History, hypocrisy and Henry the Eighth.

I’ve been away on holiday with friends (including one of my honourable co-bloggers) for the past week. As well as the usual bouts of walking, drinking and rabidly competitive connect 4, we managed to make time for some middle class, liberal dinner party conversations a la Bremner, Bird and Fortune which are likely to provide a good deal of fodder for this blog in the next couple of weeks.

So rather than fight the urge I am going to jump straight in, with a topic that irritated me so much at the time I was rather reduced to incoherent grunts of rage… and sure as I am that I’m right on this one, that probably isn’t the best way to win an argument. Here is the hopefully more coherent version:

David Starkey is an idiot. He is an idiot because of these (argh, can't believe I am linking to the Mail!) comments, in which he argues that some seething and apparently threatening mass of woolly minded female historians have shifted the emphasis away from poor ickle Henry the Eighth and onto his wives. He is an idiot despite (and in part because of) the fact that this whole diatribe was inarguably made for the sake of some cheap publicity, and may not be truly felt at all. He would like to frame his arguments as ‘pay more attention to Henry’, but in fact, what he really means is ‘pay more attention to me.’

Where I parted company with my dinner companions was over the idea that Starkey, however sensationally expressed, might have some kind of point. Henry, they suggested, has been rather reduced to his relationships with his wives. He should be centre stage since he was the monarch, he was the decision maker and he was the instigator of everything.

Fair enough. Henry is interesting and certainly worth studying in terms of his religious and political significance. What I don’t understand however is why Henry’s worthiness as a topic of historical interest renders his wives obsolete. What’s wrong with a book about the life of Anne Boleyn, or Jane Seymour? Beyond their names and the rather gruesome little rhyme detailing their fates I don’t actually know much about them - and I say this as one who studied the Tudors at both GCSE and A-level. To say that Henry has been reduced to his wives is ridiculous as they remain largely silent victims in the face of Henry’s own larger than life personality and legendary, machismo fuelled drive for a male heir.


The thing is, history is subjective and at least partially driven by those elements of the past that interest us the most. And people are often interested in the human side of things, the relationships and personalities that inform events as much as the events themselves, not to mention the importance of the experiences of people from the past, regardless of their cause and effect. What bothers me about Starkey’s comments is his attempt to establish some kind of historical hierarchy in which women are inevitably reduced to bit parts… if you want to argue that only the powerful and famous are really worth studying then inevitably only a handful of women make the cut. A 'proper' history of Europe, according to Mr Starkey, is one of white males, but who exactly put him in charge of defining such a thing?

The bottom line is that many historians have their own private cause to champion, a particularly neglected or misunderstood corner of the past that they are seeking to bring to greater public attention. Seen in the most charitable light possible Starkey’s obsession with Henry could be seen as a particularly eccentric version of this. But it is categorically not necessary to champion one area of history by degrading and belittling another. And to make it about gender smacks of the large scale disenfranchisement of women’s history. Given that until very recently you could be forgiven for thinking that women only arrived in the world in their current numbers after the advent of the twentieth century arguing that the scales have already swung too far in the opposite direction is frankly ludicrous.

Ironically the government are desperate to get children more interested in history, so much so that there are changes proposed to history GCSEs that would see students considering the making of television documentaries about history as much as history itself. Is David Starkey ready to take up the cause of his oppressed patriarchs against such another shift in focus?

Ummm. No.

Pink pressure.

Following Jon's post...

As aforementioned 'interpid co-author' (I want a t-shirt with that on!) I thought I would elaborate a little on what I found most distressing about pretty much every high street baby store I tried. (And I speak as someone who *loves* going into baby stores and cooing over every tiny item).

The pink/blue divide was, as Jon says, absolute and undeniable. And I'm not buying (literally or metaphorically) any of the biological determinism that would have us believe that little girls just prefer pink. The truth is babies couldn't care less what colour they are dressed in, busy as they are concentrating on milk and mummy and all of the rest of the wonders of the world. In fact, not so long ago it was the boys who were presumed to be naturally pretty in pink, and some arguments suggest that we have Hitler to thank for the current situation, after he associated pink with homosexuality and femininity during the Holocaust.

The thing is, we *teach* children that certain colours are and are not for them, which might not be such a big deal were it not for the fact that we sneak some pretty dubious attitudes along with the colours. Those tiny pink t-shirts sporting slogans like 'mummy's little princess' and 'daddy's little flower' are training girls for a life of decoration and fragility while the boys are off being 'little explorers' or even 'little monsters.' Neither sex gets a particularly good deal out of this.

