So about Nick Griffin on Question Time...

Appreciate I may be preaching to the choir here, but a rant is always good...

Firstly, please go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm and leave a comment if you can, there are far too many scary Griffin sympathisers on there...

Now, the infamous edition of Question Time. What's a relief is that Nick Griffin came across as an idiot. Claimed he'd been misquoted, but refused to deny anything specific, apart from apparently "I never said black people walk like monkeys"... yeah, no one had accused him of that. Then he attempted to deny things he'd said on film with a leader of the Ku Klux Klan ("an entirely non-violent one!"). He even laughed when Bonnie Greer said, "If I was in your party, I'd be scared!" But the joke was on him.

What concerned me rather was the way that the other speakers never quite addressed either the Iraq issue or the immigration issue - surely this is where Griffin holds the most sway. The one moment where somebody perhaps got close to refuting him was when he said "bogus asylum seekers" and Sayeeda Warsi said "No, there is no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker, the term is asylum seeker, it's a legal term" but didn't elaborate, unfortunately. I also wish someone had addressed how the mainstream parties also scapegoat immigrants, like that appalling 2005 Tory campaign.

Also, the furore over his use of the term "indigenous". As Bonnie Greer pointed out, his idea of what is "indigenous British" is flawed anyway... White Britons are Celtic, Roman, Viking, Anglo-Saxon, Norman etc. Worse than that, his erroneous assumption that being "indigenous British" is comparable to being Maori in New Zealand or "Red Indians (sic)" in America. Worryingly, that seems to have struck a chord with a few of the people on BBC Have Your Say... despite the obvious extrapolation of that idea. If Griffin wants all the immigrants and their descendents to go home, does he want all the emigrants and their descendents to come back? Should America and New Zealand and Australia be emptied of anyone other than the aboriginals? Scarily I might have some respect for Griffin if he actually said that... but then his pals, the non-violent KKK, might not agree with him. He also had no real answer to what is meant to happen to people of mixed ethnicity

Also his use of phrases such as genocide and lynch mob surely show just how ridiculous his argument is. He seems to think that white British people suffer racism, but uses phrases that imply Nazi gas chambers used to kill Jews, homosexuals, disabled people, and anyone they didn't like... or his pals the KKK hanging black people. The very fact that Griffin is allowed to appear on national TV, on a two-thirds White British panel, and that those who support him are allowed to say so, on BBC websites no less, makes this exaggeration of terms so absurd I can't find words to describe it.

Anyway, to be honest I rather feel sorry for Griffin... he seems to live in a sad world where diversity is bad and the English are horrendously oppressed. He should grow up, get to know a few people with different backgrounds, and also go to some folk festivals. England's not dead, it's alive and well, just aware that it's not the centre of the universe.

...And now I rather want a curry...

Male bias in movies - why?

Gender relations is a rather tricky kettle of fish. In a Facebook note, I talked about the Bechdel Test which is a very simple measure of whether women are properly represented in films...

A film passes the Bechdel test if...

1) It has two or more women in it
2) Who talk to each other
3) About something other than a man.

One of the reasons this is quite a satisfying measure is that it is so simple and yet so many films fail. After writing the original post, I saw both the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the Fantastic Four. LoEG had one female character. The Fantastic Four had about three female characters, none of whom spoke to each other (to be fair there was a near miss at the end, in which two women got a drink together but didn't actually say anything before the camera angle changed). The Da Vinci Code only just passed, in the last ten minutes of the film, and had four female characters (only one named) to its myriad male characters.

God knows why I watched the Da Vinci Code, but I was disappointed by the other two. I wasn't exactly expecting brilliance but I like superhero films and I know plenty of women who do. Why then, are we so underrepresented in the cast, relegated to the one stock "girl" character and/or love interest?

It's also something found in kids' movies and TV. Not all of them to be fair - of Disney movies alone, Jungle Book, Bambi, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Pirates of the Caribbean (all the trilogy), The Lion King, Aladdin, all fail. But Beauty and the Beast (I think. If you count tea pots), The Little Mermaid (there's a maid who talks at Ariel while she's bathing) and Cinderella pass. Feel free to add your own examples of failures and passes.

