Six truth punches that changed the way I look at things forever

(trigger warning: rape and sexual abuse, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia)

Beans on toast; sunshine; Take Me Out -- sometimes the simplest of things are the best things.

I read a lot of stuff on the Internet. It's both important and enjoyable for me to read about politics, sexism, racism, ableism, body image issues and similar issues that fall under the umbrella of "social justice" – it helps to educate me and encourages me to adjust my thoughts and behaviours in order, as I have previous put it, to not be dick. I've read so many incredible lengthy pieces of writing (whether blogging or journalism*), which I frequently bookmark or email to people to spread them around.

But sometimes, it only takes one sentence to absolutely transform the way I think about something, or to sum up an issue to perfection. Often referred to as a Truth Bomb, my preferred nomenclature is the Truth Punch – something that comes out of the blue, punches you smack between the eyes, and leaves you dazed, cartoon birds circling your head. And afterwards, everything looks a bit different; things have shifted, become more clear.

I thought I'd collect up six examples of times I've read a sentence or thought, and felt like I've been knocked for six.

ONE

(source)

Nobody deserves to be sexually assaulted in any way, regardless of how they're dressed. By stating that a woman is in any way responsible for being attacked because of her clothing choices, not only are you insinuating that she invited a violent sexual act upon herself (NO), you're insulting men, too -- suggesting that, in the face of a short skirt or low-cut top, they become physically unable to resist turning into a monster and attacking someone.

No. People are raped because someone decided to rape them, and while in a world that is already broken, keeping oneself safe is key, teaching women how to "not get raped" is ridiculous when it's not paired with explicitly teaching people to "not rape". If a person is going to rape someone, and decides to choose their victim based on the length of their skirt, then they will find someone to rape. If you're promoting changes to women's behaviour to "prevent" rape, you're really saying "make sure he rapes the other girl". The culture in which anybody thinks it's okay to sexually attack someone is the thing that needs to be changed, not the height of the victim's heels.

TWO

(source - though I'm 99% sure this isn't the original source, I just can't find the real one)

Ah, the Friendzone. A concept made up by guys (and perpetuated by everyone) who were super pissed that someone they were nice to didn't give them unfettered access to her pants. Oversimplified, yes, but that's the jist of it. The concept of the friendzone is 99% bullshit – if someone doesn't want to be with you, despite you being a nice person, that is not their fault. They're not into you in that way, so quit being an butthole about it.

While this applies to relationships between people of any gender identity, it's most frequently found between guys and girls, and as the latter, I can assure you that it's extremely creepy and disappointing to think that the only reason a guy would want to be friends with me is as a means to an end – that end being getting his end away. Women are not vending machines that you put kindness coins into until sex falls out. Just because you're a nice person to someone (shock horror, a friend!), doesn't mean they owe you anything: sex, eternal love, nada.

THREE
Annoyingly, I don't have an image for this one (my perfectionist heart is crying a bit) as I can't recall the exact phrasing, but the quote was something along the lines of:

As a white person, saying "I don't see race" is basically saying "I wish everyone was white".

It is, of course, an admirable ideology to be anti-racist, but saying "I don't see race/I wish we lived in a world where people don't see race" is crazy problematic. It comes from a place of erasure rather than equality; it says, "I wish you didn't have the qualities that make you different from me", suggesting that the victim is the person who should have something changed about them in order to make everything okay. For white people to reach equality with people of colour, we shouldn't be ignoring race. Instead, we should be making the time to understand and appreciate the differences, learning about the issues that have lead to the imbalance of power between racial and ethnic groups, and making the effort not to treat someone differently because you don't share a skin colour (like it's actually an effort - it's just 'being a decent human')**. Kerry Washington sums it up here; erasing someone's culture and history is not cool.

FOUR

(source)

This comes from the incredibly erudite and excellent Ali, whose blog you should all go and read because she's super rad. My mad skillz have allowed me to highlight the section that hit hardest, the Truth Punch: When I hear skinny girls obsessing about their weight, all I hear is "I don't want to turn into you". I don't have a commentary on this, because I haven't thought or read enough about body shaming and its surrounding issues to write one, but it shocked me into realisation, and really made me think about the very personal effect of the way I, and the rest of the world, see and talk about our bodies.

