Whilst I try to mainly limit myself to writing about healthcare-related issues, one of the reasons I started blogging was because I was fed up with people telling me that as an [educated] woman there were things I should want (sex, drugs and the ordination of women) and things I shouldn't want (marriage, children, self-respect, and the right not to sing Shine, Jesus, Shine) and I was especially fed up with being told this by nominally Catholic women claiming to speak on behalf of all Catholics. I am therefore delighted to discover that I am not the only person who believes in, strives to live by and supports the teaching of the Church. Catholic Women Rising is 'a place for practicing Catholic women who support the Church’s teaching on sexuality, contraception, abortion, marriage and the ordination of women, to stand up and be counted.'
While I'm on the subject, I should just take this opportunity to plug the vastly improved website of the Women's Section of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. This is definitely a website with something for everyone, from philosophy to book reviews (and probably philosophical book reviews as well), from current affairs to anthropology.
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
The poor will always be with us: seriously?
The health inequalities between rich and poor are widening, reports BBC Health.
We've known this since the Black Report was published in 1980, and as not much notice was taken at the time, it's hardly surprising that 30 years on we're faced with the same problem, only bigger.
When I lived in Peru people often asked me if I was shocked by the poverty there. And yes, it is shocking to see shanty towns built up by the sides of motorways, to see shops which sell pre-fab sheds and then see the same sheds in the desert with entire families living in them, to hear children exclaim with excitement over such simple things as grass and trees and then ask with disinterest if they will be eating today, as so far they haven't. I saw children whose teeth were no more than shells and a toddler with a paraistic infection who rarely mentioned that his tummy hurt although it was the size of a football. I met a terrified young girl whose father had beaten her because she had her first period (in her innocence she had no idea why, but apparently her teenage sister had had a baby which possibly explains her father's concern although in now way justifies his action). I heard, from a volunteer doctor, of a patient with appendicitis who went home and died because he didn't have the money to pay for the operation, and read in the paper of a man whose body was thrown off the bus and left in the street when he died on his way to the hospital.
Yes, poverty in the developing world is indeed shocking. But what is more shocking is the divide between rich and poor. I saw a school with no toilets (the children go in the playground) and half an hour away another which had facilities that would put a state primary in this country to shame. The wealthy who live alongside poverty often completely ignore it, and one can grow up in Lima and never realise that there are such things as shanty towns (I'm not sure exactly how, but I'm assured by those who did that it is entirely possible).
In Lima, if you meet a child in a shanty town whose hands and face and clothes are dirty you know that it's because when you live in a desert, everything gets dirty very quickly; there is no running water at home, certainly not hot water or washing machines; there probably isn't any soap, because food is the prioity, and very possibly these are the only clothes she has, especially in winter when the humidity seems to make the cold penetrate one's bones and wearing everything you own is a better alternative than freezing. If a boy doesn't (can't or won't) use a knife and fork, it might be because his family don't own any, but it's equally likely that having not eaten all day he just wants to get it down as fast as he can. When you have nothing, staying alive is the priority, cutlery and soap are luxuries. The only answer to this reality is love. Love until it hurts and then love more, because without love the only answer is frustration and anger that there is injustice in the world, and despair at one's helplessness in the face of it.
If you go into a school in an inner city in the UK and see pupils with dirty clothes and hair, it's not because they don't have hot water or washing machines or soap. It's because they are neglected, whether that is because they have a single parent who works all hours to make ends meet or nobody bothers to wash them or their clothes. Some people have hard choices to make, other just choose to make bad ones. If they don't use a knife and fork it's because their family doesn't sit down together and eat meals at the table, or because they always eat processed food which comes in a handy pick-me-up-and-eat-me format. You do not expect "beans on toast" to be the answer to the question, "What did you have for Christmas dinner?" (and he didn't know it was Christmas anyway because his parents hadn't bothered to mention it). There are children with mobile phones but no crayons. What a difference from a child with nothing who on being given a packet of cocoa <i>in July</i> assures you that his family are going to save it for Christmas day.
The divide between rich and poor in this country is not manifested solely in deaths from heart disease. There is a spiritual and cultural "poor gap" which has nothing to do with economics. Poverty is shocking wherever you see it, but somehow it is more shocking here where everyone has access to education, healthcare and doesn't need to make a choice between soap and food, between clothes and beds. The lack of God, the lack of Love, in this green and pleasant land makes us poorer by far. This is the poverty that should not be with us. Everyone has the right to know God, and the riches that come from abundant life, and this is why we need the New Evangelisation.
