Why I hate Sarah Palin SO MUCH. SO, SO MUCH.

I can't stand it any longer. I've spent the last week or so growing more and more angry with Sarah Palin.

I started out thinking that she was a bad choice because she is inexperienced. And that I disagreed with her Pro-life stance. Her particularly hard-line pro-life stance that says no abortions even for victims of rape or incest. She also managed to lie in her first speech to the American public. I thought it was patronising to assume that she'd win disgruntled Clinton voters - she'd publicly criticised Hillary for "whining" about complaints of sexism and, also - had I mentioned her pro-life stance? I disliked the fact that when McCain listed her accomplishments, he listed "wife" as the first one. I also disliked it when he called her his "soul mate". And then the revelations - what did the vetting process actually consist of? Google is not difficult to use. At all.

But now, now it feels personal. I hate her. I can't help it. I just cant stand her. Here are a few choice reasons why:

3) She's a swaggering bully. To hide the fact that she has no experience herself, she launches spiteful verbal attacks on others. One could argue that this is the point of elections. I don't think so. She's exactly like some of the individuals I went to school with. Individuals who attack people with worth and talent because they have none of their own.

2) She's racist. That hideous mocking of Obama for being a "community organiser". We all know she means that he's black leader. And actually wants to make a difference. There are other comments too - that are in fact too awful to repeat. She's such a fucking racist that it makes my teeth hurt to think about it. The more she can say those things and have people applaud her, the more those opinions can be repeated loudly in wider society.

1) She hates women. That must be the case. Otherwise, why would she repeat the pitbull joke? Or marry her pregnant teenage daughter to the apparent neanderthal that impregnated her? Or - and this is the most horrible thing I have ever heard - WHY WOULD SHE HAVE SUPPORTED MAKING RAPE VICTIMS PAY FOR THEIR OWN RAPE KITS.

So, for all these reasons, and for all the other reasons that have made my pulse race in anger, I say FUCK YOU, SARAH PALIN. This is not a sexist opinion, nor is it me being a whiny democrat. This is because you're claiming to be achieving something for women when all you're doing is spreading hate and ignorance. This is because I am so disgusted by your behaviour, and the behaviour of your supporters, that it almost makes me want to cry.

Relapse

I shall break my (unofficial) hiatus to say: the world is a terrifying place. Really. Perhaps my unusual interest in the olympics is an attempt to ignore this. Or a result of my work-related exhaustion. Either way.

Guess we're all just waiting to see what happens next...

Pig in the City

Or, rather me in the City. I have decided that, despite early starts/late finishes, I've decided I quite like it there. Its the architecture - where else in the city are so many big, tall, glass/metal structures next to ancient churches? Today, I was especially impressed by the inside-out LLoyds building. Unbelievably awesome. The fact that everyone is rushing around is fine, as I don't like slow-walking people. Begone, meandering fools!

So - no real thoughts. What with the beginning of the New Job and the commencement of the Mega-Daily-Commute, I haven't had much room for thinking. A lame excuse.

One thing I have noticed is the way Nintendo are trying to takeover the world via the Nintendo DS. Not content with testing the intellect, they released the tell-you-what-to-cook game (what? I totally don't get what the point of that is) and now - the "health coach". A computer program to tell you what to eat, when and - as far as I can tell from the TV advert - make women feel bad for disappointing an imaginary health coach. Yeah, great.

Pregnant Pause

I've just watched Juno and although I found it irritating at first, by the end I really liked it. I just wish that they could have treated abortion as a more serious option, rather than a reflexive non-thought. Also, maybe that pregnancy actually tends to involve some sort of hormonal attachment to the would-be-child (although this may not happen to everyone, I assume it happens in the majority of cases) that could make the choice to give up the child for adoption less clear-cut. However, this would make it a completely different film. And I don't think it was handled completely insensitively - Juno's desire to make sure that the home the child went to was perfect seems to embody some of the latter sentiment. As with all these things, it's hard to distinguish between what is an objective reaction and what are my own personal feelings about the subject matter.

