Let's not let guys off the hook about porn

While I deplore that women have had photos of themselves in compromising situations or vast undress distributed freely without their consent, I am really, on reflection, a bit concerned about this:

I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he’s going to look at you.Jennifer Lawrence on nude photo hacking: 'It is a sexual violation. It’s disgusting' - People - News - The Independent:

What I find  disturbing is the apparent acceptance that her boyfriend would consume porn when away from her, and that somehow this is to be expected and not censured to some degree.

First of all I'm disturbed because it buys into a view of male sexuality which is both demeaning and also potentially dangerous. Demeaning because it implies that men are not able to say no to porn. Newsflash: men are able to say no and to avoid it, on the whole. Honestly, it's true. Part of the problem may be that men have been given a free pass on this.

There is research indicating that a number of men are ruining their  ability to respond well sexually because they are rewiring their responses via porn in ways that are not conducive to good relations with potential partners. If that is so (and it makes sense as well as being indicated in research), then women who are partners should be discouraging their boyfriends, lovers, partners, husbands from porn not accepting it. Personally, I can't really see how it isn't a kind of mental-affective adultery, and all the worse because it's not even in a relational and affectionate context. And it seems to me that Ms Lawrence's response is recognising that: she'd rather he looked at her image than some other woman's).

I think that this is an important point: it looks to me (and I have to admit that I have no real insider insight on this) like it is contributing to the objectifying women by making such objectification virtually inevitable.

And that is why it is dangerous: it seems to me that the use of porn is helping to construct a set of attitudes that make it more likely that women are going to be viewed as mainly bodies to be penetrated than as friends or colleagues.

Men can and do learn continence of gaze and thought.  When we are motivated by beliefs and affections that emphasise respect, faithfulness and mutuality between people of all genders, men are able to grow into gentlemen in the best sense. I have deliberately chosen a slightly old fashioned term there because I think that we have been underrating the virtues at the heart of being a gentleman: consideration of others, a spirit of service and of self-restraint for the greater and common good. These are virtues that sit ill with the consumption of porn when it is understood in its wider context.

So I appeal to Ms Lawrence and others; don't let the men get away with it, don't collude in the myth of unavoidable lust. It demeans men to pretend that we cannot control our urges -though God knows, so many men collude in their own demeaning. It doesn't have to be so..

Theological Worlds: obsessio and epiphania

I hadn't come across the book Theological Worlds (Paul Jones) and have added it to my list to look at some time. Thanks to Richard Beck for highlighting it on his rather useful blog. In this case it was this that got my attention:

...obsessio is the Question of your existence, theologically speaking. What's the location of brokenness in the world or in your life?

The epiphania, by contrast, is the experience (or hope) of an Answer to the obsessio: Experimental Theology: Search Term Friday: Theological Worlds

I think the interest for me lies in its resonance with my own experience and as a result a sense that this is theology for spiritual directors and accompaniers.

In my own experience and observation of what I see in others, it seems to me that the obsessio that we have is different one to another. Some people are all about guilt and dealing with it. They often gravitate to theologies where guilt is explicitly  in focus. Arguably western Catholicism and classical Evangelicalism are likely destinations for the 'guilt obsessio'. It's not my obsessio, and although I am some variety of Evangelical, it has tended to leave me cold. For me the obsessio has been meaning of life; facing down the despair of a god-absent universe. To be sure sin finds a place within that, but it's not my starting place.

In the case of the guilt-haunted, the epiphania is about amazing grace and the great Transaction. For the meaning-hungry, the epiphania is about the God who is there and calls us in Christ.

Obviously, I'll have to read the book to see whether I'm correctly guessing the kind of thing that is meant. But even if I've misconstrued the basic idea, it seems to me that what I've just described has resonance. I'm starting to wonder what the other obsessios might be. Search for Truth? Knowing what is Good? Finding harmony? Some of this begins to seem like it might fit with the enneagram which identifies or at least tries to help a person to identify a core prone-ness to sin and its flip-side a core value set.

If any readers have any further insight or knowledge about these things, do comment or be in touch in other ways.

Is it legal to bomb ISIL? Really?

One of the things said about the deployment of USA, GB and others' military  hardware in Iraq is that, having been invited to do so by the Iraqi government, it is legal to do so. Presumably we are talking 'legal' according to the United Nations charter. And it is true that the charter grants member states the right to self-defence and to call on help in self-defence. Ostensibly then, yes, it's legal.

