platesandelevation

[platesandelevation]

The underrepresentation of women in worldwide politics

From suffragettes to modern day feminists, women have fought long and hard for their right to vote and hold office.

Progress is clear. As of 2015, women in every country in the world have the right to vote; the first nation to grant female suffrage was New Zealand in 1893, and the last country was Saudi Arabia in 2015. Today, several countries are led by women and some countries, such as Finland, also have a cabinet dominated by women. But progress is slow and uneven. Women are still underrepresented in politics, parliaments and public life. Women make up less than 23 percent of parliamentarians, while men make up more than 77 percent, leaving a more than 50 percent gender gap. Attitudes towards female candidates are still largely characterised by deeply ingrained stereotypes, and political opponents will often use those stereotypes to question women’s capabilities.

Women are putting themselves forward for elections more and more, yet their numbers are still far behind those of men. Why is this the case? Even though it is widely accepted that development, peace and prosperity in societies cannot be achieved without half of the world’s population, women continue to be sidelined in decision-making. This is because the stigma against women in politics is still alive and well. They continue to face structural, socioeconomic, institutional and cultural barriers.

Women of colour made historic gains in the 2018 election, but remain far behind white women and certainly behind white men, who dominate politics. In the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK’s legislature, not only are 27 percent of peers women, which is significantly lower than the Commons and up by only one percent since 2018, only two percent of all members of the House of Lords are women of colour. And if that isn’t enough, there are no women of colour in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly. These statistics take a closer look at this gender-imbalanced picture, revealing just how slow progress is. Rooted in patriarchal norms and traditions, the consequences are far-reaching with detrimental, negative consequences on the personal, economic and future well-being of women and girls, their families and the community at large.

Despite increases in the number of women at the highest levels of political power, widespread gender inequalities persist. After last year’s spike of 21.3 per cent of women holding ministerial portfolios, progression has slowed—with just a small increase to 21.9 per cent in 2021. Data also reveals that the number of countries with no women in government has increased, bucking a downward trend seen the last few years. These gross facts are stark reminders of the pervasive and persisting nature of gender inequality. It is essential that this changes because women’s representation is necessary to ensure that democracy functions as effectively as possible.

To quote IPU Secretary General Martin Chungong, This year’s growth in the number of women in political decision-making is just not good enough. Especially when you consider that 70 per cent of health, care, and service workers during this pandemic are women. It’s up to all of us, both men and women, to keep pushing for greater representation of women in politics. We have the tools to make it happen. What we need now is the political will.

[platesandelevation]

Did God rape the Virgin Mary?

You may be taken aback by the title of today’s essay, and I don’t blame you. Religion and criticism of religion can be a tough subject for many to read about and discuss, so I advise you to leave my page now if this topic may upset you or cause you any discomfort.

Whether or not God asked Mary for her consent when impregnating her with Jesus is a query which I have dwelled upon ever since it first came to me while I was debating with my religious studies teacher, over a year ago. Since that day, she has praised me for my impressive argument, and so I decided that I would delve slightly deeper into the theory behind it and compile my research into an essay, which is the one that you are reading in this very moment.

I’m not a religious person myself, nor have I ever read the bible, yet I am familiar with the story of the Annunciation, which talks of the angel Gabriel’s visit to the Virgin Mary, during which he told her that she would be the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This tale is celebrated by Christians on the 25th of March each year, and is called The Feast of the Annunciation. However, I’m going to explain why the impregnation of the Virgin Mary was so problematic and immoral, and why it could be considered rape.

In Luke 1:38, the angel Gabriel declared to Mary that she would conceive a son, and that he would be the son of God. However, nowhere does it mention that she gave God consent to impregnate her. Although some may argue that Mary did in fact give consent, since she responds to Gabriel with “Be it unto me, according to thy word”, suggesting that she approved of God’s plan, the issue that God didn’t ask for her consent in the first place still lies. Yes, this quote is the closest we get to Mary agreeing to have the child, but it wouldn’t have made any difference, since Gabriel's message is not posed a question, but a declaration that the Holy Spirit will come to Mary. Mary responds by referring to herself as God's servant, showing that this is more resignation than consent in the context of the encounter. Furthermore, If God knew her heart and what she’d say, then why couldn’t he simply ask for her consent, rather than telling her what would happen?