FIVE

(source)

It's really the first sentence of this passage that, for me, is the actual Truth Punch, but it's all good. I won't go into too much detail on this one, because I've covered it already in my previous post, but it hardly takes explaining, really. Political correctness isn't an assault on your free speech, it's adjusting your language to not marginalise people – it's evening the score. The defensive "oh it's political correctness gone mad!" is just a reaction to being calling out on linguistic bullshit. Politically correct is just a term assholes came up with so they can dismiss people who have the nerve to want to be respected. It's not imbalancing something that's already equal, it's redressing an imbalance that already exists. Nothing is lost - equality is gained.

SIX

(source, but again I don't know if this is the original artist!)

This one is a pictorial Truth Punch rather than a written one, but its excellent simplicity works just the same. This is occasionally a more controversial opinion to hold, because the consequences appear to negatively affect those in a position of privilege (they don't in reality, but they appear to). Equality isn't just about giving everybody the same chances; it's about redressing imbalances that are so ingrained in our society that we don't see them any more. It's not enough to open things up, in my opinion - concentrated effort should be made to gain ground for marginalised groups, whether they be ethnic groups, the disabled, those who have changed gender, whatever.

This often leads to people in positions of privilege claiming that they are 'victims' of affirmative action, that they missed out on something because of box-ticking and filling quotas. I call bullshit - I doubt any sensible person would give an opportunity to someone less worthy because they have to make numbers. We still live in a meritocracy, and people gain based on what they have to offer. But if two people are in exactly the same position? Well, if a small amount of box-ticking is what it takes to equalise a vastly unequal society, then so be it. I happen to think the burden is on those of us in positions of power and privilege to even the score. (Obviously this is a tricksy subject, though, so commentary and response are welcomed.)

***

So, there they are. Six quick shocks to the system that made me rethink, re-evaluate and adjust my system of belief. Extended commentary and discussion is great, but occasionally, simplicity is key.

*A distinction it seems odd to even make.
**Among other things, of course. That simple shift in behaviour isn't going to solve racism.

On running, and a change of heart

I loathe running. I think it's possibly a mild form of PTSD after being forced to run cross-country laps in the rain for three years at high school*, but I literally can't think of a worse past-time. Running leaves me sweaty, uncomfortable and miserable. One of my main life mottos is that one should only run when one is late for something or being chased, and the fabulous Ann Perkins pretty much sums up my attitude to recreational running.

I admit, my the fervency of my anti-running agenda sometimes causes me to have quite extreme reactions to public displays of running. I'd occasionally scoff at triumphant tales of distances covered, dismissing them as smug and ridiculous, thinking that, as people obviously can't actually enjoy running, their only reason for doing so must be to make me feel bad about myself. I'm well aware how ridiculous my reaction actually is, but for so long I just thought the culture was one of lycra-clad smugness and needless self-inflicted misery.

Then came this week, where someone possessed the malice and audacity to attack the finish line of the Boston marathon. I was, of course, aghast at the needless lives lost and ruined, and spectated in horror as the manhunts ensued.

I also read about the incident. Several articles have been written by members of the running community, picking apart the particular foulness of attacking an event like the Boston Marathon - something I hadn't really thought about before.

Firstly, I read Richard Askwith's piece in the i, choice quotes from which are posted below:

"It's an easy story to forget, if you're a non-runner, and your vision of marathon-running involves skeletal obsessives flogging themselves joylessly to the brink of collapse in pursuit of an arbitrary, solipsistic goal ...  

I remember travelling to the start of my first marathon, in London, stomach churning with apprehension, fretting about what pace I should aim for and whether or not I was wearing the right shoes - and realising, minutes from the off, that I'd missed the point. This wasn't a race, it was a party. There were more than 30,000 of us, shuffling through the first miles at little more than a walk, chatting, joking, laughing at the runners in fancy dress - and wondering at the sheer diversity of it. There were people of every age, colour, accent and body shape; every possible charity was being supported. Best of all, every inch of the way was lined with spectators, cheering as though we were proper athletes... 

Big-city marathon running is about embracing humanity. It's about enhancing life: your own and other people's, discovering how much you have to give, giving strength to those you cheer on, raising money for charities you believe in, and resolving to come back and do better next year. And here's the thing: there are millions of us, and until the bombers kill every last one of us we will keep running and cheering and urging one another on."

It was after this that the particular venom in targeting a marathon started to sink in. An event where thousands of people put one foot in front of another for the joy of it, for charity, for the experience – that's something quite special. Coupled with Bostonian reports of record blood donations, incredible acts of help and bravery in dealing with the injured, and the city's residents opening their homes and hearts to anybody in need, the whole thing seemed to take the form of a metaphorical marathon: a wall of human spirit driving back any attempt at attack.

