Pourquoi je CHOISIS de ne pas avoir un petit copain

Below is the translation into French of a post I wrote earlier this year. You can find the original here: 

http://thechannelforchange.blogspot.fr/2015/03/why-i-choose-not-to-have-boyfriend.html

Wô.

C’est peut-être ça que tu as pensé quand tu as vu le titre ci-dessus. Pourquoi est-ce qu’une fille de vingt ans choisirait de ne pas avoir un petit copain à notre époque?

Bon, permets-moi de m’expliquer alors.

Je suppose que c’est ma position comme chrétienne que constitue le fondement de mon point de vue – mais ce n’est pas tout. En tant que chrétienne, je crois que la sexualité est un don précieux préparé d’être partagé entre un homme et une femme mariés. Alors ? Peut-être tu te dis. Avoir un petit copain, ça ne veut pas dire forcément qu’on se couche ensemble. Et ouais, tu as raison. Mais permets-moi de te donner cette image : le sexe comme un cadeau précieux qui a été empaqueté avec le papier cadeau avec soin.

Souviens-toi qu’on t’a offert des cadeaux d’anniversaire ou de Noël et comment tu n’avais pas assez de patience d’attendre pour ouvrir jusqu’au bon moment. Il se peut que tu aies donné un petit coup aux colis avec impatience curieuse et puis enfin tu les as ouverts avant que l’heure soit venue. Comment tu t’es senti en ouvrant le cadeau de Noël une semaine avant Noël ? Merveilleusement bien, j’en suis certaine. Mais je suis aussi assez confiante qu’après que l’enthousiasme du début avait disparu tu te serais senti un peu blasé à propos de tout. Une semaine avant Noël, tu avais peut-être déjà ouvert le meilleur cadeau que tu aurais pu imaginer recevoir. A quoi tu peux t’attendre maintenant ?

Peut-être que tu t’es rendu compte d’où je veux en venir maintenant. Pour moi, de commencer une relation avant que je sois prête pour le mariage est comme guigner ou commencer à ouvrir le cadeau magnifique dedans. C’est sûr, tu peux avoir une relation avec quelqu’un dans laquelle tu ne vas jamais jusqu’au bout, mais tu passes pas mal d’étapes, ou voire (ce qui semble être très souvent le cas) il se peut que tu ailles jusqu’au bout. Des études récentes ont montré que l’adulte moyen a eu vers dix partenaires sexuels avant de s’installer finalement avec « le partenaire de vie ». Le sexe est devenu un plaisir banal que peu de monde voit comme exclusivement dans le havre du mariage. Lorsque le mariage arrive, on a il y a longtemps déchiré le papier cadeau, et il a été utilisé beaucoup de fois. Du coup ce n’est plus spécial. Pas étonnant que le mariage a perdu son appel attrayant pour beaucoup du public ; les choses qui avant le rendait spécial ont été déjà exploré avant que l’heure soit arrivée. Beaucoup de couples de nos jours habitent ensemble avant de se marier. Voici que c’est très courant maintenant pour des enfants d’être présents portant les alliances, et comme demoiselles d’honneur aux noces de leurs parents. Alors le mariage est devenu en quelque sorte seulement un bout de papier aux yeux de beaucoup.

Mais à mes yeux le mariage est sacré. C’est un signe d’engagement pour la vie à une autre personne. Et toutes choses spéciales valent la peine d’attendre.

Combien de fois as-tu regardé une série où le couple finit par avoir une petite querelle – non, même un argument dans lequel ils se trouvent en boudant avec l’autre pour quelques jours – car ils ont croisé en quelque sorte  l’ex de l’autre ? J’imagine que pas mal de celles-çi te sont venues à l’esprit. Il y a des séries ridicules où un d’entre eux finit par dire le prénom de leur moitié à une longue période à un moment vitale de leur relation avec leurs partenaires actuels… Peux-tu imaginer te tenir debout à l’autel et prononcer le nom de ton ex-copain en disant tes voeux ?

Mais sur une note plus sérieuse… Si tu as déjà embrassé des dizaines d’autres hommes, embrassant ton conjoint ne sera pas un moment aussi précieux, n’est-ce pas? Si tu as déjà passé des nuits avec plus de dix autres femmes, caressant leurs cheveux et chuchotant que tu les aimes, lorsque tu fais pareil avec ton épouse est-ce que ce sera autant authentique ?