And pink can take on an even more sinister hue according to the lovely people at Pink Stinks (check it out), who argue that the princess culture trains little girls for a lifetime of sexual objectification. It would take someone far less cynical than me to argue that the fluffy bunny ears of the playboy stationary brand are pink by mere co-incidence. Or that their Barbie hue is irrelevant to the pre-teenaged girls who fall for them because they are 'cute and girly'.

Don't get me wrong. Like Jon, I like pink. It's a pretty colour. But is has been horribly used and abused and appointed puppet ruler for all kinds of attitudes and ideas about what it means to be a girl. The pink and blue divide begins in babyhood but it doesn't have to be this way. If we stopped teaching babies how to be boys or girls we would have more time to teach them to be human beings.

And yet life is rarely simple...

Since this is a bit of a departure from the feminist canon, I want to make clear before I begin that I in no way believe that women are responsible for their own rapes. See my previous post for further proof. I have absolute contempt for arguments that attempt to shift blame away from rapists, or downplay the enormity of rape as a crime against another human being.

All of that said, there was one element of the study mentioned in my previous post that I can't help but consider in a more ambiguous light. Participants were asked about the varying degrees of responsibility of a woman who fails to offer her assailant a clear 'no'.

Now, obviously there are many cases where it is assumed that the victim of a rape is simply not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act, and in cases like these whether a 'no' is actually stated or not is redundant. A child has no need to reject any sexual advances, since they are not legally capable of welcoming them. Similarly someone with mental disabilities, or even just temporarily incapacitated by drink or drugs, cannot say yes and so should not need to say no.

We protect these groups with a blanket ban on ability to consent for good reason. And this protection limits their personal autonomy, but safeguards their personal security. It would be massively offensive to suggest that mentally capable, adult females were incapable of giving informed consent to sex. For this particular group freedom and self-determination comes first, and rightly so.

But, if we can say yes, should we not also be able to say no? To say no, once, clearly, should be all that is needed to stop any unwelcome advances (in an ideal world) and there is part of me that feels this is a reasonable thing to expect of women, allowing us to actively assert our desires or otherwise, rather than waiting passively for a man to attain consent.

There are of course cases where a violent or agressive attack could cause fear, and in cirumstances like these, where the lack of consent is pretty much the whole point of the rape, whether the word 'no' has been said or not is fairly irrelevant.

But, in cases where rape does begin as a misunderstanding before evolving into something more sinister isn't it reasonable, and indeed respectful of women as agents rather than victims, to expect that a woman does have some responsibility to tell a man 'no' if his advances are unknowingly unwelcome?

Men who badger or pester women into sex are unscrupulous bastards who in my opinion should still bear the label of rapist. After all, all rape is a crime and all rapists should bear responsibility for committing a crime, but not all rapists are equal. I don't believe it's a betrayal of my sex to state that a woman should clearly tell a man 'no' if this is what she means. After all, I firmly maintain that a woman should have the right to withdraw consent at any moment, at which point sexual contact should instantly stop. For this to be possible either we have to endow women with enough power to state their preferences, or expect men to ask repeatedly if consent is still given. Not exactly a recipe for uninhibited rewarding sex.

None of this however is designed to let men off the hook. If you are playing with boundaries of power and desire you should be pretty damn sure you know the woman in question well enough not to need a clear 'I want this'. After all, asking is just as easy as telling.

Rape, responsibility and the blame game.

Rape. Not a good thing I would imagine we can all agree. Even more black and white than murder, in many ways. Whilst it's possible to concieve of a situation where the taking of another human life might be the best course of action (self defence, mercy killing) it's impossible to envisage a situation where rape might be the morally correct response.

But for such a cut and dried subject rape has an amazing ability to create controversy. For some men the spectre of false accusation seems to loom large, whereas a majority of women are understandably touchy about anything that suggests that rape is somehow all their own fault.

And there are, unfortunately, plenty of people who do seem to think that rape is women's fault. At least partially. Another study out on the subject last month has revealed that quite startling numbers of students (more than a third in some cases) still believe that a woman is somehow responsible for her own assault if she commits any number of transgressions. From the minor (wearing a short skirt) to the bizarre ( a 'flirtatious' manner... however the hell you quantify or recognise such a thing).

