Gems from the Interwebs

I’ve decided the world needs not another blog posting the dregs of the internet when the dailywh.at and 22words do such an admirable job, so go make the most of your time there if that is what tickles your fancy. I may post incredibly amusing things here from time to time, but to be honest wordpress is totally where it’s at: see bakingandlife.wordpress.com for yummy recipes and sporadic miscellaneous musings :)

1pm

I’m not a feminist, but reserve the right to be maddened by sandwich “jokes”.

For some reason, apparently I’ve acquired the title of “feminist” in some people’s eyes. Despite getting annoyed at guys constantly cracking out the old “women should be in the kitchen” chestnut all the time, and having done my advanced higher English “dissertation” on “Angela Carter’s use of fairy tales to explore female sexuality”, including such phrases as:

• “He fulfils the traditionally wicked role of surrogate parent – though, in this case, rather than a stepmother, this parent is male, emphasising the malevolence of the gender”; 
• “the reader learns to identify males as innately evil.”; 
• “Voyeurs see their objectified and unwilling women merely as a means to their own sexual gratification, and in Carter’s eyes, all men like to assume the position of authority offered by this voyeurism.”; 
• “the Red Riding Hood figure has already moved on from her initial position of inhibited sexual naivety – she is clearly ready to progress further in her empowerment by becoming fully sexually active, unrestricted by society’s constraints.”; and 
• “The powerful, evil male oppressors, following an age-old masculine position of superiority, see the females who surround them as “pawns” or “dolls”, that will do whatever they are told. The female protagonists of Carter’s tales choose their own paths, glorying in their sexuality, and refuse this objectification”

, I most definitely am not. At any rate, I don’t think I am. I suppose it totally depends on your definition of feminism. At the root of the word, it’s the opposite of chauvinism - men are better - which makes the reverse just as bad. I think it is safe to say that quite a lot of what feminism was portrayed as in Carter’s work and my dissertation was a load of twaddle (though, incidentally, I would recommend the Bloody Chamber stories and The Magic Toyshop, both by Carter, which were the subject matter of said essay).

There was definitely some merit in feminism when it was about enfranchisement and equal pay for equal work, and it was completely necessary to give women the right to be as educated and as able to participate in the democratic process as men. I think the thing is that today, “feminism” is too often seen as having “freedom to be sexually empowered” which is not so good. But the thing is that stuff like equal pay and opportunities is a problem… the tiny amount of women MPs or board members of top UK companies when there are plenty of capable women out there is grossly unfair; I don’t see why someone’s prospects should be limited because they take a year or two out to have some children - if, of course, that’s what they want; personally, I think I’d prefer having more time to spend with my family, making, with my future husband’s cooperation, a lovely home. Plus, I would protest against the “women as sexual objects” pin-up culture, though recognise that that is reciprocated by the number of naked male torso posters available; I would object against objectification whatever the gender. 

And even if they are in jest, the number of groups around online/on facebook about “women should be in the kitchen” really does annoy me. No reason whatsoever for an uneven distribution of housework unless one of the partners doesn’t work as much as the other - and I may be missing something, but I’ve never found the bit in Genesis where it says “and God created woman for man to be a helper as his partner by cooking him dinner at 6 o’clock each evening”. 

I’m not really sure where this leaves me in terms of women’s role in the home. Though I often get housewifely urges in reveries of baking all day, I know that I’d get bored being in and around the house all day, and need constant challenges to put my educated brain to good use, otherwise what would be the point in all this school and uni?

In practice, it might be hard to do, but in theory I would subscribe to the headship of husband in marriage, though only if husband and wife are equally valued partners in the first place and work together as a team. It’s weird to think of changing my name if/when I get married, but I would/shall. And even though I’d always make a token protest if a guy wants to walk me home for safety at 11pm, I do appreciate the gesture and, to be honest, prefer it to walking through Glasgow alone.

Summary: feminist? No. Women aren’t better than men. Equalist? No. Women are different to men. Complementarian? Sounds better. Equal in value, but different in roles. Men and women are clearly different, with, in general, different abilities, though this can vary from person to person. And none of this is an excuse for paying men more than women, excluding women from certain careers (except the marines, and maybe ministry*), or chauvinism and making sexist jokes.

*not quite made up my mind on this one / looked into it enough - any comments welcomed.

9am

Scots Law and the Bible

So, the study of law is not entirely without merit, and the legal consequences of everyday actions sometimes just pop unbidden into one’s head. I thought I’d analyse some biblical passages with the help of the law of Scotland, for my own amusement and the enlightenment of the masses*

Jacob and Leah/Rachel: the first marriage would be void through deception - he thought he was marrying Rachel - and so could simply be discarded, leaving Jacob free to marry Rachel without having to work for a further 7 years.

Pharaoh breaking his promise to let the Israelites go: Under the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1991, writing is required for a gratuitous unilateral agreement unless constituted in the course of a business… so Moses wouldn’t have a remedy for breach of promise. However, there’s an exception to this if promissee acts or refrains from acting in reliance on promise with knowledge and acquiescence of the promisor, then the promisor cannot withdraw and the promise is valid - so later on, Pharaoh shouldn’t have chased the Israelites. Then again, had that been the case, God wouldn’t have displayed his mighty and awesome power in parting the sea and destroying the Egyptian army, so just as well that the Israelites didn’t take Pharaoh to the Court of Session… But besides, Pharaoh may well have a defence that he’d only made the promise under force and fear, rendering it void. 

The man who sold all he had to buy a field with treasure in it: buried treasure belongs to the Crown (Lord Advocate v University of Aberdeen), so there wouldn’t be much point in doing so.

Succession law consequences of the prodigal son: as his father advanced his estate to the son during the father’s lifetime, when the father died the son would have forfeited his right of legitim (children’s automatic right of inheriting a half or a third of the deceased’s estate, even if otherwise provided for in a will). 

Romans 7 - dying to our “marriage with sin” - if a missing person is declared to be dead and their marriage dissolved, the dissolution will not be invalidated if the missing person turns out to be alive, and the marriage will not be revived. SO analogy works today too.

*note again, I am a law student… having my perception warped so that I find somewhat boring things interesting comes with the territory.

2pm