J’ai eu pas mal de conversations avec mes amies au fil des années sur pourquoi je crois que je suis mieux sans un copain. Et je reçois souvent les mêmes réponses : Mais pourquoi pas juste l’avoir pour s’en amuser ? Elles vont plus loin dans leurs explications: c’est amusant de passer de temps en s’embrassant, ça fait du bien, c’est amusant d’avoir quelqu’un avec qui on peut parler et passer des bons moments. Je ne conteste pas ça. Mais ça sert à quoi de faire toutes ces choses avec quelqu’un que tu sais que tu n’aimes pas et certainement avec qui tu n’imagines pas que tu restes pour toute ta vie? Ça ne devient certainement qu’un plaisir. C’est ça, les rendez-vous galants pour la plupart des gens : c’est juste d’aller d’une fille ou d’un gars au prochain et de s’amuser. Il ne s’agit pas d’engagement, je dirais qu’il s’agit beaucoup plus de soi que de l’autre.

T’épargner de la douleur

Tu peux demander à mes copines qui ont eu des petits amis : je suis très protectrice envers elles. Je suis connue pour leur avoir dit de m’appeler si jamais leurs copains commencent à se comporter mal et je viendrai les rouer de coups. (Fais attention !) Au fil des années j’ai vu des copines blessées dans des relations ; ça confirme ce que je disais comment beaucoup de relations se concentrent sur soi et pas sur l’autre.

Dans un climat où on regarde le sexe comme le point de référence pour une « vraie » relation pour beaucoup, ceux qui ne veulent pas aller jusqu’au bout se trouvent sous la pression de plus en plus de faire des choses dont ils n’ont pas envie. Les relations sexuelles forcées deviennent de plus en plus communes dans des relations. A mon avis, si un gars te dit : « Si tu m’aimais en vérité, tu aurais des relations sexuelles avec moi », alors il ne t’aime pas en vérité. Car l’amour n’est pas égoïste, l’amour est plein de bonté. L’amour, n’est-il pas inconditionnel ? La dernière fois que j’ai vérifié (et je suis linguiste), l’utilisation du mot ‘si’ indique une condition. Quand un gars te dit que son amour pour toi dépend de si tu veux ou non lui donner ta virginité, puis je te dirais que c’est l’heure de te débarrasser de lui : parce qu’il s’est complètement trompé.

Mais lorsque tu es dans une relation ce n’est pas si évident de t’en sortir – ou de rester sur tes positions, et du coup beaucoup se sentent piégés ; il faut faire ce que l’autre désire afin de rester dans la relation bien qu’ils soient mécontents.

J’imagine que par ce point certains d’entre vous sont en train de penser : Mademoiselle, tu sais que ce ne sont pas tous les mariages qui sont heureux ? Bah ouais, je le sais fort bien. Mais le mariage, c’est une autre paire de manches.  C’est quelque chose dans lequel tu entres en sachant que c’est censé entre un engagement à vie – il s’agit pas d’une amourette où tu peux te procurer tous les bénéfices dont tu as envie et juste larguer la fille après que tu en as fini. Malheureusement c’est ce  qui se passe bien trop souvent avec ce qu’on appelle maintenant « recreational dating » (rendez-vous galants de loisirs).

Je crois qu’en sauvegardant une relation pour celui avec qui j’ai l’intention de faire ma vie, j’épargne de beaucoup de souffrance qui pourrait arriver si je fais le choix de sortir avec des gars maintenant. J’ai vu les traces indélébiles qui ont été laissées chez mes amies et ça m’a vraiment attristé. J’ai été témoin du temps où ça les a pris des mois, de redevenir elles-mêmes après une rupture.

Il faudrait que tu sois contente de qui TU es !

Quelque chose qui m’a troublé récemment a été de découvrir que beaucoup de personnes que je connais trouvent leur amour-propre en ayant un petit copain. C’est quelque chose qui est si imprimé dans notre culture que ne pas être avec quelqu’un est effectivement considéré comme socialement anormal. Certains gens commencent à sortir dès l’âge de dix ans et trouvent leur valeur dans leur petit copain leur disant qu’elles sont belles, ou simplement en étant bien reconnues parce qu’elles ont toujours un garçon à leur côté.