These attitudes are damaging and nonsensical and treated with horror and derision by the feminist community for good reason. Aside from anything else the facts show that wearing short skirts, sleeping around, even (gasp) drinking alcohol don't actually raise your chances of being raped. Living with a man on the other hand most certainly does, and having male friends? - You might as well lie on your back now. Where are the jeering baying crowds declaring that wives and mothers are bringing it on themselves? And why do you never see government initiatives warning women against the perils of allowing a male friend or boyfriend to walk them home after a night out?

The fact is, there are plenty of people who still seem to see rape as a social problem rather than anything else. An inevitable consequence of men's libidos and women's inability to be other than objects of sexual desire. And if you think like this then of course you are going to lay some of the blame at women's feet. If it's a fact of life that men can't control themselves then putting yourself in temptation's way is stupid and naieve. And if the boundaries get a little blurry as a result of this, then it might be unfortunate but really, what did you expect to happen?

The idea that rapes occur when an irresponsible woman and an over-excitable man somehow cross paths decriminalises rape and reduces it to the level of a pair of naughty children both deserving of a slap on the wrist and not much more. The idea that she was silly and he was boisterous and they are both as bad as the other is offensive and ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as those arguments that compare women who go to parties or walk home alone with expensive cars... if you don't lock your car then of course you are partially to blame if it gets stolen. And if you refuse to sit at home, covered from head to toe in black and avoiding eye contact with any male whom you do accidentally come to meet, then you have to accept the possibility that you will be raped. Except, women are people, not cars. And I believe that every woman has the right to live her life as she sees fit without the fear that she will be afforded less support and protection should she fail to adequately protect the property that is her own body.

In truth, while it might take two to Tango, it actually doesn't take two to commit a rape. To be involved in a rape, yes, but to actually commit the criminal act one person and one person alone is responsible. And because I don't actually believe that men are no more than drooling, gibbering idiots unable to control their own rampant sexuality then this is where the responsibility must be placed. The blame game ends on the doorstep of the actual rapist. To suggest otherwise is to do both men and women a massive disservice. Let's be thankful that, depressing as the figures sometimes appear, a majority of people do seem to recognise this.

Put up or shut up.

I am a feminist. My family know this. All of my friends know this. In fact, very often I go to great lengths to make sure none of them forget it. And although I was shy and quiet at school, since then I have gotten pretty good at speaking my mind when necessary. Of course sometimes people still underestimate this until the critical moment...

Which is why I find myself increasingly exasperated with my reticence in challenging the casual sexism of strangers; those conversations which promote double standards, or reduce women to objects, vessels to be filled or interpreted. And just so we're clear, sexism does not mean conversations about sex. I have no problem with conversations about sex. In fact I frequently participate in them. That I feel it necessary to make such a distinction is probably telling enough but perhaps an example would be useful here. Last summer, I found myself sat in the sunshine with friends, listening to mutual aquaintances have a conversation along these lines...

Idiot 1: Yeah well if she was going out with Baz she must be well easy.

Idiot 2: Hey, it's not my fault all the sluts love me...

I could continue with this but frankly I shouldn't have let it go uninterrupted the first time around. And why didn't I interrupt? It's a question I've asked myself alot since then, but I suspect it comes down to my own conditioning. Conditioning which says to challenge such exchanges is petty, prudish and just no fun. Exactly what people would expect from 'feminists' who inevitably hate men and by implication sex too right?

But since I happen to believe that words have power, allowing myself to be silenced because of fear that I will be derided and misinterpreted is pretty much the definition of patriarchy in action. And I could keep talking about patriarchy and power structures and dominant discourses but what it comes down to is this... it's like racism or homophobia or anything else - we keep our mouths shut at our peril.

If male voices continue to be the ones that are unconsciously privileged, the ones that we feel compelled to listen to regardless of what they are actually saying, then women will continue to feel that their stories, opinions, emotions are less important. If it's ok to talk about women as objects then surely it's ok to treat them like that too.

Of course I could try to justify my behaviour as a simple matter of minding my own business. Freedom of speech and the seemingly universal ability we all have to go selectively deaf, blind and dumb when behaviour that we find bizarre, threatening or just plain wrong is taking place in front of us. But it isn't as simple as live and let live because conversations like this hurt people. By ignoring it I contributed to a world where judging women on the basis of their sexual behaviour is normal. And ok. And common. I don't want to live in that world so I have a responsibility to do something about it.