Perhaps this apparent discrepancy is down to style of film. All the failed Disney films mentioned have an element of the "buddy" story, two (sometimes three) guys, on a journey of discovery. With Jungle Book, it's Mowgli, Baloo, and Bagheera. In Bambi, it's Bambi and Thumper (and Flower, of course!). Toy Story it's Woody and Buzz. In Pirates, Jack and Will. In the Lion King, Simba, Timon and Pumbaa. In Aladdin, it's Aladdin and the Genie. And of course, Abu. It's a time-honoured tradition. Best pals, have fun, beat the bad guy, one of them gets the girl. There are hundreds of movies with this template, even the Muppet Movie starts with Kermit and Fozzie on a roadtrip.

And it makes me wonder what the female equivalent of this is. Thelma and Louise, obviously. Mamma Mia certainly comes close, being about one woman and her daughter, both of whom have two best friends with whom they can sing Abba songs. And both characters get the guy (not the same one, obviously) while their friends are humorous and supportive in the background.

It also makes me wonder what it is that means that in all these various movies where one guy "roadtrips" or equivalent, that a woman so rarely comes along. Is it to prevent inevitable romance? (One thing I will say for the Da Vinci Code is that I was pleased that the two main characters managed to grow merely a warm friendship through all the trials they suffered together.)

Is it because the idea of women roadtripping seems inherently wrong? Perhaps, alas, here's the rub. In old tales there are always wandering knights, and wandering minstrels, while women were staying put having babies. True, there are the occasional tales where women climb up glass mountains wearing iron shoes (there are always iron shoes for some reason) but it's only in the course of true love. Even poor Jane Eyre fled from Thornfield to avoid damaging her chastity and not out of any spirit of adventure.

So maybe my conclusion has to be we women, and anyone else who feels underrepresented by the film industry (LGBTQI people and people from ethnic minorities, step this way) should all stop watching silly male buddy movies, loose the bonds of our oppression and go on one big roadtrip. Who needs movies when we have real life?

Let's ride into the sunset!

(Does anyone here have a car?)

Alphabetical Pie

I hadn't written a parody for ages and then I hit on the idea of a parody with each line beginning with a different letter of the alphabet, preferably with internal alliteration too. But by the time I'd got to the chorus, and the letter T, I decided I didn't want to see another thesaurus again.

So, to the tune of American Pie...

An age and an age ago
Becomes me to brood over
Choruses creating curled-up lips
Discerning destiny's throw of dice
Expressive dancing I'd entice
For felicitious feelings it equips
Gelid February goaded grieving
Helped handsomely by papers heaving
Ignoble info inside
Just jilted me to abide
Knowledge scarce on tears I shed
Learning of the lass he'd wed
Maybe I was moved, that said
Now all the notes have died

Oh, over! Our American Pie
Parked my pickup by the flood protectors
Quit and quite dry
Rural rakes were refreshing with rye
Singing, soon I will sigh my last sigh
Today will be the time that I die

(I think "ignoble info inside" for "bad news on the door step" is probably my favourite line. "Flood protectors" makes me wince, and "knowledge" seems like cheating somehow...)

Ambitions

Things I would like to make and do -

A knitted purple handbag
A floral dress with smocking around the waist
A big painting, haven't decided what of yet...
Several fun piano and percussion arrangements of popular songs
Papier maché ornaments for my room
Secret postcards!
A liquid-look satin party dress
A top with puffed sleeves
A hat with cat ears on it (for Eric)
The thick socks I promised Ceri ages ago
Write a musical!
Lots of drawings
My very own pop-up book
Make cake
Learn to cook some kind of new dish
Start maintaining my blog again
Start a new blog for all the things I've made and done
Write a novel or four
Finish the show we've been rehearsing for ages
Do a project at work based on Sergeant Pepper (I think it could be awesome)
Find a way to put all my various talents to good use...

Things I'm actually likely to be able to do

Finish my tunic that I'm sewing.
Scribble a few thoughts in my spare time in a notebook
Possibly do some painting, when I get around to it.
Get a new zip for my handbag
Fulfil all the criteria for my minute yearly payrise.

Oh well...

Hmmm...