J’ai des copines qui sont charmantes, douées,  intelligentes, belles – mais qui se sentent qu’elles n’ont pas assez de valeur car elles ont été célibataires pour un temps. A quel point c’est ridicule ?! Ton estime de toi ne dépend pas des autres – il faut que tu te sentes bien dans ta peau, et ne sois pas définie par si oui ou non tu as un petit copain !

La Transformation: NON MERCI!

Certains gens semblent devenir tellement idolâtres pour leurs petits copains ou leurs petites copines que la personne avec qui ils sont semble voler leur caractère et devient leur tout. Certains couples deviennent si absorbés l’un avec l’autre qu’ils oublient leurs amis, laissant ceux qui sont proches d’eux depuis longtemps avant que leur petit copain ou leur petite copine soit venu - ils se sentent comme s’ils ont perdu l’un de leurs vieux potes.

Si ta vie s’est tournée autour de ton petit copain ou ta petite copine pendant deux ans, comment tu reprendras ta vie après que vous avez rompu ? Comment tu te retrouves à nouveau ?

Encore, permets-moi d’expliquer pourquoi je vois cela comme différent au mariage. Dans le contexte du mariage j’aimerais penser que les deux personnes impliquées sont des adultes. De l’autre côté, les rendez-vous galants n’exigent pas forcément la maturité comme une condition préalable. Du coup, deux jeunes personnes peuvent entrer dans une relation très mûre avec les têtes d’enfants sur leurs épaules. Les ruptures se produisent à un moment donné parce que l’un d’eux grandit et se rend compte que l’autre a l’intention d’être un gamin pour le reste de sa vie. Ou tout simplement, il se rend compte que ce qu’il pensait être l’amour était que l’amour de jeunesse, l’engouement.

Le meilleur est d’attendre LA  personne spéciale

Mais comment tu peux savoir ce que c’est, le grand amour, si tu n’as jamais eu une relation avant avec laquelle tu peux la comparer ? C’est quelque chose qu’on m’a demandé auparavant. Bien, pour autant que je puisse en juger, tout ca veut dire c’est : Comment tu sauras que tu auras rencontré L’UNE personne spéciale, vraie qui a été faite pour toi si tu n’as pas été dans une relation vide de sens auparavant ? Ma réponse est claire: pourquoi je perdrais du temps avec quelqu’un qui je sais ne sera pas mon époux si je sais que quelqu’un de beaucoup mieux arrivera dans l’avenir ? Il vaut mieux que je sois patiente et que je m’épargne de tout le temps et de l’effort émotionnel qu’il faut pour une relation quand ça compte vraiment, et au moment où je suis vraiment prête.

Tout cet investissement-là !

Cela m’amène à autre chose – le temps ! Dis donc, je suis étudiante universitaire qui a déjà du pain sur la planche, correspondant aux besoins d’une licence rigoureuse de français et d’italien à l’Université d’Oxford, l’église, la chorale, l’écriture (et même au moment de traduire cette publication je suis à l’étranger avec un boulot à plein temps)… La liste continue.  Avoir un petit ami serait comme un boulot supplémentaire ! Déjà que l’envoi des SMS, se téléphonant pour parler des heures, passant du temps dans la compagnie de l’autre quelques jours chaque semaine, se payant des cadeaux… La Saint Valentin coûte cher !

Franchement, ça serait une distraction. Comme j’ai déjà dit, pour moi le mariage est le but final. Alors si je n’ai pas l’intention de me marier pour l’instant (et fais-moi confiance, j’en ai pas – je ne me vois pas me marier dans quelques années encore), ça sert à quoi d’entrer dans une relation maintenant ? Comme quelqu’un qui mets sa confiance en Dieu, je suis certaine que quand mon conjoint futur et moi devraient être ensemble, alors on sera ensemble. Je n’ai pas besoin de brusquer des choses.

D’ici là, plutôt qu’investissant dans quelque chose pour lequel je ne suis pas encore prête,  je peux passer mon temps à investir en me faisant la meilleure personne possible pour quand le moment arrive. Je peux achever ma licence, me procurer un emploi, m’installer… Mettre de côté de l’argent pour qu’on puisse avoir une belle maison au lieu de l’investir avec quelqu’un qui ne sera jamais mon compagnon de vie pendant que j’attends qu’il apparaisse !