Then, today, I read Marina Hyde's Guardian piece; talking of her own previously-held cynicism, it closed thusly:

"Consider it a human Grand National on which we can all have a flutter. And it is the ultimate flutter, if you think about it, because you never know when you or yours might need to collect on the communal winnings their charitable efforts produce. Maybe some of the medical equipment that saved those injured in the Boston blasts was, by some circuitous route, funded by Bostonians running in previous marathons. Maybe the work of the medical staff who battled to save the bombing suspect was in part made possible by past donations from ordinary people doing this extraordinary, mad, 26-mile thing. If it was, I can't think of an irony more sublimely illustrative of who's on the side of humanity and right."

I was so wrong. I never doubted that completing a marathon was a feat of human endeavour, but I'd completely misjudged the attitudes behind it. I thought them individualist and torturous, when they are, of course, based on community spirit, enthusiasm and pursuing a bonkers goal. A marathon looks a bit like the perfect encapsulation of the ferocity of the human spirit.

I'm writing this on a six-hour coach from Bristol to Leeds, clawing through my smartphone for any coverage of the London Marathon I can get my eyes on, honestly quite gutted that I can't watch the footage anywhere (though I'm not sure how well I'd cope - I'm choked up just writing this). Who am I, and what have I done with the jogging-averse grumpus I once was? Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to take up jogging on Monday morning, because I still hate the physical act with the burning fire of a thousand suns. But runners? Consider me admonished and converted. I'm sorry I judged you without thinking. What you do is mad and ridiculous and brave and incredible - well done, you magnificent weirdos.

*I wasn't forced to run for three years without stopping, just to clarify.

End of year 2012 -- feelings and joy

So, 2012, in many ways, has been an absolute shitter. Like, the worst. 2012 can basically go and fuck itself, all told. HOWEVER, I really don't want the crappy parts of the year to be the things that stay with me, as there was a huge amount of joy too, and I'm still incredibly lucky. I learned a lot, had some brilliant adventures, and generally enthused about a lot of stuff. And so, to finish the year in the only way I know how: a sentimental blog post about the things that were great about 2012.

My family
For obvious reasons, it's been a really tough year for the Leaches. But it's important to take good things from bad situations, and if there's anything I've learnt from all this shite, it's how to properly appreciate my incredible family. I know they say you can't choose your family, but even if I could, I would absolutely pick mine again and again. They strong and smart and fun, supportive and sweet and ridiculous, and the most wonderful stone cold pack of weirdos I could ever hope to ever share my DNA with. It shouldn't take family disasters to make you realise how much your parents and siblings mean to you, but I'll take it.

Pop music
I don't have a particularly 'cool' taste in music and never have, but 2012 was the year I finally, properly said 'balls to that' and decided that I don't give a shit any more. There's a longer, more ridiculous blog post in the offing on this topic, but in short, I could not care less that I love pop music. McFly are one of my favourite bands. Call Me Maybe is one of the best songs of the year*. One Direction's album is pretty damn excellent. Stuff it all - I'm a teenie bopper for life and I care naught for judgement. (Ohhh, you just wait for my soundtrack of the year. Consider yourselves warned.)

One thing pop music is good for is remembering that somewhere inside us is the potential for unvanquishable joy." — John Darnielle

The Olympic and Paralympic Games
I didn't really have anything above normal Olympics-based excitement before it all kicked off, but as soon as I watched that magnificent, barmy showstopper of an opening ceremony I was hooked, and swept away on a tidal wave of sexy patriotism and crying over medal ceremonies. The celebration of working class Britain, the of endless dedication to a cause, of sportspeople not swathed in scandal and corruption. Wiggo's sideburns, Rutherford's fingers, Farah's Mobot and a veritable army of fierce, fantastic ladies doing themselves, their families, and the nation proud. It was a summer of staggering world achievement, Britain in the spotlight and a kind of enthusiasm and community spirit that's been in decline lately.

image source

I'm going to attempt a brief top-five Olympics highlights, but it's really just five brilliant Olympics moments off the top of my head and there are probably a million I've forgotten. But anyway:

1. PAPA LE CLOS
2. Tom Daley's medal celebration
3. Epke Zonderland's bonkers-incredible high bar routine
4. Mo Farah doing the lightning bolt, and Usain Bolt doing the Mobot
5. Obama and McKayla Maroney doing the 'not impressed' face

Also, the Olympics brought us the joys of Ryan Lochte's twitter and general existence, which I will never not find entirely hilarious. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE GARDENS.

