One step forward

for women in the Church of England. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

And another thing

Mildly encouraged by the bill going forward in parliament next year – although I expect that we’ll see more belligerent statements from church leaders and the anti-abortion crew before then (who I refuse to call pro-life because, let’s face it, life seems to be the least of their concerns).

The idea that women will no longer need two doctors to sign off on abortions is very welcome and should have the knock-on effect that more women will manage to fall under the 12 week mark. Similarly that some of these early terminations could be finished in the woman’s own home, thus easing the burden on hospitals and making the whole thing less traumatic for the individual.

However, not so encouraged by Rowan Williams’ rant against women who have abortions, all of whom apparently see the whole thing as part of everyday contraceptive plans. Yeah, you know what Rowan? Noticed that myself. My friends and I *always* talk about how our contraceptive plans consist solely of abortions. In fact, we spend so much time having them, we barely have time to conceive.

These comments always seem so patronising because they assume that women are stupid. The abortion rate has gone up, not because more women are exercising their right to decide what happens to their own body and taking action earlier and earlier in the process, but because we all can’t work out how to use condoms, oral contraceptives and so forth. The fact that the NHS is getting better at informing women of their choices means nothing.

Rather than penalising women who want to get abortions and representing them as misinformed, why not campaign to increase education on contraception in schools? A friend of mine who has just started university rang me up to ask how one went about getting the contraceptive pill and how much it cost. Thank goodness she had someone to ask! Can you imagine how many young women out there just don’t know and are too embarrassed to bring it up? Then again, according to the church we really can’t do that, because that would be promoting sex.

So, let’s just hate women and blame them for being uninformed and refuse to tell them anything useful. That sounds rational. Well done!

Quick Post...

The chastity-ring-case has been lost (hurrah!). I previously posted about this and have to say the comments of the young woman in question have backed up my thoughts. If she really *is* as worried about sexual health and STIs as she claims, why didn't she spend the time campaigning for better and more comprehensive sex education? Focus on the oppression of Christians seems a little off-bat.

Ring of Fire

My first reaction to the recent news story regarding the “silver ring thing” (www.silverringthing.com) and whether the wearing of such a ring should be banned from schools, was: Yes, it bloody well should be banned. I suppose my main reasons for thinking this would be:
a) What does a *ring* have to do with being chaste? Surely, chastity is one of those decisions that you make and decide to keep – the presence of a piece of jewellery is not going to be a huge factor as to whether this is going to work.
b) Perhaps the ring is a symbol of how chaste you are and maybe, in times of real temptation, the sight of it will keep you strong. IME, there is not really much temptation at school. Or, more importantly, the opportunity to carry that temptation through. By all means, put it on when you get the school bus home, but frankly, if you need it at school, you have some deeper issues that ought to be confronted first.
c) Having (fairly recently, although it is receding into the distance) been a teenager at a mediocre state comp, I can safely assure you that allowing one sort of ring is going to be a slippery slope. Remembering accidents that were downright gory (although entertaining back then because we were sadistic), rings are just not a good idea.
d) I’m not religious and even if I was, I wouldn’t like the idea of chastity. By all means, young women and men should be encouraged to have sex with people they really like and there is nothing wrong with wanting it to be special. However, too often, chastity is used as an excuse to debase women and to discourage a comprehensive (and important) sexual education.
e) Not only am I not religious but (ashamedly I have to admit) religious motivation has me stumped. I just don’t get it. As I have been told in the past, I am spiritually impoverished. On the plus side, it makes things like this gloriously straight-forward.
I have to admit, I thought that this point of view would be shared by my nearest and dearest, so that we could pour scorn on the whole procedure together. However, it was not to be. He thought it should be allowed as a religious symbol (apparently that kind of thing is to some Christian Evangelists) and that, on the whole, schools shouldn’t be allowed to dictate about jewellery. He amended this point to allowing “one ring per pupil”.

We have hit an impasse – he becoming more libertarian and I, more stridently authoritarian (I can’t help it, it’s my aspirational lower-middle class background) as I embrace republicanism – of the political theory kind, not, god forbid, the American sort. He’s wrong, but I’m inclined to be nice about it…