But, as I said to someone yesterday, I'm not sure that it is "fully legal". By that is my suspicion that the means and circumstances count against what is actually being proposed. See paragraph 3 of Article 2:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Now, I think that this is meant to be consonant with ideas of just war in that just war theory talks about 'jus in bello', that is that the means employed in the circumstances should be likely to resolve the matter with the minimum loss of life, minimum damage etc.

It seems to me that this is an international dispute even though we are talking about non-state actors. I can't see how, once other nations are called in it can fail to be an international dispute: some of the actors are Syrian, and there are Turkish, Saudi, and gulf state interests involved. But the more important thing is not endangering international peace, security and justice. Given the likelihood that going about things in the manner proposed and given the likely next developments (see here) there is very much a danger to security, peace and justice internationally (which also makes it an international concern).

The probability that the repeat of civilian "collateral" deaths and maimings such as we have seen in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq will take place in this campaign. This injustice will further inflame those already frustrated and angry with the West's involvement in the middle east who are likely to seek to carry out violent acts in the wider world and so international security and peace will be further strained and imperilled. In short, the course of action proposed (as it is at this point -I expect it will be approved, sadly) contradicts a fundamental article of the UN, and so cannot be said to be fully legal.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is some doubt about the proposal on legal grounds, surely.

EVEL Conservative plan holed

This morning on the news John Redwood MP was sounding very reasonable in explaining how simple EVEL (English Votes on English Laws) was and by implication what a good idea it is: why get into lots of constitutional wrangling?

Part of the problem is, as he let slip, is that in the present electoral map, that would mean a Conservative majority in England. He didn't say it in so many words, but by pointing out that it was the Labour MPs from the rest of the UK that diluted the Conservative vote on English matters, he belied his statement that this was not a party political matter.

And there we have the problem. By creating, in effect, a part-time English parliament in Westminster, there would be an entrenchment of a particular party. Some of us in some regions of England are, in effect, relying on the non-Conservative vote from other bits of GB to help sustain 'our' case. The first-past the post system of voting can mean that Conservatives in England could ride roughshod over the rest even while not enjoying a majority of actual votes. And since most of the Conservative MPs would be from Southerly parts of England, there would grow a tension between the south and the north along the issue of fair representation. One of the ways to address that would be to recognise that an England of regions with properly devolved powers, would be fairer and more sustainable.

EVEL could only be a temporary measure, but I fear that if we grant it, the Establishment would resist further reform with the consequent unrest and growing inequality it would engender.

In my view we need a proper constitutional consultation to settle this. EVEL is not a long-term solution.

Dollhouse ideology

I've been watching the television series Dollhouse recently. I had been wondering whether to watch it because the pictures from the series advertising it tend to be of eye-candy and hint at violence: I have a bit of an allergic reaction to such presentations as they often go with superficial: maxing out the exciting visual and emotional impact but having little to say (except: "give us money"). However, I think that it is actually more interesting than the eye-candy image gives me to infer. Kudos to Joss Whedon for producing something a bit more intelligent and raising some interesting issues about being human: what makes us  'us'. Its premise is a bit like an updated and reworked Joe 90.

In Episode 6 they intercut a series of vox pops from a news programme about the urban legend of the Dollhouse. One of them has an interviewee saying something like "... if they could do something like this, it's the end of the human race". I found myself being annoyed with this. Why? Because it cleverly hides the fact that in the situation being portrayed, where in the scenario projected by the interviewee (some kind of university lecturer) human beings are enslaved by being made into a sort of robots. The doomsday scenario misses the fact that in such a world there would be a whole class of people who would not be subject to such control: those rich and powerful enough to maintain the system because they would want its services. In other words, this little comment on such a world elides the humans who control it and in doing so, hides from view the real problem.

Just like real life.  This is a little mirror on the West: the haves' string pulling and circumvention and the exploitation of the rest is being covered up: attention is redirected (often very successfully) so that 'we' rarely if ever become aware of where power lies and how it is being further accumulated. This musing comes hard on the heels of reading a recent piece in the Guardian by Owen Jones making a closely related set of points. So Dollhouse, interestingly, gets close to making such a point but then ends up, apparently (at least at this point) colluding with the concealment of privilege.