We've known this since the Black Report was published in 1980, and as not much notice was taken at the time, it's hardly surprising that 30 years on we're faced with the same problem, only bigger.
When I lived in Peru people often asked me if I was shocked by the poverty there. And yes, it is shocking to see shanty towns built up by the sides of motorways, to see shops which sell pre-fab sheds and then see the same sheds in the desert with entire families living in them, to hear children exclaim with excitement over such simple things as grass and trees and then ask with disinterest if they will be eating today, as so far they haven't. I saw children whose teeth were no more than shells and a toddler with a paraistic infection who rarely mentioned that his tummy hurt although it was the size of a football. I met a terrified young girl whose father had beaten her because she had her first period (in her innocence she had no idea why, but apparently her teenage sister had had a baby which possibly explains her father's concern although in now way justifies his action). I heard, from a volunteer doctor, of a patient with appendicitis who went home and died because he didn't have the money to pay for the operation, and read in the paper of a man whose body was thrown off the bus and left in the street when he died on his way to the hospital.
Yes, poverty in the developing world is indeed shocking. But what is more shocking is the divide between rich and poor. I saw a school with no toilets (the children go in the playground) and half an hour away another which had facilities that would put a state primary in this country to shame. The wealthy who live alongside poverty often completely ignore it, and one can grow up in Lima and never realise that there are such things as shanty towns (I'm not sure exactly how, but I'm assured by those who did that it is entirely possible).
In Lima, if you meet a child in a shanty town whose hands and face and clothes are dirty you know that it's because when you live in a desert, everything gets dirty very quickly; there is no running water at home, certainly not hot water or washing machines; there probably isn't any soap, because food is the prioity, and very possibly these are the only clothes she has, especially in winter when the humidity seems to make the cold penetrate one's bones and wearing everything you own is a better alternative than freezing. If a boy doesn't (can't or won't) use a knife and fork, it might be because his family don't own any, but it's equally likely that having not eaten all day he just wants to get it down as fast as he can. When you have nothing, staying alive is the priority, cutlery and soap are luxuries. The only answer to this reality is love. Love until it hurts and then love more, because without love the only answer is frustration and anger that there is injustice in the world, and despair at one's helplessness in the face of it.
If you go into a school in an inner city in the UK and see pupils with dirty clothes and hair, it's not because they don't have hot water or washing machines or soap. It's because they are neglected, whether that is because they have a single parent who works all hours to make ends meet or nobody bothers to wash them or their clothes. Some people have hard choices to make, other just choose to make bad ones. If they don't use a knife and fork it's because their family doesn't sit down together and eat meals at the table, or because they always eat processed food which comes in a handy pick-me-up-and-eat-me format. You do not expect "beans on toast" to be the answer to the question, "What did you have for Christmas dinner?" (and he didn't know it was Christmas anyway because his parents hadn't bothered to mention it). There are children with mobile phones but no crayons. What a difference from a child with nothing who on being given a packet of cocoa <i>in July</i> assures you that his family are going to save it for Christmas day.
The divide between rich and poor in this country is not manifested solely in deaths from heart disease. There is a spiritual and cultural "poor gap" which has nothing to do with economics. Poverty is shocking wherever you see it, but somehow it is more shocking here where everyone has access to education, healthcare and doesn't need to make a choice between soap and food, between clothes and beds. The lack of God, the lack of Love, in this green and pleasant land makes us poorer by far. This is the poverty that should not be with us. Everyone has the right to know God, and the riches that come from abundant life, and this is why we need the New Evangelisation.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Who takes responsibility for this guesswork?
Over at the Hermeneutic of Continuity, Fr Tim Finigan mentioned (and I believe I am supposed to touch my forelock to him, but am new at this whole blogging thing so I am prepared to stand corrected) the case of Adrian Smith who was demoted from a managerial position for posting comments on facebook about same-sex marriage taken place in churches. I went and found the article in the Manchester Evening News because surely for such measures to be taken against him, citing gross misconduct, he must have written something actually bigoted (rather than just expressing an opinion, which is what is taken for bigotry these days) or incited people to burn down churches where same-sex marriages are performed or something equally extreme.
In fact, no.