Would my parents have reacted so well? Somehow, I doubt it - then again, I could never have gone through the whole adoption process, so my presentation to them might have been different...

The Big Guns

Now for my favourite places to eat outside of Oxford (but close to it...). These are all a bit more expensive but very much worth it.

1) The Goose at Britwell Salome. Recently got its first michelin star (yay!) but happily, the price doesn't seem to have caught up yet. Tastefully decorated gastropub with spectacular food. Sunday is the cheapest day - a good roast, but not much you can do wrong with a roast really. Go on an evening to really get the best out of it. If you have the chance to try the lemon tart for dessert, do not pass it up - it is an almost orgasmic experience. Staff are really friendly and efficient, so no complaints at all.

2) The Old Butchers at Stow-on-the-Wold. Has been a favourite for a few years now and we first went when they were running the Kings Arms pub. Now they have a restaurant but the old regulars still pop in for a drink and a chat. Tasty, varied menu (it changes every day) with a good combination of fish and meat. Laid-back atmosphere - they really enjoy their food and they want you to too. Good on an evening but my favourite time to visit is on a Saturday lunch time for a long, unhurried lunch.

3) The Swan at Tetsworth. The chef used to run the Goose at Britwell Salome before it changed hands (and had a michelin star there himself). Now he runs the restaurant in the back of what is a rather large antiques centre. Eccentrically decorated but in a good way (for example, our table had been an old sewing machine table at one point) with very skillfully cooked food. Portions seem a little small initially, but you do come away full. The only fault would be that the menus don't seem to change that often so you can end up having the same meal twice. Afterwards, you can waddle around the antiques centre until you're ready to drive home...

Hunger Pangs

I thought it might be a good idea to put together a list of my favourite places to eat, in an around Oxford. Given it's quite a touristy city, it's quite likely that a visitor might miss out and end up eating somewhere mediocre (and a lot of Oxford eateries fall into this category...). So here it goes:

1. Best Place to eat Indian: Aziz Pandesia on the Abingdon Road (just past the Head of the River pub). It's the sister restaurant to Aziz on the Cowley Road and set on a great riverfront location. In the summer, you can even eat outside on the floating deck if you're brave enough. The food is great - I'd recommend the restaurant's own special dishes (for example the chicken makeni) which are beautifully flavoured without being overly hot. There are all the traditional dishes as well, for those who like to order the same thing at every restaurant. The only negative would be the service, which can sometimes be a little iffy. However, all that considered, still definitely the best place in Oxford.

2. Best Place to eat Chinese: Shanghai 30's on St. Aldates Street (just down from Christ Church). Fantastic Shanghainese food - especially things like the salt and pepper squid, although they do have a good range of dim sum in both cantonese and shanghainese styles. The service is great and the building is very old (check out the great plaster work on the ceilings), with language tapes playing in the toilets... You might want to book if you're planning to go on a Friday/weekend as it's very popular.

3. Best Place to eat Thai: Bangkok House on Hythe Bridge Street (towards the station - believe me, you can't miss it). Good Thai food, lavishly decorated restaurant. You'll need to book as it's always packed. Otherwise, try Chiang Mai just off High Street. Food is also great (and they do some good lunch time deals) and it's in a tastefully decorated Tudor building. A little more expensive though.

4. Best Place to eat on the go: The Mission, just off Carfax. Take-away Burritos, based on the wonderful Chipotle (yes, I'm sure there are more authentic burrito places in the US, but here in the UK we are very much deprived). It only opened this year and so far, seems to have been surprised by its own success. The food is tasty, service quick and the price is very reasonable. Go fairly early in term time, as it's usually full of students.

5. Best Place to go for a pint: The White Horse, Broad Street. A tiny pub squeezed underneath Blackwells bookshop. Good selection of ales and generally less full of pretentious students/tourists than the usual favourite, the Turf.