I understand that the title of this essay could imply that this was a sexual event, but it very much was not. God sent his spirit into Mary’s womb and there was nothing sexual about it. However, by definition, her impregnation could definitely be considered reproductive coercion, since it is a blatant example of forced pregnancy. Although, people still argue against this point because of God’s omniscience and his knowing that she would be receptive and accepting. They argue that God knew who Jesus’ mother would be since the beginning, yet in Christian theology God created both time and space, but exists outside them, meaning that the Christian God does not know anything ‘in advance’ which is a term applicable only to those who live inside the time–space continuum, for example, humanity. The Christian philosopher Boethius saw this first in the sixth century; theologians know it – but apparently some Christians don’t, and they definitely should.

Two thousand years ago, society was far different than it is today. There are many times in the Bible where a woman laments her curse of infertility, never when a woman complains about too many children. However, although children were always seen as a blessing, this is never an excuse to unlawfully impregnate a woman- or a teenage girl, which was the case with Mary. Times were very different back then, but if the same thing had happened in today’s society, it would be widely considered as something much more serious and, since the Bible is still relevant to this day, shouldn’t we collectively be questioning this situation?

Overall, in my opinion, the answer to this question is yes, God did rape the Virgin Mary, though it wasn’t physical and was more a situation of forced pregnancy, which could be considered a branch of rape. Keeping in mind the fact that I am in no way an expert of religion, there is the possibility that my logic and information is flawed. In which case, do not solely rely on my knowledge to come to a judgement of your own, but do use it to reflect on God’s (possibly) immoral actions: he impregnated Mary when she was 14 years old without asking for her consent, resulting in her conceiving a child which she could neither raise herself nor call her own. Therefore, I keep this question open. I will be sticking to my own opinions until convinced otherwise, and I encourage everyone who reads this to enlighten me with opinions of your own.

[platesandelevation]

The Romanticisation of Lolita

A few years ago, I read the novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, which follows a tale through the eyes of forty year old man Humbert Humbert, and his twelve year old stepdaughter, with whom he becomes sexually obsessed with. Sounds rather grim, right? Well, after researching the book a little further, it didn’t take long for me to come across the disturbing online community dedicated to the romanticisation of Lolita and its downright paedophilic “love story” between the two characters.

The way in which Lolita has been interpreted by readers in the media has had wide-spread effects on women and girls. It’s completely transformed the way in which women and girls are viewed. The main platform where I’ve seen the most twisted perceptions of Lolita’s storyline- is TikTok. I’ve seen some incredible infuriating and naive videos on that app; young girls dressed as Dolores Haze, young girls promoting ‘nymphet’ fashion, young girls trying to excuse Humbert’s actions… noticing a pattern here? The romanticisation of Lolita on platforms popular amongst the younger generation encourages girls to inadvertently make themselves more vulnerable to sexual violence and exploitation, which is further explained in Meenakshi Gigi Durham’s book The Lolita effect: The Media Sexualisation of Young Girls and What We Can Do About it. The ‘Lolita effect’ comes from the negative connotation of the word ‘Lolita’ and is the way in which people sexualise young girls, due to the unpressed desire that society has for them.

Another way in which I have witnessed Lolita being romanticised in the media is through celebrities. This includes famous pop singer Lana Del Rey, who rose to fame for her music in 2011. Lana Del Rey is problematic in many ways, including the message she sends to her audience through some of her most controversial songs, which steep in the themes of Nabokov’s novel. In Born to Die, her 2012 album, she includes multiple references to Lolita, for example, in her song ‘Off to the races’, she steals the opening lines of the novel; “Light of my life. Fire of my loins” and includes the phrase “my old man is a bad man”- which is a direct reference to the book. Furthermore, she even has a song called ‘Lolita’, and another called ‘Carmen’- one of Humbert’s favourite nicknames for Dolores. I am a fan of her work myself and hearing songs such as ‘Carmen’ and ‘This is What Makes Us Girls’, it seems as if she’s aware of the dangers that can come of an underaged girl deciding to be promiscuous and careless. However, songs like ‘Lolita’ and ‘Off to the Races’ send a completely different message, as they seem to imply that she’s almost glorifying these sorts of situations by making young girls who act older than they are seem ‘sweet’ and ‘cute’. Though I understand that Lana Del Rey cannot be held accountable for the behaviour of her fans, what’s dangerous is the fact that her music reaches young girls who may get the wrong idea and think that it’s sexy and mature to pursue an older man. I may be misinterpreting her lyrics, but since she hasn’t addressed the rumours surrounding her songs, I often wonder where her her true intentions lie.