Stoke-based epiphanies
Better explained in this waffly business here, it's been wonderful to find a kind of purpose for my academic future. I want to analyse the shit out of Stokie speakers, their accents, how their speech is entwined with their cultural history, and I want to do it forever and ever amen.

Thinking about things
As has been evidenced in a fair few ranty blog posts, this year has been one for me having feelings about things and issues and serious business stuff. Well, I always have feelings about things, but 2012 has been a year for paying attention to what people are saying and writing, learning from them and trying to take it on board, as well as trying to speak up when I feel the need. The Internet is full of informed, sensible, tolerant and smart people, and I can't even begin to list the articles which have made a difference to my opinons about a wide range of topics. I hope 2013 continues the trend of reading everything, evaluating my beliefs and opinions, and trying not to be a dick.

Colours!
It's an odd one, but those of you who know me will know I have the fashion sense of a colourblind clown, aka. ALL THE COLOURS ALL THE TIME. This has...escalated this year, and my cornea-burning fashion sense has gotten more and more ridiculous. And I love it. I honestly don't feel myself when I'm not wearing some kind of obscene colour combination. It's actually gotten to the point where excellent friends will tweet/text me when they're wearing a particularly colourful outfit and it's marvellous.

Enthusiasm
Seriously, the only thing that has got me through this monstrous year is being able to be enthusiastic about little things - a new episode of Doctor Who, a trip to the beach, a pub quiz. I'm so grateful for the fun stuff I get to do, for the opportunities I'm given, for the people I get to spend my time with. I'm a lucky bastard, all told. Thanking everyone individually would be time-consuming/self-serving/boring, so I will just go for a blanket THANK YOU to every single person in my life. I love you all. Yes, even you. And especially you.

Here's to 2013, all!

*This justification of why Call Me Maybe is the song of 2012 is absolutely brilliant. "This is what pop is for, right? A Canadian Idol refugee nobody ever heard of conquers the planet with a diabolically brilliant blast of teen lust"

On 'political correctness', and trying not to be a dick

"Rape culture is a culture in which people who have survived a violent crime are asked to laugh about it because other people think it’s funny" - Anon*

This post has been kicking around my head for a few months now, changing format and gathering ammo from the dozens of brilliant articles tackling similar issues (no doubt far more articulately than I will here). It's probably going to be full of mistakes and won't be by any stretch of the imagination conclusive, but I needed to try and write things out somehow.

A fair number of my friends take this piss out of me for being Politically Correct. Overly so, apparently. It's got to the point where people will introduce me with 'this is Hannah, she's really PC', and will say questionable things to try and get a rise out of me. Whatever, that's fine, I can deal with that. This blog post isn't a self-piteous "oh man, people are so mean to me when I try to do good, life is so hard", because that would be ridiculous. This is, I hope, my reasoning for being the way I am. I don't want a cookie or a gold star, nor do I deserve one; I just want to have some kind of coherent explanation.

I'm pretty sure political correctness is bullshit, as a concept. People frequently state that, when they're called out on questionable and problematic language, it's "political correctness gone mad", and the culture we live in today is too sensitive and people get offended too easily. BULLSHIT. As this excerpt explains far more eloquently than I can, I see the use of 'PC' language (i.e. not using terms that are racist, sexist, ableist, sizeist, ageist, classist, homo- or trans-phobic, plus other -ists I am no doubt forgetting**) is basically realising that, hey, these words are offensive, and maybe as a person in a privileged position I shouldn't be throwing them around willy nilly. It's not censorship, it's not a violation of freedom of speech, it's the world standing up for itself and asking not to be treated like shit.

Using these words perpetuates a culture in which it's okay to malign minorities; regardless of the intent behind the use of the word, its use still has an effect. Just because you say a word and 'don't mean it in that way' doesn't erase the cultural history of the word actually being meant in that way. Take the Ricky Gervais debacle -- Gervais insisted that his use of ableist terms was harmless, that he was reappropriating a word, that he didn't mean it as an insult. Nope: Gervais isn't in the position to reclaim a word's meaning, and regardless of how clear his own conscience is, it's still using an offensive term where you needn't, and by doing so, implicitly saying that it's okay to do so.

