"We need to show our commitment to equality with policies on women and the family that reflect modern life. By promoting women’s genuine equality and putting the family at the heart of Government thinking, we will move the locus of political debate on to the things that really matter; tackling the gap between rich and poor and working towards genuine equality of opportunity, helping families live the lives they want."
Harriet Harman is committed to women's rights and family welfare. She's tenacious - her political career has suffered setbacks, but she's carried on trucking as a backbencher - she's bright and articulate - she put the other candidates to shame on Newsnight - and she's topping two seperate YouGov polls as both the most trusted candidate and the voter's choice win the deputy leadership contest. She's earned countless nominations from CLP's around the country - could she be the thinking woman's choice for Britain's next Deputy PM?
Hell, yeah.
To quote from her campaign material:
Throughout her career Harriet has campaigned for equality and social justice. During this campaign she has focused on the issues that matter to party members; affordable homes – tackling the housing divide, youth services in every neighbourhood, improving older people’s care, cheap, clean, public transport, equal treatment for agency and directly-employed workers and inequality – tackling the rich/poor divide.
So if you're a Labour Party member and you've just received a ballot through the post, give her your vote. She won't waste it.
(for reference, I made a more indepth post about women in politics
back in January)
Labels: politics
Harman for Deputy!
"We need to show our commitment to equality with policies on women and the family that reflect modern life. By promoting women’s genuine equality and putting the family at the heart of Government thinking, we will move the locus of political debate on to the things that really matter; tackling the gap between rich and poor and working towards genuine equality of opportunity, helping families live the lives they want."
Hustings for the next Deputy Leader of the Labour Party are well underway. Today's
Guardian has
a good feature on the candidates, and Polly Toynbee makes a persuasive argument to Vote Harriet.
Harriet Harman is committed to women's rights and family welfare. She's tenacious - her political career has suffered setbacks, but she's carried on trucking as a backbencher - she's bright and articulate - she put the other candidates to shame on Newsnight - and she's topping two seperate YouGov polls as both the most trusted candidate and the voter's choice win the deputy leadership contest. She's earned countless nominations from CLP's around the country - could she be the thinking woman's choice for Britain's next Deputy PM?
Hell, yeah.
To quote from her campaign material:
Throughout her career Harriet has campaigned for equality and social justice. During this campaign she has focused on the issues that matter to party members; affordable homes – tackling the housing divide, youth services in every neighbourhood, improving older people’s care, cheap, clean, public transport, equal treatment for agency and directly-employed workers and inequality – tackling the rich/poor divide.
So if you're a Labour Party member and you've just received a ballot through the post, give her your vote. She won't waste it.
(for reference, I made a more indepth post about women in politics
back in January)
Labels: politics
The Evidence of Things Not Seen (or, Why We Are All Teapot Atheists)
This isn't my usual feminist slant, but I felt it was a weighty enough rant that it warranted inclusion here.
It's a really badly made documentary. I mean, it's awful. It's Dawkins trying to distill every single one of his books into 98 minutes, and the programme-makers trying to be 'arty'. And it suffers from the Michael Moore problem of using the same tools of debate as the people you're criticising - Dawkins says he's right, everyone else is wrong, but he doesn't say why he's right. It's not a flaw I've seen in his books - I've only read Climbing Mount Improbable, The God Delusion and bits of The Blind Watchmaker - and he does set out his arguments clearly, concisely and persuasively. The God Delusion hemmered the final nail into the coffin regarding any latent Paganism I had left, and I feel a lot happier for it.
He suffers from the problem that you can't prove that something doesn't exist, but he handles it wittily - he uses Russell's argument that one could believe in a teapot orbiting the sun with about as much proof as there is of existence of God, but that no-one does - we are all 'teapot atheists', and I really need to get that on a badge.
I've heard the argument that, because there are passages in the Koran (which I haven't read, although I might look up Lola's copy) inciting people to violence, that it's a pretty shoddy text to base a religion on. I have the exact same problem with Christianity - note I'm saying Christianity, not Christians - because the Bible has some horrific parts, and not just in the Old Testament. Out of curiosity, how do those of you who identify as both Christian and liberal reconcile that? Dawkins uses the argument that if you're religious you're betraying common sense, and if you're religious and progressive you're betraying common sense and religion, but I think that's overly simplistic.
I'm not arguing that religion should disappear from society - although I wouldn't shed a tear were that to happen - but I don't want it interfering with public policy, certainly not to the degree it does today. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the Government subsidising religious activities, and I'm firmly against faith schools. I was educated at a convent school and whilst I didn't have any terrible experiences, the Catholic aspect just got in the way of everything else. I think faith schools should be banned, I don't think any rational society has a place for them, not because I hate religion but because I find them indoctrinating and divisive at a time where we positively cannot afford to become entrenched in our sociocultural differences.
In yesterday's article, Hobson argued that "atheism is muddled because it cannot decide on what grounds it ultimately objects to religion. Does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged falsity? Or does it oppose it on the grounds of its alleged harmfulness?" He misses the fact, just as there are various factions of believers, people have different degrees of and reasons for their atheism. He also argues that the general view is atheists = good, religious people = bad. Even Dawkins doesn't go that far.
And it's not militant atheism, it's just atheism. 'Secular fundamentalism' is a cute little buzzword that defends religion to liberals - everyone hates fundamentalists, right? But Dawkins et al are no more vocal about the lack of a god than any religious person is about the existence of one. And As Dawkins says, without the ability do disprove the existence of a supernatural entity, we are atheists in theory but agnostics in practice. It certainly isn't a religion. Hebrews 11.1 (and The West Wing) tell us that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and I don't think that can be applied to atheism which at least points out the irrationality of religious belief with examples.
Disliking religion does not mean I dislike religious people, and I think that's where Dawkins runs into problems. He's stated in interviews that he has religious friends, some of whom are Anglican priests. If you write something that takes a point of view and argue that it is implausible or wrong, people who hold that worldview will get offended. It's par for the course, it doesn't mean he or any other atheist believes that religious people are somehow stupid or inferior, they're just wrong.
After all, any ideology is based in the belief that this ideology is right and others are wrong. But in order to sustain that argument, surely one requires readily available evidence to support it? Religion lacks that, so it co-opts the better parts of humanity and claims them for its own. A world without religion would not be more materialistic, more 'immoral', crueller. For one thing, there are biological imperatives that drive us to act in an altruistic manner; for another, there have been enough terrible things done by religious people as there have been good, and enough decent things done by non-believers, to convince me that religion does not have a monopoly on ethics, morality, or caring.
Labels: atheism