The irony is that my friends, the people with whom I do feel able to speak freely, are lovely and intelligent. They don't agree with all of my opinions but generally speaking they aren't sexist in their words or deeds... they don't care how many men I've slept with or how short a skirt I'm wearing (or at least it doesn't change their perception of me as a person!) They really don't need my feminist fire and fury.

And, hey, even if wading into the fray with strangers earns me nothing but a barrage of abuse at least I'll be able to collect a few more anti-feminist bingo cards.

Relationships, roles and responses.

Almost without realising, as I've grown up, I've developed ideas and values that help to form the core of my identity. I define myself as a woman, a feminist, a graduate, and these things inform my attitudes and beliefs about almost every moral and social issue I encounter.

One of the great things about having friends who come from entirely different ideological roots is that sometimes you are introduced to a way of thinking about something that is entirely alien to your own. I think it's all to easy to dismiss things that don't fit with your particular world view, but somehow when such things come from people you like and respect you are forced to engage with them regardless.

Over dinner with Christian friends recently, in the course of a discussion on relationships in a more general way, the notion of male headship came up. This, as I understand it, is the idea that within a Christian marriage the man should take on the more protective, assertive, decision making role, while the woman acts in a supportive, nurturing capacity. It is a Christian ideal, and perhaps examining it out of that framework is a little unfair, but since Christianity believes the whole world would be happier turning to its faith this must have implications for the rest of us too.

My instinctive reaction to this, if I'm honest, is dismissive incredulity. After all, versions of these arguments have been used to keep women out of government, in the home, subservient, docile, and submissive. Surely we have moved past the 'different but equal' arguments that have been used in the past to stop individuals making their own choices based on their own unique talents and interests, rather than ill fitting stereotypes of what behaviour is 'natural' to men and women. These kinds of models for relationships are at best outdated, and at worse dangerous; allowing the unscrupulous to justify domestic violence and the denial of female emancipation.

This is what I think, and it is still what I think at the most fundamental level, but there is another, more uncomfortable side to things. For starters, old-fashioned and untenable as such ways of thinking may appear, the friends who raised the issue appear to have an extremely happy, secure and successful relationship, so something in this idea clearly works for them. Of course, it is entirely possible to see that a relationship model where one partner protects and provides, and the other supports and nurtures might work well, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why such roles should be ascribed on the basis of biological sex.

Except that... there is still something in me, and for that matter a majority of my female friends that does on some level desire a man to step into that protective role. I do want, if I'm honest, a mate who can step up, make decisions, take control when necessary, in short a partner I can respect. I have only recently started thinking about how I can square this with my feminist beliefs. And just to complicate matters further, equally I still loathe the idea of letting go of my reasoning and emotions to allow any man to make the final decision, no matter how worthy and dependable he may be.

Perhaps this unwitting attraction to the idea of a man who can fulfil the traditional role is simply evidence that culturally men and women are still conditioned to want and be different things, in spite of themselves. This would explain my simultaneous fascination with and horror at the idea. There is little doubt that this kind of conditioning can be harmful to both men and women and has massive self esteem implications, particularly for those who don't feel able to live up to the stereotypes held up as the ideal. Just as I know that I would quickly tire of the assumption that however valid my opinions they would need to be 'signed off' by another, equally a partner could become weary of the pressure of being responsible for all of the most important decisions.

And then there is the fact that all of this is incredibly hetero-normative. Either we accept that either sex can take either role in this relationship model, or we totally exclude same sex couples where one or both would inevitably end up in the 'wrong' role. This may be less of a problem for schools of Christian thought that judge homosexual pairings to be outside of the ideal anyway, but for more progressive expressions of Christianity such a rigid approach to gender roles does gay Christians a massive disservice.

Ultimately, the idea of headship remains extremely problematic idea for me as a feminist. After all, surely the ideal scenario is one of mutual respect between and for all partners within a relationship, regardless of sex and gender, where all voices are equally heard and equally valid. (Of course, some models of male headship would not technically speaking exclude this). But regardless I don't think that feminism can automatically dismiss Christianity as purely patriarchal and irrelevant, any more than I believe that Christianity should demonise or ignore feminism. Almost every political, religious or philosophical way of seeing the world has something to recommend it, and it is harder, but more rewarding to engage with these than to dismiss them out of hand. And that is a big part of what this blog is about.