being ourselves

It is probably lazy of me to do this two days in a row, but I must say that t,his is probably the most inspiring bits of writing I’ve read in quite some times. It’s written by Clair Lewis, probably one of the leading lights of the disability rights movement. She writes how it takes courage to ‘be our best selves’, and not to bow to social pressures and simply be good little cripples. As I’ve written before, part of the reason why I love Lyn so much is because she has done just that: she had the courage to become the person she believes herself to be, not for any quazi-political reason, but because she refused to let social pressures get in her way. Lyn’s might be an extreme example, but to a lesser extent most disabled people feel a certain amount of pressure to conform to what society expects of us – to be meek and mild crips grateful for being allowed to live at all. We must overcome this feeling; we must stick up for ourselves, and show our true colours. Only then can equality be attained.

Biodiverse Resistance

I have been reading steve graby’s site throughout today. I met steve a month or two ago, but have only just started reading his blog. While I disagree with some of what he writes – he can be too radical sometimes – most of what he writes is fascinating. His stuff on gender in particular made me think, and I like the notion of being nongendered or gender-neutral particularly interesting. This is not the same as actively crossing gender boundaries, but simply not associating with either gender, in a way approaching my stance on gender from the other end. While I like to negate the gender binary by crossing male/female lines (dressing up as a woman) he negates it simply by not recognising it. Anyway go here.

conservatism lacks the ability to perceive it’s own contradictions

I caught dave CaMoron on the Andrew Marr Show earlier. Truth is, he doesn’t seem such a bad fellow – a nice approachable family man who used to play footie with chris evans. I also like the fact that he supports both the BBC and NHS, the two finest institutions of their kind in the world. Yet what I find unpalatable about the conservatives these days is that underneath the charm and spin lie the same old rigid values that have always been the hallmark of conservatism. On Friday I explored how liberalism is, from certain points of view, inherently contradictory: if you take it too far it actually becomes illiberal and intolerant. However, I didn’t mean this as a criticism of the philosophy: bearing such things in mind is an integral part of liberalism itself.

I think this is where it contrasts with conservatism as I perceive it. Whereas liberalism has the ability to perceive it’s own contradictions, conservatism is too rigid and dogmatic, especially in it’s American form. To conservatives, concepts like right and wrong are absolutes rather than subjective constructs. Hence we hear CaMoron talking about things like the family and austerity – his own pre-conceived ideals. Tories hold such things to be good, when in fact A) they are idealistic constructs and

B) there are many good examples of such things being repressive or destructive. The problem is, conservatism, unlike liberalism, cannot acknowledge the fact that it can be wrong.

at the risk of repeating myself

I have been thinking a lot recently about liberalism, and what it means to be liberal. To me it means having an open mind, and being tolerant of different people and lifestyles. I like to think of myself as a rather liberal, open minded person – I think that, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, physically or otherwise, people should be allowed to do as they please. This, of course, stems from my belief that there is no such thing as ‘normal’, so any lifestyle is just as valid as any other.

This, on the face of it, seems a pretty simple philosophy. Yet, if you think aabout it, there are a few little inconsistencies and contradictions. How far can you take it? What, exactly, is harm? On YouTube one can find videos of all kinds of people: for instance, that’s where I found out about Jazz, a 7 year old girl who was born a boy, or Kim Petras, the worlds youngest post-operative transsexual. I view such phenomena in a positive light: although others may have reservations about such cases, transitioning between the genders has obviously made these young people happier, so I think it cool that they have been allowed to become the people they want to be. Needless to say, the same applies to my girlfriend. If living as the opposite gender, or in whatever lifestyle you want, makes you happy, then I say go for it.

But on the other hand, YouTube also has video clips of a girl who weighs 400 pounds, or rather used to before her diet. I must admit I feel pretty sickened at the fact that this girl was allowed to get so obese. One must ask yourself, however, what is the difference? Why is one behaviour okay, and another not? The girl in question claims she was addicted to food, implying that she was not in full control of her eating just as Jazz and Miss Petras did not decide to be transgender. Further, she obviously found happiness in eating, just as kim, jazz and Lyn find happiness in being who they are. Why is one behaviour right and another wrong? Of course, being so fat was causing her real problems: she was unable to walk due to her weight, and her heart was under aa great deal of strain. But one could also say there are substantial medical and social risks in transitioning too; and one can also point out, as a disabled person, that the ability to walk is not as great a thing as others might want one to believe. So why is one behaviour (at least nominally) condoned by society, but another condemned?