Lana Del Rey isn’t the only celebrity with an absurd fascination for Lolita- famous singer and TikTok star Madison Beer has also faced backlash for openly romanticising the novel. Not only did she state to her instagram followers that it was her favourite book, when asked if she romanticises it, she responded, “I definitely do. But we’re not going to talk about that.” Though there technically isn’t anything wrong with Madison Beer having Lolita as her favourite book, the fact that she has no problem with admitting to condoning and supporting the events of the story is utterly disgusting and cannot be excused. The actions and opinions of these celebrities are extremely dangerous since Madison Beer and Lana Del Rey both have large fan bases and serve as role models to kids and teens in the media, to which they provide unhealthy examples, which could be detrimental to the safety of their younger supporters.

When I read Lolita, my first impressions were simply that it was shocking and immoral. I find it incredibly difficult to understand how people can perceive it any other way. The relationship between Lolita and Humbert was not passionate, nor was their fate tragic. It’s a piece of beautiful, accomplished literature which tells the story of an awful and sickening chain of events. While reading the book, I soon realised that Humbert was not a reliable narrator, since he continuously tricked us into believing that him and Dolores were in love, rather than the reality that their “forbidden relationship” consisted of nothing more than a middle-aged man in a position of power repeatedly taking advantage of a young girl.

It sickens me to see how the media has completely warped Nabokov’s magnum opus from a disturbing psychological thriller into a romantic aesthetic which grooms young girls- which is exactly what the author was trying to criticise. Not to mention, the book was inspired by the true events of Sally Horner’s kidnapping in 1948- a story which has been forgotten, since she died before she even had a chance to tell it herself. A real girl went through such trauma and people still view Lolita as a novel of dark romance, and decide that it’s okay to turn this cautionary tale into one of romanticisation and idealisation. Furthermore, on publication, the novel was temporarily banned across parts of Europe and reviled as “sheer unrestrained pornography” (which I don’t entirely disagree with), although Graham Greene boldly maintained that it was “one of the three best books of 1955”. Nabokov originally intended to publish his novel pseudonymously, because of its subject matter, which further shows the controversy and criticism it should be receiving. The fact that there are so many individuals who sympathise with Humbert is shocking, especially since the book includes a foreword from a fictional psychologist at the very beginning, stating that Humbert’s actions were despicable.

In my opinion, Lolita should never have been turned into a film, since it has played a critical role in inspiring the romanticisation of this twisted tale, and has further contributed to the normalisation of grooming in the media. Both film adaptations completely neglect Humbert’s graphic thoughts of abuse towards Dolores and multiple other girls, therefore further romanticising the story for people who have not read the book. Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 film of Lolita should have never been adapted into a second film. This is because Adrian Lyne’s 1997 film of Lolita becomes a sort of weepy tragedy shot in gauzy, lyrical images, with Humbert as the tragic lead. It’s the story of Lolita, yet it manipulates us into believing Humbert at his word, purely for the purpose of cloaking it in respectability and production values. The selling point of the new Lolita has been its faithfulness to the novel, however, faithfulness is exactly what it seems to lack. Lyne’s film botches the time frame, eliminates some scenes, invents others, puts odd bits and pieces together, and provides vulgar and distasteful attempts at humour.

Overall, I believe that though Lolita is a complicated and emotional story with beautiful writing and a strong message, it shouldn’t be recognised as anything different. Lolita is not an aesthetic, nor is it a love story. Even though so many people sympathise with Humbert, we must never mistake Lolita for being a novel sympathising with him and no matter how charming his character is presented and no matter how far one agrees with this murderers prose, it’s just a facade. Similar to other Nabokov novels, Humbert is an unreliable narrator. What he tells us is his side of the story, a twisted narrative in which Dolores as a character is warped and amplified. He uses her ‘signals’ as a way to twist the story’s events and justify his own actions. Humbert Humbert has always been condemned (though not by everyone), he should be condemned, and the people who are ignorant enough to choose not to condemn him and instead choose to validate and romanticise the rape of a twelve year old girl by putting Humbert on a pedestal are contributing to rape culture, victim-blaming and self-blame for victims.