6. Best Place to go for a nice meal: The White Hart at Wytham. Just out of town in a tiny, picturesque village. A gastro-pub serving well thought-out food for fairly reasonable prices. More expensive than some places in Oxford, but so much nicer than its equivalents (e.g. Quod or the Lemon Tree). Nicely decorated and a good atmosphere - best to phone and book rather than turn up and be disappointed, especially if you have a large party (i.e. more than two of you!).

There are more, but that will do for now...

Serious Stuff

There are quite a few articles on the BBC website at the moment calling for specialised police squads to deal with rape cases (and one on how damaging it can be when these cases are mishandled).

I don't have much to say about this - obviously, I think anything that means the police treat rape seriously is a good idea - but on the otherhand, I'm just too cynical now. Even if the police do everything right, unless the judge and jury also take rape cases seriously, things are not going to improve. Wider societal change is needed to ensure that the latter parties take things seriously and narrow organisational changes can never be more than a quick fix. This is not to say that we should therefore not carry out those changes, but that this should be acknowledged alongside it.

I think the way I feel about this reflects the ambivalence I feel in relation to reporting rape to the police. If my daughter was raped, would I encourage her to report it? Yes - I would encourage her to do so, mainly because it's de facto the right thing to do (despite not having done this myself) and because rape conviction rates aren't going to get better if people don't report rape. However, I think I would have reservations that it would be the right thing to do in terms of helping her - a mistrial or a not-guilty verdict would arguably create more damage. I recognise that this is not an helpful attitude to take, but it's hard not to react to how things are rather than how things ought to be.

One step forward

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

The Travelling Circus

I am currently celebrating the brief interlude of nothingness before I start The New Job next week by spending a week with various different family members. All very nice. Apart from the rain, but I can't really complain about that - so far it's allowed me to crochet a shawl and two hats (I'm onto winter clothing now - it might be July but you just never know when the cold might hit...). I'm quite tempted to start a third hat, but feel I probably ought to learn some different stitches first - there are only so many tea-cosyesque hats a woman and her SO need. I quite fancy doing some crazy shell-like lacy stitching but it might be too mentally taxing to work out how to do that in the round (I'm supposed to be on holiday, after all - plenty of time for thinking next week).

Other than that, I've been enjoying the culinary delight that is thai curry with deep fried haddock - perhaps the finest dish ever invented, although I grant you it does sound weird. I've also been living the cafe lifestyle with a delicious brunch last weekend. Later this week, we're off here, which is a fantastic gastro-pub and well worth the visit if you're in the area.

So, besides crocheting a multitude of hats and growing to the size of a weather balloon, not much going on. We're hoping the rain might ease long enough for us to get out and walk some of it off this afternoon...

Denial, denial, denial

Article in the Guardian today by Julie Bindel - quite good (don't always agree word-for-word with Julie but I think she has a point) and worth reading.

I think it is true that more men than one would automatically think are perpetuating violence against women. I don't mean that they are waking up each morning with this aim in the forefront of their minds, but they are certainly doing it. I don't think the man who raped me considered himself as a man who would commit violence against women, but the fact is that he *did*. He didn't think of himself as a rapist but he did commit rape.

Whenever these articles get written, there is a backlash from indignant men who resent the assertion that more men than admit to it commit violence against women. I think one commenter on this article stated that he didn't like that fact that *all* men had to feel guilty about it - he pointed out that there aren't articles which expect all women to feel guilty about being gold-digging "whores" (nice choice of phrase there). Except that there are, almost weekly, in most mainstream newspapers - often written by women by the way, which makes them true. Of course.

What is it that they can't stomach? That human beings can behave badly? That we should all check our behaviour for things that sanction (either directly or indirectly) this kind of behaviour? Because, you know, if we actually focus on the fact that violence against women is a bad thing (rather than whether X in particular would do it) then we really lose sight of the point...