Then I thought that maybe this is part of the recent spate of facebook/twitter crimes, by which an individual writes something more or less offensive (often whilst drunk) and gets sent to jail for it. I heard of a newly qualified teacher who didn't get the job he applied for because the governors saw pictures on facebook of him acting stupidly whilst drunk and decided that he didn't have the necessary character for forming young hearts and minds. People need to realise that twitter is public (and should be avoided when drunk) and that there is nothing private on the internet, including facebook. And, I think, the law needs to take account of modern means of communication which are changing much faster than the law ever can. Did Mr Smith, then, say something which he thought he was just saying to his nearest and dearest but turned out to be public?
In fact, no.
Mr Smith's 'crime' (bearing in mind that he is not being prosecuted, just sanctioned) turns out to be breach of his employer's code of conduct which, according to the MEN, states that employees must not "expressing religious or political views which may upset co-workers".
I think that warrants closer inspection...
Firstly, if you express views which may upset co-workers as long as they're not religious or political then that's fine. So if you were to express "Darcey's earrings are way too big but at least she's a better judge than Arlene was", or "I hope that Saddam rots in hell", "I am saddened and disappointed by the content of JK Rowling's new book. She may not agree but I think as a well known children's author she has a certain responsibilitiy" or even "I can't believe anyone thinks (insert name of celebrity) is good looking. He/she looks like they've been hit by a bus, and is also completely devoid of talent" all those are also fine. However, if you say "I don't see how Nick Clegg in conscience can remain head of the Lib Dems seeing as how he did a U-turn on tuition fees which has always been one of their manifesto promises," or "The government don't have a mandate for same-sex marriage and I can't help thinking that the furore is a cover-up to distract us from the failing economy, much like the issue of the Falklands in Argentina" that is not OK. And secondly, I feel there is a problem with the wording "may upset co-workers". It doesn't matter if no-one is actually upset by your religious or political views, just as long as they might be. But in this case, who decides? We're back to people being told that they can't wear a cross because someone "might" be offended. If no-one is offended, what is the basis for thinking they might be. And is there a difference if I say "I think abortion is wrong" and am a Catholic or if I say it and am an atheist. The statement equally "might" offend someone who has had an abortion but only in one case could it be argued to be a religious view.
It would seem that Adrian Smith has made two mistakes. Firstly, signing up to work for a company with such a ridiculous code of conduct and secondly using facebook whilst Christian.
In fact, no.
Then I thought that maybe this is part of the recent spate of facebook/twitter crimes, by which an individual writes something more or less offensive (often whilst drunk) and gets sent to jail for it. I heard of a newly qualified teacher who didn't get the job he applied for because the governors saw pictures on facebook of him acting stupidly whilst drunk and decided that he didn't have the necessary character for forming young hearts and minds. People need to realise that twitter is public (and should be avoided when drunk) and that there is nothing private on the internet, including facebook. And, I think, the law needs to take account of modern means of communication which are changing much faster than the law ever can. Did Mr Smith, then, say something which he thought he was just saying to his nearest and dearest but turned out to be public?
In fact, no.
Mr Smith's 'crime' (bearing in mind that he is not being prosecuted, just sanctioned) turns out to be breach of his employer's code of conduct which, according to the MEN, states that employees must not "expressing religious or political views which may upset co-workers".
I think that warrants closer inspection...
Firstly, if you express views which may upset co-workers as long as they're not religious or political then that's fine. So if you were to express "Darcey's earrings are way too big but at least she's a better judge than Arlene was", or "I hope that Saddam rots in hell", "I am saddened and disappointed by the content of JK Rowling's new book. She may not agree but I think as a well known children's author she has a certain responsibilitiy" or even "I can't believe anyone thinks (insert name of celebrity) is good looking. He/she looks like they've been hit by a bus, and is also completely devoid of talent" all those are also fine. However, if you say "I don't see how Nick Clegg in conscience can remain head of the Lib Dems seeing as how he did a U-turn on tuition fees which has always been one of their manifesto promises," or "The government don't have a mandate for same-sex marriage and I can't help thinking that the furore is a cover-up to distract us from the failing economy, much like the issue of the Falklands in Argentina" that is not OK. And secondly, I feel there is a problem with the wording "may upset co-workers". It doesn't matter if no-one is actually upset by your religious or political views, just as long as they might be. But in this case, who decides? We're back to people being told that they can't wear a cross because someone "might" be offended. If no-one is offended, what is the basis for thinking they might be. And is there a difference if I say "I think abortion is wrong" and am a Catholic or if I say it and am an atheist. The statement equally "might" offend someone who has had an abortion but only in one case could it be argued to be a religious view.