I read Richard Herring's blog post on the whole shebang and rejoiced as he explained my single, overarching opinion on this and similar matters: why not just NOT say the word? It's not a monumental fucking sacrifice to not use a term that a) has absolutely, unequivocally been offensive in the past and b) can and does remain offensive to some people in the present. Don't say it, use another word. It's not that hard. It's not hard AT ALL. We don't lose anything by not saying these words, by not making the inappropriate joke or generalisation, but we might gain an insight into what it's like to treat people fairly, and not contribute to the never-ending shitstorm that so many people face in everyday life.

The usual reaction to this kind of argument is 'but FREEDOM OF SPEECH, I am being CENSORED'. Your freedom to say the douchey thing remains entirely intact, but this does not entail a freedom to do so without people reacting to it, calling you out on it, or being offended. Freedom of speech is incredibly important, but I happen to think that 'don't be a dick' is a better #1 rule. Not being a dick is super easy, and in a small way might make the world a bit nicer - sounds pretty swell to me.

I found this online about two hours after making this post, and just had to add it. (source)

(I see the same argument all the time when people call out -isms in popular culture, too: "oh it's just a TV show/film/book, stop overanalysing it", as if the media culture with which we are saturated has no effect on what we think, say and do. BULLSHIT. Media doesn't exist in a vacuum. Culture matters. Representation matters. Not being a dick matters.)

A good deal of recent articles have dealt with this in reference to rape humour. This article on Jezebel - which I would quite like to etch permanently across the ozone so everyone can read it - articulates the same argument perfectly. See also the quote at the top of this article (when I first read that, it was like a punch in the gut). I have not been sexually assaulted, and therefore it would be twattish of me to joke about it, particularly knowing how frequent sexual assault is, and not knowing whether anybody in the vicinity might be a survivor. This is why jokes about abuse, Jimmy Savile hallowe'en costumes and casually using the word 'rape' in everyday conversation sucks - because the crime itself is a violent, hideous one and, for some people, hearing that could be horribly, horribly triggering and distressing. Same goes for other offensive speech terms.

JUST DON'T SAY IT. IT'S NOT THAT HARD.

Oh god, the more I read this back, the more it really does look like I'm asking to be lifted on high for being morally superior. I promise that is not the case; white saviour-ing is patronising. By trying not to say certain words I'm not better, I'm just trying to be less of a dick - trying being the most important word. I am still a dick. I still use offensive terminology, I still laugh at inappropriate things, but I listen when people speak up, realise what a dick I've been and make an effort to stop. It's not miraculous behaviour, it's basic human decency. I'm not losing out, being censored, or sacrificing anything.

This article about the use of more savvy, less offensive symbols in British Sign Language explains things quite well, too, and highlights the final point of this whole business. Another reactionary argument is "well my [insert minority] friend says that all the time". So they should; as a person in a privileged position (white, middle class, straight, cisgendered) I don't have the right to tell a person in a minority how to behave, but they have the right to tell me, because they're the ones who have suffered. I don't know better, and they do. If someone in a minority isn't offended by a minority-specific term and wants to use it themselves, awesome, but if they are I'll change my behaviour. The onus of responsibility shouldn't be on the victim to not be offended, as suggested by some assholes; it should be on the person in the more powerful position, who is thankfully free from the weight of centuries of oppression to not perpetuate it***. Because it's not a sacrifice for us, it really isn't. It's easy.

It's tough when someone calls you out on being a dick. It sucks. But it sucks much less than constantly hearing offensive and cruel language that can just as easily be not said, and having to consistently explain why it sucks to hear/read such language. Just because you used a racist term doesn't make you a racist, but it also doesn't mean you can't listen when someone tries to explain why using the racist term is pretty awful anyway. So suck it up, say sorry, and make a bit of fucking effort to be less of a dick. 

And that's why I can be prickly, annoying, whiny, whatever you want to call me. I'm a dick, and I'm trying to be less of one.

"Using a word which you know to be politically or socially volatile, and then saying ‘pff, it’s just a word, cool down guys’ is a bit like letting off fireworks in the high street and going ‘hey, it’s just explosives, it’s not my fault if someone gets in the way’" - Mark Watson

[This post doesn't nearly cover everything I want it to, but hey if anybody wants to talk about this more, hit me up - talking things through is amazingly good at helping me realise exactly what my opinions are any why.]

EDIT: as a friend rightly pointed out, the original version of this post used the word 'lame', which is ableist language. I really am a dick. I've now removed it, and I am so sorry.

*and by 'Anon', I mean 'one of those quotes that circulates on tumblr so I don't know who said it first'. If you do, let me know and I shall happily credit it.