I think they're scared. I think they're scared to look back and think - well, that was a situation I could have handled differently. Or to look at a court case and think - my God, the fact I think she is to blame for her own rape is irrational. Because if they do that, then that makes them part of that "very small" group of people who perpetuate violence against women. And then they might have to change something about the way they think, behave or respond.

We can all behave badly - women, men - but what we need to do is get beyond the "but I don't do that so I don't need to hear it" mentality and actually think about ways to solve it. Refusing to engage in the process harms everybody - something which the overly defensive ought to think about.

In name only

Recently, it seems like a lot of people that I know are taking the plunge and deciding to get married (which is not surprising I guess, given that I am getting older) and the conversation inevitably turns towards the changing-of-the-name.

Having got engaged myself a few months ago, I've always made it clear that I would not be changing my name. I am myself - that's the way it's going to stay. What's odd though, is how unusual I seem to be in that respect. I'd thought that actually, I'd be in the majority - that most women nowadays wouldn't change their name. Obviously, I was wrong. The reasons for changing their name go like this:

(1) So our whole family has the same name
(2) I'm proud to be Mrs-so-and-so
(3) He was upset when I said I wouldn't change my name
(4) I haven't really thought about it, it's just what people do

I can see that (1) might have held more sway in the past - people I know who have older children with different names have told stories of trying to go to the doctors/school with different names and the fight they had to be recognised. (2) just seems bizarre - marrying someone is hardly an achievement but you know, whatever. Similarly (3) - my response would be "don't marry him then" but it's not as though I'm the most tolerant person around, nor would I marry someone likely to make that argument. (4) is lazy, but doesn't seem any worse than the others for all that. At least it's honest.

Still, there you go. My own mother suspects that I will cave in and change my name, but quite frankly, she's so glad my feminism hasn't turned me into a lesbian that she's not going to complain either way. She also pointed out that it would be quite rude to send post to friends who have changed their name in their maiden name, but given the amount of times I already get called by my partner's name (and we're not anywhere near married), I don't buy this argument. Sod it - as an act of rebellion it's quite lame, but I'm all for fighting false consciousness anyway I can.

So: congratulations guys, but be prepared...

Told you so...

After a few months (well, it's nearly been two) of pointless acts of what can only be random malevolence, we have this

Makes one wonder who exactly Johnson would call a racist.

Perhaps he has some special power that allows him to see deep into the soul of people? Until we all have the special mind-ray, the rest of us will just have to keep making our judgements based on what people actually say.

The downside

of blogging is that there are certain things that one cannot blog about and maintain a sort-of-anonymity.

Sadly, it is precisely one of those unbloggable things that is annoying me right now. It's been a stressful day and this is just. not. helping.

Fucking arse.

Things I now know...

that I didn't before:

1) When you quit your job, people send you nice emails and thus boost your ego. I should resign more often. The CEO has stopped talking to me, but it is debatable as to whether that's a bad thing.

2) World of Warcraft is not just for teenage boys who have no social skills. It's fun and worryingly addictive. Good for rainy weekends when you can't be bothered to do constructive things like paint the bathroom or hoover, bad if you get tempted to log in when working at home. Don't do it.

3) Kidney infections really hurt.

4) I'm easily impressed by bald, scottish, buddhist women who talk about the importance of being myself. I can't tell if this means I'm naive, completely self-absorbed, or both.

5) Changing a tire is not as difficult as it looks, but there is the ever present fear of being smooshed by a lorry going along the A34.

6) Driving on my own is a lot less stressful than driving with the SO in the car. Especially when attempting to reverse out of the tire-garage and some wanker has parked their car across the middle of the forecourt.

7) Working for the Electoral Commission would be rewarding and terrifying. I was speaking to a guy who was in Kenya for the election in December and had a policeman stoned to death beside him. He's holding out for Florida in the US Nov elections, but suspects he'll get somewhere like Nebraska.