PS. After having seen the whole of the 2 series ... in fact towards the end of the series we get to understand that the scenario I come to in response to the university lecturer's vox pop is precisely the case: the rich get to reap the rewards whilst preying on the rest of the population. Just thought I should mention that for the sake of letting it be known that Joss Whedon  and/or Eliza Dushku did seem to have that perspective in view in realising the series. Kudos that they got it past Fox! But, hey, it took them two seasons to rumble it! -At least I assume the hasty-feeling ending at end of season 2 was because it got cancelled. I gather that the original idea was for a 5-year story arc.

Why I am very concerned about fracking ...

Of course we can see the argument for getting away from being supplied by potentially hostile and/or unstable countries. However there are major -and I mean major- problems with the whole enterprise.
Most importantly it doesn't help address our need (indeed duty) to decarbonise our economy. So unless it were accompanied by a very rigorous set of mechanisms to make sure that our exploitation of these fossil carbons did not contribute to increasing the net amount of carbon and other greenhouse gasses, we should not even be considering this. This is one of the things driving a fairly furious response from members of the public and unless this is taken seriously we could have Twyford Down style protesting going on and given recent revelations about policing such things, a potential for even more bitter civil liberties issues arising. Will the costs of handling civil discurbancc also be including in the licenses? I suspect they won't; and that will mean effectively a hidden taxpayer subsidy. Better surely not to create that situation in the first place.

Secondly are the fairly major concerns about more immediate enviromental impacts. The fears about earth quakes would appear to be well founded at the moment. As do concerns about contamination of water tables and the effects on crops (I note the recent case in East Yorkshire). Again, failure to take such concerns seriously is likely to risk civil discurbance and raises the question of who will pay for policing, court cases, etc.

Thirdly, it's hard to work out why the energy security issues cannot better be met by pursuing even more rigourously the non-carbon paths already beginning to be explored and which show considerable and accelerating promise. Given this alternative strategy shows every chance of furthering several good outcomes (decarbonising, local jobs, regional jobs, potential for Britain to rejoin global leadership in related areas of tech ...).

Add that for many of us there is a big suspicion that the present government are too fond of  doing things that work well for informally influential friends and moneyed interests but are not necessarily helpful to the welfare of the wider population and for which our grandchildren will curse us heartily, and you have a recipe for a much less happy nation and huge costs in the short to medium term and stacking up exponentially as climate change accelerates.

See some further views here.
You might also 'enjoy' this news piece:

Labelling, language and ethics

A recent twitter exchange reminded me that I have often been in discussions or even arguments where 'labelling' is thrown out at some point. It is often thrown out when one party feels that nuances are being lost or sometimes when someone is attempting to play a variety of victimhood trump card. The tweet that started me off re-musing about this was this:

Twitter / Notifications: Are all labels as attempts to describe another essentially acts of judgement? Label free speech?

To which I replied:

Of course: but 'judgment' understood as 'attempted discernment' vs 'prejudce'; some = self-take

And then also:

Meaning what by 'label'? Where does noun end & label begin? Speech acts by def are ltd gestures

What I was trying to gesture at with these necessarily brief responses (hey, they're tweets!) is that labels are, viewed from one angle, a way of referring to someone else. They are nouns. Sometimes they are nouns which those who are referred to are comfortable with or even choose for themselves. Sometimes, however, they are nouns that the refered-to dislike and would prefer not to be used. I sense that often 'labelling' is used to refer to this latter kind of noun-use. This is because nouns don't only have dispassionate meanings but also have emotional connotations which are part of their use-meaning and if the connotations are disparaging then they cannot be used equally by all parties to the dialogue equally: the use of a disparaging term will constantly be alienating and tension-building to at least one party.

The problem with the term 'labelling' is that it can get used as a catch-all term to try to disallow an(y) attempt to briefly characterise something that someone would rather not talk about at all even when there is no real negative connotation.

The solutions to the snarl ups, I think, are to find mutually acceptable terms where there is a genuine issue about a term and to remain aware that labels are 'limited gestures' and to be prepared to learn more fully and sympathetically about their referents.

Finding mutually acceptable terms is important. The solution here is not to disallow using any term at all: clearly if something is to be talked about, ways of refering need to be agreed. All language is about a communal agreement in order to carry meaning from mind to mind; it is mind reading by mediation and the mediation has to be a communally agreed instrument (vs Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's story). In fact languages are constantly in the process of being agreed, misagreed and disagreed, and it is in that dynamic linguistic-communal dialogue that accusations such as 'labelling' themselves make sense. They are a bid to steer the terms of the rhetoric.

