some aspects of the search process”. I’m not sure what this really means, and what they intend. There’s a worrying possibility, though, that in actuality this means that those who explore themes of sexuality (and homosexuality in particular) simply won’t be considered in the future.
This is unacceptable. What Wild et al seem to be saying is that it’s fine if you’re gay: so long as you don’t talk about it, write about it, and use issues of sexuality to inform your academic work. Be as gay as you like (maybe), so long as it’s seen as a kind of shameful secret that isn’t to be discussed and analysed and considered in relation to social instititutions such as religion. O’Brien is an academic keen on working within a Jesuit institution who has just had the temerity to write pieces which include – shock! – details of lesbian sex for the purposes of academic research.
This isn’t, it can’t be, the way an academic institution runs. Academics cannot only be acceptable for appointment so long as they toe the line, accept the status quo to at least a certain extent. The notion of progress in and of itself demands that people push the boundaries, that they don’t just accept, that they keep discussing and analysing and thinking. What’s even better is when they get other people thinking, too. Students, if they want to be in the least bit worth their salt in the long run, can’t be protected from any points of view and ways of life that do not accord with their own. The only thing that can possibly do is to spread bigotry and contempt for those who are different – and they get enough of that already.
By keeping Jodi O’Brien out of that job, Marquette University has done not just O’Brien a disservice, but the students that it is supposed to educate, too.