Pointless Creativity

Recently I crocheted myself a 1940's style capelet (with some interesting lacy stitches as well - get me). It was technically a waste of time for two reasons:

1) I made it in mohair. I can't wear mohair - it makes me itch. Especially if it's anywhere near my neck.

2) Capelets make me look like an american football player - I have rather broad shoulders. And, more to the point - when would I ever wear a 1940's style capelet?

When it comes to knitting and crocheting (which I have recently taught myself) I've got a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, I really enjoy doing it - I've got fidgety hands so crocheting is perfect - and feel close to my grandmother, who used to always have a knitting project on the go. On the otherhand, how can I justify my hobby to myself in feminist terms? Sometimes I wonder if I'm as bad as the women who buy those make-household-tasks-more-complicated items and flowery garden tools. I guess I try to think that as I don't *need* to crochet capelets, this is okay. No-one expects me to crochet (most people are unflatteringly astonished that I have the coordination to do so) and I'm not made to.

What I'm really trying to say is that I don't have an answer to this question. Or, similarly, to whether it's okay that I've suddenly got the urge to start making chutney and other preserves. Heh. Let's just change the subject...

Older but not wiser...

During our Monday meeting (whilst talking about diversity, of all things) someone remarked positively on Clinton's comment on the cracks in the glass ceiling from her concession speech. Our company directors jumped in eagerly:

A: Yes! Yes, I heard that!! He's such an idiot!

my colleagues and I look at each other in puzzled concern. Surely A is not saying...

B:I know! It'd be better if he'd not said anything at all, through the whole campaign!

horrified enlightenment is dawning...

A:Hah! Apparently it's his medications, you know.

Brave Colleague: erm, we're talking about Senator Clinton. Hillary. She said it.

A:Yes, right. (pauses) We know that.


The meeting ended soon after.

I don't like Mondays...

But before I take my hot, sorry self onto a train to the capital for my disastrous Monday meeting:

(1)Good article about Clinton (probably more to write about this later, but I've probably been writing too much about US politics recently...)

(2)Mmm... bilberries. Ate quite a lot last summer whilst out walking, without really knowing whether they were edible. So tasty. Sell them in the south!

(3)Am I the only one who is quite impressed that the death toll in Afganistan is only 100? Yes, every death is a tragedy, but as this has been going on since 2001 it is a lot less than I was expecting. Go to war - people die. It's just the way it is (which sounds very cavalier, but it's not quite what I'm intending).

(4)I love my new Asus Eee PC 900. It's so lovely. I may even write a review of it on the train - who knows? Admittedly, my intention of working on it this morning was scuppered by the fact that I fell asleep as soon as I sat down - but I will be using it to work. I will.

Moving Forward

Now that Hillary has conceded and pulled out of the race (very graciously and with a commendable strong endorsement of Obama) you'd think it would finally put a stop to all those Clinton supporters who claimed that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama in the general election. A brief moment of insanity, you might think, to illustrate how upset they are that their chosen candidate didn't make it through.

Yeah. You'd think.

Instead, it seems that the insanity is here to stay. There are still plenty of Clinton supporters (I won't say Clintonites because I'd actually question their commitment to Clinton the actual person, given that they are still prepared to disregard her very-clearly-stated wishes) who are even more determined than ever to vote JM rather than BO at the general election. For a full explanation of why (not that much substantive explanation is ever given) – the crazy can be located here. Otherwise, I shall explain “why” given the evidence available.

(1)It seems that a lot of women are upset that their next president will not also be a woman. This seems fairly understandable, given that there has been a tendency amongst american feminists to attack women who decided against voting for Clinton – one could extend that (without too much difficulty) and claim that it was purely misogyny that stopped Clinton from being nominated, thus the other democratic candidate should not be voted for. It's still insane though. The whole idea that Clinton should be voted for because she is a woman and that-is-what-a-feminist would do was completely insane (I articulated this in an earlier post). It wouldn't happen in the UK because (a) we've already had a woman PM and (b) this leads us to think that just having A.Woman in post is not preferable to having the right woman in post. Thus (I hypothesise) feminists in the UK would be more likely to make the claim (as I did) that treating Clinton's policies with the same scrutiny you would for any other candidate and deciding on that basis is actually more respectful and feminist than anything else. As I said before, I'd guess that this is down to differing experiences, so the insanity is relative.