**And by PC language, what I DON'T mean is the ridiculous insistence that "you're not allowed to sing Baa Baa Black Sheep in schools any more" and othersuch straw man arguments. We all know those instances are absurd and rare, stop bringing them up.

***This explains things quite neatly. 

----

A few more links that may prove interesting, and are related to this whole topic here, here, here, here, here and oh god there's thousands I can't link to them all but everything is super interesting and important and just read everything, k?

The only type of 'cardinal' I like is the vowel kind. Ba-BAM.

I'm sure, twelve hours after the offending article was published – in which Cardinal Keith O'Brien (President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland and Britain’s most senior Catholic) aired his views on the potential legalisation of same-sex marriage – that there will have been no less than eight million angry blog posts in retaliation, all of which are likely to be better than this. However, having read the article on the first leg of my eight-hour journey back to York from Winchester this morning, and having spent the following two hours hand-writing a three-page long strongly-worded rebuttal on a wobbly train tray-table, it would seem the most phenomenal waste of my efforts not to type it up. Plus, an hour of angry typing will be excellent catharsis for any deep-seated frustration I may be harbouring.

I also appreciate how special-snowflake-y and horribly appropriative it is of someone who identifies relatively low on the Kinsey scale to write a blogpost about this. I really, really don't want it to come across like that - I just give a shit, and wanted to write some words to that effect.

And thus begins a paragraph-by-paragraph dissection of the Cardinal's article, with a something of a linguistic, capslocky, sweary slant.

Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved

(Alas, the blogpost should really begin with an intelligent deconstruction of the Cardinal's arguments, but since his does not offer any kind of logical, sensible argument in the first place, I shan't offer him the same courtesy.) Of course! For someone who identifies as a man to be in a loving relationship with someone who identifies as a woman is a healthy, safe and wonderful thing, but should their partner identify as a man (or vice versa), it immediately becomes disease-ridden, breakdown-inducing and spirit-crushing? Excuse me while I laugh so hard I cough up a lung.

Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

Well whadd'ya know? The Cardinal starts out by being kind of right! (Bear with me.) I mean, his point is phrased horribly, but he's got the gist: it is about redefining marriage. Many non-heterosexual people don't want to get married; aligning themselves with a tradition that has ostracised them for hundreds of years is not something they fancy doing - completely, completely understandable. But some do, and this is where the Cardinal's point falls short: it is also about rights. It's about the right to get married, a right which is denied many people for no good reason. And yes, despite the pejorative connotations of the phrase 'behest of a small minority of activists', it is absolutely about redefining marriage for the whole society. Why the Cardinal thinks this is somehow inherently bad, and can thus stand alone as an argument, is beyond me.

Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

And he's done it again! The Cardinal speaks the truth! I concede, his intended tone is drawn, apocalyptic and disparaging - I imagine it could be read like the voiceover for one of those 'natural disaster hits NYC and only Mark Whalberg can save the world with a mixture of lifting things and blank looks into the distance' sort of film trailers. However, try reading the same paragraph in the voice of a child in the car on the way to the pound going to pick up their new puppy. That adequately expresses how I feel about the whole thing. Redefining marriage will have phenomenal consequences for society – phenomenal, brilliant, boundary-breaking consequences that will shape the future for the next generation of young Britons.

But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?

In short: yes. That's the brilliant thing about words: they change, evolve, move with the times. Language change isn't the issue here, and the Cardinal really needs to stop masking his prejudices behind linguistic euphemism.

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

Well, Cardy my sweet, they will tell those pupils that marriage means the union of two people, regardless of gender, because THAT WILL BE THE TRUTH. If the law redefines marriage in this way, and a teacher claims otherwise, they will be lying. This isn't about belief, it's about what is the legal case, and in this hypothetical future, the only answer will be to explain that marriage is not restricted by the gender of either spouse. If a child asked a teacher 'what is murder?' and they answered 'it's when a person tickles another person with a feather', that would be a lie, just like telling a child that marriage is only for heterosexual couples. I'm afraid, to put it bluntly and a little childishly, that teachers – imparters of knowledge, not arbitrary moral judgements – will have to suck it up.

Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance...?

I can't even finish this quote, gobsmacked as I am that the phrase 'tyranny of tolerance' can even exist in real life. Good Christ I hope it doesn't catch on as a buzzphrase for this bullshit. How dare a nation suggest for a second that each and every one of its citizens be treated equally! Quelle horreur! What of us who want to direct hate and abuse at an arbitrarily selected group of the population? We're being oppressed, I tell you, oppressed!

Fuck off.