Hi folks... I'm back for a little while.

I seem to feel rather like life is one big haze at the moment. Possibly because I have another show coming up (am chorus with a few solo lines in this one... it's a Sondheim. Fun, but I still miss my G&S!), and there have been yet more changes at work. I wouldn't mind but I came in on the Monday morning of my week off to sort out what was going on, and by the afternoon they'd changed it. Sigh. I want to run away and start my own project/anarchist collective.

Also I've learned to sew, which is quite exciting, I've made a skirt, a gingham dress, and I'm working on a top, which I've done from a pattern, and it just needs the sleeves doing, the hemming and the sparkly stuff put on.

There are just so many things I want to make and do, but there doesn't seem to be enough hours in the day. It's frustrating.

And I wonder if this desire to write stories and articles, to knit people hats and scarves and novelty socks, to sew myself all the party dresses for all the parties I never get invited to, to do a series of paintings, and to do all the fun drama projects in the world at work, maybe it's all from some kind of desire to validate myself.

It's depressing that at 25 years old there's still a part of me desperate to prove myself.

Two tunics

It occurred to me recently that there is a Bible verse I often refer to as a moral principle (though, as with most of my principles, I am but an imperfect example).

It's funny because I have thought of this verse so many times but never really considered the full application before now.

Often, if asked how to live, Christians will refer to "Love your neighbour" (Leviticus 19:18) or "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) or "And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8). And they are all such lovely all-encompassing verses that I'm a bit surprised to realise that I also have set a lot of store by Luke 3:10-11.

10"What should we do then?" the crowd asked.

11John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."

I love the advice because it is so practical. "Love your neighbour" is the command, but this is a good example of specifics - if you have more than you need, give to someone who needs it. If this has never come up in a Christian Anarchy meeting (or "Christianarchy" :) ) I will eat my remaining tunic.

It's funny, I thought of it recently because a friend made a comment about "the coat you always wear". It has occurred to me that I can be somewhat parsimonious when it comes to clothes. I have one winter coat and one summer coat, plus two hoodies and a number of jumpers (sweaters, to Americans reading), most of which I was given. There's a small part of me that deeply believes that it is sinful to buy anything expensive. Of course it's perfectly fine for my parents to get me a laptop... Ahem.

And I felt, for a short while, a little smug, as I have one coat and thus am not hording many coats that the poor might be wearing.

And even better, I was given the coat by a friend and so it too is not sitting unused in a wardrobe.

And then it occurred to me that it's really easy to take Bible verses and twist them so they're about green living or anarchism or voting for the Republican/Democrat party, or not buying a coat because you're tight, and perhaps I'd missed the point somewhat.

There's a horrible tendancy in Christianity (and society in general) to emphasize clean living (no drinking, no smoking, little sex for some, low carbon emissions and recycling for others) above actually loving other people and doing good. And here lies the flaw in my smugness. I am not good for owning one coat and therefore not giving one to the poor. I would love to say that having one coat makes me better than people with two coats, but it doesn't, it just means that I have come up with a more subtle way to get out of sharing. On the plus side, it does mean that I can buy another coat if I want, just I should be on the look-out for someone to give the old one to.

The other thing that occurred to me was, how can I apply this motto further? I am sure I have a few things I don't need, even if a tunic is technically not among them, and when it comes to food we tend to buy as we need, although we do enjoy having guests.

There are always lots of collections going around for clothing for the homeless, and of course, if global capitalism had been around in John's time, he'd have probably had a few things to say about bank accounts (right now, "Don't bother", probably). Of course, I thought, giving money to charity and clothing to charity shops or homeless shelters or similar, is really in the spirit of what John was saying. Give to the needy, don't hoard up for yourself. Matthew 6:19 and all that.

But actually, I thought, maybe charities and collections actually aren't what John would have had in mind if such things existed at the time. I'm not saying they're not really good things, especially for overseas aid, but John doesn't say, "I am collecting unneeded tunics and distributing them to the poor", he says "share with him who has none".