So, we're at the point where a lot of women will not vote for Obama because of perceived misogyny from that campaign (I won't even explore that claim here as this post is already too long). So instead they'll vote for a crazy republican – republican party being the one that wants to erode women's rights. Yeah – makes sense. Get your shit together, ladies.

(2)There are a lot of comments on these pro-clinton vote mccain websites that are along the lines of “Obama will be the worst President ever and is doing horrendous things to the Democratic party” without ever explaining what these horrendous things are or how he would be the worst President. The fact that no-one can articulate what these terrible things actually are leads me to what is really an horrible conclusion: a lot of these people are racist. Not openly, perhaps not even consciously, but I can't see that there's any other conclusion to come to. How else does one explain that voting republican is SO MUCH BETTER than voting for someone your chosen candidate endorses? Is it 'coz he is black? Erm... yes, I suspect it is.

I know that I am/would be biased – I cannot imagine voting Conservative in an UK election because of what the Conservatives stand for, even if the candidate for Labour is not to my own personal taste. If I was in the US, I can imagine that emotions run high during primaries – it was tough (wonderfully so – there was real choice) and there was history to be made every step of the way. But in the end, it was only a primary. The real fight, the important fight, is yet to be had. Whatever differentiated Clinton and Obama, what unites them is a belief in change and that four years of a democrat president would be better than four more years of a republican. Most supporters of Clinton know this and embrace this. To those who don't – really, I think you totally deserve whatever shit you get and you certainly deserve the shit you've received in the last eight years.

Know thyself...

I've been thinking quite a bit about why private sector companies should care (or at least think) about diversity when recruiting. Mostly because this is an argument that I'm having to make a lot recently and I'm not sure I've yet come up with an answer that is completely convincing.

The line that people in the private sector take is that they are, effectively, blind to diversity. They don't care who the candidate is, as long as they are the best candidate for the job. This strikes me as old-fashioned and naive for two reasons.

1)It assumes (rather like basic economic principles) that we live in a completely rational world. Thus, if one could guarantee that the short list of candidates that they have to choose from are indeed the best 3 or 4 candidates for the job (selected without bias from the HR universe, or whatever function is being recruited from) then yes, their attitude would be positive and sensible. I don't think we can safely assume that market forces are completely objective and free from societal prejudice. To pretend that they are, or to act as if they are, is therefore irresponsible.

2)A recruiter to the private sector can repeat this belief, based on the idea that if they themselves are without prejudice, then the list of candidates they present will be The Ideal list of candidates. However, as above, I don't think that anyone can trust themselves to that degree. Although we may try and act as if we are not discriminatory on any grounds, the truth is that most (and I would go further and say *all* of us) do hold some beliefs either subconsciously or consciously, that would bias the selection we make. This doesn't make us bad people - we are bad people if we accept these beliefs without question or if we pretend that we don't hold these beliefs because we do not want to feel uncomfortable.

Given both (1) and (2) I think the private sector would do better to admit that there could be some bias to what is supposedly an objective process and to make sure that this is redressed to some degree by having a system of checks in place. Thus, if a short list of Finance Directors is presented that consists only of white men, I don't think it's at all wrong to question why that is - in fact, I think that's the responsible option. The sooner that this sort of response is made part of the typical recruitment process in the private sector, the sooner they will be approaching the stage where they really are selecting the best candidate. To deny that the private sector has an interest in diversity is completely counter-productive.

Obama!

Come on Hillary, time to back-out gracefully...