Those were, admittedly, two rather obscure examples, but my point is that there are contradictions which those that call themselves liberal must contend with. I’ve been thinking about islam recently, and indeed faith in general. I like to think that the UK is a pretty tolerant place where people from all over the world can come and find a safe haven. I don’t care what god you worship, or how you worship it. Yet what if a central principal of that worship actually contradicts that principal of tolerance? On YouTube (yes yes, I get most of my knowledge from YouTube these days) there are videos of people who apparently want to impose sharia law in the UK, or at least have areas where sharia law is enforced. As I understand it, sharia law is pretty intolerant; it demands women wear the hijab, and involves brutal punishments, or at least punishments we would find brutal. It seems incompatible with western liberal democracy.* as a tranny, I think people should be allowed to dress as they please; I also suspect that most of the women I know would fiercely object to having to wear a veil. Moreover, sharia in it’s strictest form involves capital punishment, which I find utterly repugnant. Thus there is a conflict between respecting the right to worship and the need to ensure everyone is held to the same laws. I should add too that this issue is not localised to islam – in some areas, for example, orthodox jewish law prevails. To me, it makes no sense to have one set of rules for one set of people, and another for another; surely if everyone is equal, they everyone should be held to the same laws. Similarly, why should one issue be dealt with one way and accomodated, and another be condemned by society?

This is further complicated by my atheism. I do not believe in any god or gods, just in the evidence I am presented with. Part of me feels that religion is just another divisive factor and so should be done away with. The same principals which brought me to liberalism – those of equality, justice, and evidence-based judgements lead me to believe society should be secular. If there is no consensus of faith, then the government should be faithless; but this would lead us to a Dawkinsian stance of assuming religion is bad and wanting to do away with it, which strikes me as rather illiberal. Thus we have a paradox – in order to respect everyone’s faith, we should assume no faith is correct, but then what’s the point of faith?

These contradictions trouble me; they puzzle me. The very principles which bring me to liberalism show me its shortcomings. Yet this does not mean liberalism is wrong: on the contrary: Liberalism also means being forever mindful that nothing is ever black and white.

*however, some scholars have argued that English common law was originally inspired by Islamic law. ”It has been suggested by several scholars such as Professor John Makdisi, Jamila Hussain and Lawrence Rosen[23] that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily (see Arab-Norman culture), and ”through the close connection between the Norman kingdoms of Roger II in

Sicily – ruling over a conquered Islamic administration – and Henry II in England”.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#English_common_law)

snow

It snowed heavily last night, and I take it as a sign of old age that I am not overjoyed. In fact, it’s rather depressing. I need to get over to Crewe station to get my train ticket for London, but for the last two or three days that hasn’t been possible due to the snow. Of course, there was a time when I thought snow was wonderful stuff it meant days off school and snowball matches with my brothers. I remember trying to walk in it, half petrified of falling over, half eager to hit mark or Luke with a snowball. Indeed, Lyn has promised me a snowball match, and I’m more than willing to accept her challenge, yet I just whish some of it would clear so I can get to her. Until then, snow is just a damn nuisance.

the next episode

This entry is a test to see if I can blog from this computer. I swapped machines over the weekend; my old computer – a trusty old warhorse I’ve been using since I started university – is now packed and ready to be taken to lyn’s. I should, with any luck, be blogging from there soon.

Looking back through the archive, it’s interesting to see how things have progressed, and how my attitudes have changed. For instance, I used to be pro-special schools, then, after meeting Becca and Katie, dead set against them. Now I feel I take a more cautious stance, as idealism must give way to pragmatism.

I’ve also tried to record the important things in my life – important events and happenings. Dad says this makes my site seem more of a diary than a blog. But I’d maintain that it’s important to present people with who I am; to show the world that a guy with c.p can be as active as anyone else, as foolish, as prone to boredom, or as selfish. I’ve just tried to bee honest, and to show the world who I am.

Well, when we manage to get a ticket, I’ll be off down to lyn’s, and the next chapter in my life will begin. I look forward to letting the world know how I’m getting on.

the first blog entry of a new decade

The decade turned rather dully for me I’m afraid. In the end I had to stay at my parents’, rather than going to Lyn’s for new year, and my parents don’t seem to celebrate new year. They were in bed before 12. oh well. Nevertheless, I’m excited at the prospect of the new year. What might 2010 bring? I start my trial period living with Lyn very soon – I’ve already started packing. When I’m there I hope to get a job. It seems I might finally be growing up.

Something tells me it’ll be a hell of a year. I can’t wait. Anyway happy new year everybody!