And the implication of this is that we should make the effort of finding "him who has none" and making sure he gets our spare tunic and leftover spag bol. This again emphasizes the difference between clean living Christianity and actual Christianity - you can tidily and efficiently give to charity, there are standing orders and direct debits and ways to do it without even trying, but it takes effort and courage to personally find out who is in need and how we can help them. It's tricky and sometimes messy, and means you may end up among everyone whom society hates - the homeless, the asylum seekers, the poor, the working classes, people with learning disabilities, criminals, the mentally ill... the scroungers, the druggies, the conmen, the loonies, the scum... the needy.

Because helping people is not just about paying someone else to do it - in order to make a real difference we need to give ourselves. It's not just about the tunic, it's the person sharing the tunic who can make the difference. It's not just about being warm, it's knowing someone cared enough to figure out that you actually needed a tunic and wanted to give it to you.

Maybe I just know too many Christian Anarchists (Christianarchists... snort...) but I'm tired of how impersonal Christianity - and society - can be. It's possible to care for people at a distance, with charity and direct debits and shoebox presents and letters - but let's care for them up close too.

PS: I really wanted to call this post "Two Coats of Saint"...

It's enough to drive you crazy if you let it...

Hi folks, long time no see. Well, I now have both a lovely new laptop and the desire to blog.

Lots of... stuff seems to have happened recently, including both the arrival and departure of a new housemate, the 1st birthday of one nephew (yay!) and the birth of another nephew (yay!), changes at work and my 25th birthday. Do I need to tell you how old I feel? 25 feels like a milestone... of course I'm not saying that I've jumped the shark or anything, just that it's weird that I'm starting to no longer fit into the "young person" age bracket. Guess I should be all grown-up and mature, right?

It snowed in Bradford the day after my birthday, and I was ludicrously excited, even though I didn't get to play in it or take pictures, and my trainers got wet. I did, however, throw a snowball at my boss.

I like my boss very much, as a person. Said boss shrugged off effects of snowball and hyperactive childish 25 year old in snow, and said boss is also a goth who can quote Gilbert and Sullivan. Unfortunately said boss is incurably NICE. I sometimes despair that boss cannot seem to get anything DONE!

It's terrible, but I feel so frustrated at work right now. Our former Glorious Leader (or GL) went off to set up her own business which is apparently doing fantastically, and in her absence we've been short-staffed, our Other Glorious Leader (or OGL) has been vanishing off to do "paperwork" so we hardly ever see her, I feel like I've had to run the place and think up all the ideas and we've had no real time to plan, and to top it off I'm doing it all in the lowest wage bracket and boss attempted to compensate for this by mumbling something about my record of achievement. No, it's nearly Christmas... what I want is MONEY.

Yes, I know, I'm a bad Christian Agnostic*. But... oh, I guess what I really want is to feel appreciated. Boss's smiles and OGL's comments about how well we're doing when she's rarely there to witness it just don't really satisfy me anymore. I used to be passionate about this job - I still believe in it, but I'm beginning to feel that our ex-Glorious Leader had more than a point about how you just can't do it with our management... I feel that instead of being given rein to do wondrous and glorious things we are handed setback after setback, and then told everything will be better when the new staff are in. Yeah, I remember that one from last year.

The trouble is, we have got a new staff member now, and she is lovely. She's a few months younger than me, and coincidentally her attitude is like mine a few months ago. And coincidentally, just as GL worried about management crushing my enthusiasm, I'm worrying about management crushing her enthusiasm. She's chock full of ideas, she seems good at the job... I want to be her again, and but I also want to mutiny and turn our work into an anarchist collective where we can sink or swim on our own, rather than having them deny us staff and resources and then tell us we can't finish our big and ambitious project because it wouldn't match up to GL's standard. I really want to be enthusiastic for new staff member, want to tell her the sky's the limit and we can fulfil our dreams but I've had rather too many dreams trodden on lately.

What to do? Well, it's nearly Christmas - I'm just hoping things are better in the new year.

* I know, "Christian agnostic" may be a contradiction in terms, but I still don't believe the Bible except where I do**. This means that I deep down believe that I shouldn't care about money, except that I do. Because I still like the Sermon on the Mount, except for the bits that I don't. Confused? Try being me.

** And yes, I know that I am very wrong and probably going to Hell or at least purgatory in the unlikely event that such places exist.