In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women.

I'll let the selfsame Declaration of Human Rights speak for itself (and me) here:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Many people will spout back article 18 at me, here – 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion'. I don't deny people like the Cardinal the freedom to hold their horrid beliefs (being involved in religion quite heavily in the past, religious freedom is something I believe deserves a great deal of respect – though the issues and technicalities of this are lengthy enough to warrant their own blogpost). What I – and the Declaration – do disallow is the right of those beliefs to impinge upon the rights of another person, which is what the Cardinal is advocating. He believes that his personal belief is enough to prevent certain people from enjoying the same freedoms as others. How about no?

Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

Dude, 'reality' used to constitute a person's right to keep slaves, or murder people. Redefining reality is what moves our society closer towards freedom and fairness for all. I'm finding it hard to comment upon the extreme stupidity of this particular quote, but perhaps it need explicitly saying:

Dear Cardinal,
Your proposal represents a 'grotesque subversion' of the universally accepted #1 tip-top human right that 'all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights'.
Love, Hannah xoxo

As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.

Who gives a rose-tinted fuck if marriage predates the government under which we operate? So did murder, but I don't hear any complaints about governments imposing pretty strict 'don't kill people' regulations. Marriage is a legally binding procedure, the technicalities of which are in the remit of the government. If the government can offer various legal benefits to married couples, they can sure as hell alter the technicalities of who can marry whom in the first place.

And, hello, the government clearly do recognise these 'innumerable benefits' (issues I have with these so-called inherent benefits notwithstanding), and hope to open them up to everyone, so that everyone may benefit, and we can all bask in this marital bliss the Cardinal speaks so highly of, should we wish to.

...yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.

You said it, Cardy.

It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father.

This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.

The sheer, staggering arrogance of words like these kind of make me want to throw up in my mouth a little bit. Is the Cardinal trying to suggest that the potential for love, care and compassion is rendered null and void should we choose to pursue a life with a partner of the same gender? Or perhaps he's saying that those children raised by homosexual parents, in single-parent households, by aunts, uncles, grandparents and other relatives, or by any guardian of any kind, have not received the same level of care as those from a mother/father home, regardless of the stability or happiness of this heterosexual family foundation? Now that really is intolerant, illogical and incomprehensible bigotry.

It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

Newsflash: a court of law can already do that (should the parent be deemed unfit), as can a person choosing to parent alone, whether through surrogacy, adoption or using a sperm bank. And, I repeat: why is this a bad thing?

Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can three adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?

Possibly a more controversial opinion here, but if all parties are happy and consenting, would this be so terrible? I'm inclined to say it wouldn't, but I'm more inclined to say it is none of my damn business, and no right of mine to dictate what people can and cannot do with their lives.

In November 2003, after a court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary schoolchildren were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”. 

Has the Cardinal ever seen the figures for LGBT teen suicide? Can he not fathom that this kind of early visibility and normalisation of what is – shock horror! – NORMAL human sexuality might help a child with confused sexual feelings to not feel alone, ostracised and driven to self-abuse? It is precisely telling children that non-heterosexual behaviour is normal that can save lives in the long run. You're not warping children's minds, you're widening them.

Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.

Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?

I come to the Cardinal's next point rather serendipitously, having forgotten what he'd written while making my former point about slavery. How odd that we both compare the legalisation of same-sex marriage to the abolition of slavery, but in such different ways. The Cardinal seems to be forgetting that LGBT people and slaves are the oppressed minorities in these cases, and he instead aligns the slaves with those poor souls who believe that marriage should be a strictly heterosexual institution (a group that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be described as 'Christians', as so many firmly advocate same-sex marriage, and so many non-Christians don't.)

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women, “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.

This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.

One of the things that is linguistically confusing about the Cardinal's argument is his consistent invocation of the phrase 'human right'. According to the phrasing of the declarations, article 16 is as follows:

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

The Cardinal talks of 'dismantling a fundamental human right' twice, as if legalising same-sex marriage will somehow impede upon heterosexual couples' ability to marry freely and unhindered. Should same-sex marriage be legalised, this will not be the case – the only thing anybody may lose is the ability to discriminate and dictate who is free to declare and ceremonially cement their love in a public ceremony with friends and family present. The only thing the Cardinal is losing is his right to be such a dickhead, and – as far as I can tell – the Universal Declaration does not support 'the right to be a massive dickhead', and as such his invocation of the statute is nonsensical and erroneous.