Mutually acceptable terms is a way to recognise the bona fides of the parties in the discussion. To insist on using a disparaging term against objections is, in effect, to communicate contempt for the other. But note that the alternative is not to cease to give a label for that would mean ceasing to talk about the matter. No, the alternative to a disparaging label is to find a noun which is able to serve as a helpful token in conversation towards mutually-satisfactory ends.

The other dimension I mentioned above is to recognise the limitedness of labels. Actually, this is to recognise the limitedness of language and that 'labels' are actually a particular kind of noun (signifier, if you will). In short, what I mean by this is that I cannot convey to you the fulness of what is in my mind when I speak or write. Language is like using a two-dimensional artefact to try to convey a four-dimensional reality. It is 'lossy'.

To use language we have to choose a focus from the total of the (already limited) reality we are aware of and we have to find verbal gestures to help someone else find our focus. We then (in actual fact simultaneously) have to choose further dimensions of related bits of reality (usually our attitudes and reasons for interest are involved) to incorporate into the verbal gesturing. We do this drawing on the presumption of shared information in order to achieve the compression necessary to make a message. In effect we are hoping each time that from the limited information we can convey, the other mind will be able to reconstruct enough of our intentions for a part of our mind to be read through the medium of our speech act.

So it's no surprise that labels do not convey fully the reality of what is referred to. And since we are also inevitably conveying something of our attitudes, it is no surprise that in any community-crossing conversations, we may have to recognise that attitudes or beliefs encoded in our own usual use of the term may have to be challenged and re-negotiated for the purposes of civil and civilising conversation. Clearly this implies that the the problem is not the label itself, it is our unwillingness to be challenged and to accommodate others' views. In that we are at the edge of attitudinal matters to do with stereotyping, contempt, self-justification etc.

In the light of what I've just written, the "act of judgement" issue in the original tweet can be understood more clearly. Any use of language involves us in judging what to focus on, what is relevant, what attitudes to 'it' we convey, where lines of demarcation are to be drawn etc etc. We cannot speak without such judgements, or as I put it in response, "discernment". The question is what attitudes are being conveyed (and that includes both sent and received)? And it is the attitudes that are really in view. The problem is that the labels can themselves become the rhetorical point at issue rather than the attitudes. The easiest way around this is to try to remove the label by agreeing terms: either not to use a particular term or to mutually accept a term on the understanding that it is being used in a certain way.

Of course, part of the problem is that we hear linguistic usages in a sense through the ears of the communities we know. So the individual conversation also has to take account of the wider social context. So, while you and I might agree to use a term in a relatively neutral fashion for the sake of advancing our understanding, we also have to conduct the conversation knowing that others may hear it differently. And so, for the sake of taking the fruits of our better understanding (I would hope that might be the outcome) to our wider communities, we may be best to agree to use terms (labels) which would be best received by our respective communities and yet also have the best chance to convey to them the better understandings we arrive at and also to foster those communities in a wider inter-communal conversation.

So, in the conversation that began this reflection, I was eschewing the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in (popular) ecclesiological contexts. I was doing so as an attempt to agree different terms for conversation because I feel that these terms do not help me to think about the issues. They sound Political to me and that jars: I may be 'conservative' in terms of accepting a reasonably orthodox interpretation of Christian faith, but I tend to think that doing so implicates me in taking a far from conservative view of social matters. On the other hand "liberal" may better describe many of my attitudes to social issues, but not how I view doctrine, scripture, the relationship between God and world etc etc. So I tend to use the terms "orthodox" and "open" to try to signal that what I think is a linkage in the wider world between "conservative" faith and "Conservative" politics and between "liberal" politics and "liberal" faith is not in operation here.

I judge it is harder to change the terms in the wider world (for a variety of reasons) so it is easier to change my own self desgination and then to try to have the conversations about why I would want to do that. To me that is better than to have a sense or even the experience of being written off because of the label or of being unwittingly co-opted also because of the label. (It's embarrassing or anxiety-provoking to find oneself wanting to challenge someone who assumed that you shared some viewpoint of theirs).

I guess, with reference to the original tweet as presented above, that I do not think that "judgement" is necessarily negative or disparaging. It is possible to label positively and to judge in favour. It is not the act of judging that is the problem in reality. it is judging to the detriment of others, to do so unfairly on the basis of a characteristic that is not inherently negative and to refuse to revisit the issue of the fairness of the judgement. We need to focus on the attitudes not the act of judgement.