It would seem that Adrian Smith has made two mistakes. Firstly, signing up to work for a company with such a ridiculous code of conduct and secondly using facebook whilst Christian.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
A lack of logic is a dangerous thing
One of my cousins sent me a link the other day to a video of a guy defending same-sex marriage. He was calm, eloquent and believed in his cause. And dangerously convincing. No doubt using words like "dangerously convinving" make me a homophobic bigot, but what I'm actually talking about is logic, or a total lack thereof.
The problem is this: no-one is taught logic anymore and therefore very few people can recognise when the flaws in an opponent's argument have nothing to do with the point at stake. These days, hardly anyone bothers to put together an argument which has any more content than maligning the opposition. This guy talks about logic, talks as if he's being logical, attacks "so-called homophobic logic" and you have to really pay attention to see where his logic totally falls apart and reveals itself to be a big pile of...fallacies.
When I clicked on this link, the first thing that happened was that I was asked to respond to the following statement: "I believe that everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation". There is a long-standing, regularly exploited ambiguity of the words equal and same. For example, I believe that men and women were created equal in dignity, but men and women are obviously not the same, whether on a biological, psychological or spiritual level we are clearly different. But when people start talking about gender equality they usually mean that everyone is the same. But "treating people equally" doesn't mean "treating everyone the same" and everyone being equal and treating everyone equally and treating everyone the same are three different things. If they were the same, then I should give money to everyone who asks me for it, whether they need the money for medicines or illegal drugs. I should carry out brain surgery on two people who have fallen down some stairs and injured their head even though one of them is a 92 year-old whose blood pressure medication made her dizzy and the other is 20 and was drunk. Equality comes in ensuring that both get the treatment with the best risk-benefit ratio, giving them the best prospect of recovery. How that is decided, and who decides it, is another issue. As for sexual orientation, everyone is called to live chastity, and for the record that is not something which is lived on a purely physical level. If I don't have a boyfriend, but have sexual fantasies about a good-looking guy I saw on the bus, am I chaste? If I am married and do the same, am I chaste? No: "sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" (CCC 2351) whether in the mind, the heart or the act.
Returning to the website, I might easily agree with the equality statement, but then I could well be left questioning myself over why, in that case, I don't agree with same-sex marriage (it being obviously discrimination, myself an unknowing homophobic bigot). I might even end up deciding that as I'm not a bigot and I am in favour of equality I therefore had better start supporting same-sex marriage because it's totally in line with my priniciples. You see...dangerous, and the guy hasn't even started talking yet.
The problem is this: no-one is taught logic anymore and therefore very few people can recognise when the flaws in an opponent's argument have nothing to do with the point at stake. These days, hardly anyone bothers to put together an argument which has any more content than maligning the opposition. This guy talks about logic, talks as if he's being logical, attacks "so-called homophobic logic" and you have to really pay attention to see where his logic totally falls apart and reveals itself to be a big pile of...fallacies.
When I clicked on this link, the first thing that happened was that I was asked to respond to the following statement: "I believe that everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation". There is a long-standing, regularly exploited ambiguity of the words equal and same. For example, I believe that men and women were created equal in dignity, but men and women are obviously not the same, whether on a biological, psychological or spiritual level we are clearly different. But when people start talking about gender equality they usually mean that everyone is the same. But "treating people equally" doesn't mean "treating everyone the same" and everyone being equal and treating everyone equally and treating everyone the same are three different things. If they were the same, then I should give money to everyone who asks me for it, whether they need the money for medicines or illegal drugs. I should carry out brain surgery on two people who have fallen down some stairs and injured their head even though one of them is a 92 year-old whose blood pressure medication made her dizzy and the other is 20 and was drunk. Equality comes in ensuring that both get the treatment with the best risk-benefit ratio, giving them the best prospect of recovery. How that is decided, and who decides it, is another issue. As for sexual orientation, everyone is called to live chastity, and for the record that is not something which is lived on a purely physical level. If I don't have a boyfriend, but have sexual fantasies about a good-looking guy I saw on the bus, am I chaste? If I am married and do the same, am I chaste? No: "sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" (CCC 2351) whether in the mind, the heart or the act.
Returning to the website, I might easily agree with the equality statement, but then I could well be left questioning myself over why, in that case, I don't agree with same-sex marriage (it being obviously discrimination, myself an unknowing homophobic bigot). I might even end up deciding that as I'm not a bigot and I am in favour of equality I therefore had better start supporting same-sex marriage because it's totally in line with my priniciples. You see...dangerous, and the guy hasn't even started talking yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)