I was going to say that, in direct contrast to old Cardy's views, legalising same-sex marriage could make the UK a bastion of tolerance from which other governments may take lead. I then stopped to think about the word 'tolerance', and it left a bad taste in my mouth. 'Tolerance' smacks of begrudgingly putting up with something – the way I tolerate takeaways who put ketchup on my burgers without me requesting it. We shouldn't tolerate same-sex marriage, we should fucking celebrate it; celebrate the slow but optimistic progress towards a society where sexuality and gender have no bearing on how one person treats another, not does affect the rights, liberties and opportunities afforded to us all.

Introduct-a-Han

I used to blog A LOT. Back in the good old days of Livejournal, I had a friends-only blog wherein I angsted about my 17-year-old non-problems and got REALLY, REALLY EXCITED about Doctor Who.

Several years later, I have slightly less teenage woe and - if it's possible - slightly more feelings about Doctor Who. I also have a degree, newly dyed ginger hair, and much wider field of interest. I've been itching to get back to blogging for a while - having caught the bug with my language blog (which is still very much in its infancy) - and reading my delightful friends' ventures in theatre review, film and television blogging, and generally just talking about their lives has convinced me to just bloody well give it a go.




So here I am. Wittering away into the void like some kind of unstoppable moron, and hoping to keep doing so on a semi-regular basis. But first things first - a two-pronged introduction!

THINGS I HAVE FEELINGS ABOUT (AND WILL THEREFORE BE LIKELY TO BLOG ABOUT)

- Linguistics, aka. light of my life, my very best friend, etc. I'm a pretty keen bean for most linguistic fields, and am generally fascinated by quirky word facts in general (for instance, did you know that the Anglo Saxon word for 'squirrel' - acweorna - literally translates to 'oak botherer'? Now you do!), but specifically I love studying phonological theory, acoustic and articulatory phonetics, sociophonetics, wider sociolinguistics issues (the use of language to construct social identity, gender, ethnicity and sexuality in particular), and language change through history, with a particular fascination with the way language is used on the Internet. I have a detailed post about my language feelings here, and will most likely save in-depth waffle for the language blog, but linguistics being the fire in my belly, it's likely to crop up a lot.

- Television. Oh, I watch far more TV than is healthy, getting thoroughly, embarrassingly, soul-destroyingly invested in fantastic shows (The Thick Of It, Blackadder, Sherlock, etc.), terrible shows (GLEE, for my sins) and those which hover in between (Doctor Who, Merlin, Downton Abbey, and far more than I care to mention). I enjoy - among other things - snarky protagonsists, excellent friendships, background acting, wistful looks, bromances and ADVENTURES.

- Theatre. Most of my time and any dispoable income I can muster (and, to be honest, my not-so-disposable income too) goes on theatre tickets. I fell in love with theatregoing about a year ago; the vividness of it, the electricity, the power of it being right there, in front of your eyes - sometimes ugly or sharp or stunning or wild, but always, always exciting. Shakespeare's Globe in particular is my spiritual home, and I'll see my favourite shows over and over again before they close (transcience: the curse of the theatre!).

- Things That Are Important. I don't claim to have any kind of authority when it comes to matters of the world, but I like reading about things that interest me, and things I feel are important to learn and know about. Feminism, racism, sexism, gender and sexuality issues, religion, the media, politics and world issues - I read what I can, and I may try and post semi-cogent feelings about this kind of stuff when the need arises

- Nature and Science. I'm a bit of a giddy child when it comes to the world, and just generally get fascinated and awed by nature being crazy and ridiculous and beautiful and mind-bogglingly spectacular. So I might occasionally get a bit capslocky and feelings about waterfalls and the Aurora Borealis. Yeah, watch out for that.

TEN TINY FACTOIDS THAT MAY GIVE YOU A MORE ROUNDED (IF NOT WHOLLY ENDEARING) IDEA OF WHO I BE

- I own an unhealthy number of pairs of coloured tights.
- About 30% of my vocabulary comes from quoting TV shows and/or Memes.
- I curse like a sailor, and will frequently have the sense of humour of a seven-year-old boy.
- Pictures of the Earth from space are almost guaranteed to make me cry.
- One time, I made myself a TARDIS bag.
- My favourite food is custard. Peas, however, are of the devil.
- I can't sing. However, I sing all the time.
- Hercules is the greatest Disney film. Yeah, you heard.
- I can name all the kings and queens of England from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II.
- I learnt the previous information from here, which makes it decidedly less impressive.

So, yeah, that's me! I apologise in advance.