Bien, maintenant tu sais pourquoi je suis tout en faveur de la vie célibataire pour l’instant : j’espère qu’après avoir lu tu peux mieux comprendre pourquoi.  A presto!

Terrorism: A Threat to Peace Anywhere is A Threat to Peace Everywhere.

I sit here numb and dismayed, writing a day after the attacks in Paris that so far have left 128 dead. Innocent people killed whilst watching a football match in the Stade de France, as two suicide bombers opened fire in a shock that the French nation is struggling to come to terms with. Bombs have been detonated and gunshots fired in six targeted locations around Paris, leaving bodies still in the streets, blood on the pavements, and fear in the hearts of the French people.

Now, I live in France. I’m on my year abroad as part of my studies and am currently residing in Marseille. So I’m far away from where all this happened. My first reaction when I heard the news was shock. The first attack to which my attention was drawn to was the one that took place just outside the national football stadium during a friendly between France and Germany. My first thought was that this had been a carefully planned attack: for suicide bombers to target hordes of innocent people only there to watch a bit of footy with their friends and families must have required serious preparation. I threw my plans to have an early night out of the window and sat attentively in front of the TV, watching the news unfold. As it was revealed that the attacks had taken place on a larger scale, including at a concert hall and cafés and restaurants, my attention immediately turned to my friends: this year many of them are spending their year abroad in Paris. Hearing the gunshots reverberating from the videos and seeing the scale of the disaster, I feared for them. I worried that they might be out on the same streets that were flashing across the plasma screen TV I was watching.

I went to Facebook to check that they were OK. I was relieved to be met by statuses letting me know that certain friends were safe and well, but with every realisation that there was another friend in Paris who hadn’t yet been accounted for, I began to type out frantic messages make sure they were away from the danger.  Gladly within the next hour and a half I heard from them all and was assured that they were safe, breathing a sigh of relief each time I saw that another friend had checked in as ‘safe’ on Facebook. However the extent of the gravity of the situation did really hit home when I read the responses of some of my friends – saying that there were so close that they had even heard the gunshots of the terrorists. My heart went out to them all and in my grieving and shock all I could do was pray for them and for Paris.

Soon everyone was caught up in the drama: those in the UK that initially hadn’t known what was going on started posting statuses encouraging the world to #prayforparis, and rightly condemning the actions of these lost psychotics that had taken so many lives on this Friday 13^th November. I even had people checking to ask if I was OK.

             After the initial shock had worn off and I had the comfort of knowing that all my friends were safe, I couldn’t help but think to myself, This is what people in Syria and Libya go through every day. Just the week before the church school I work at here in Marseille had been visited by the headmaster of the Christian school we’re partnered with and supporting in Libya, called ‘L’Ecole de la Paix’ (The School of Peace). The school had been set up in Tripoli at a time when Libya was in complete ruins: everything had been burned to a pulp; there were no schools; hospitals were damaged, and the city had descended into anarchy. As he spoke, my eyes were opened to the daily reality of living in a country torn apart by war and terror. The children at this school only had 4-hour school days because if they were to set out for home too late there was a high risk that they would be gunned down before they even reached the door-step. The principal of this school himself had been shot and another time confronted at gun-point with his two young children in the car, the oldest of whom is only seven. And all this happening in a country where the police is basically non-existent and crimes cannot be tracked and investigated. I imagined living my childhood in this predicament, finding myself in a daily battle with life and death.

That’s what I find myself thinking of now, the day after the Paris attacks. Terrorism isn’t new. It is a daily reality for many people. We’ve been hearing for years about suicide bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Libya… Why is it when it happens in Paris that we suddenly wake up to the reality and the seriousness of the situation? The news bulletins say it all: France (of course), the UK, the States, everyone’s thinking in blue, white and red.

The last time Paris was attacked was in January. The twelve Charlie Hebdo journalists who were gunned down lost their lives on the same day an estimated 2,000 innocent civilians were massacred by Boko Haram, the Islamist extremist terrorist group, in Baga, Nigeria. I didn’t hear much about the attacks in Baga but I did hear an awful lot about Paris, and saw heads of state sending their condolences to the French capital, whilst the people of Nigeria suffered in silence. Next to no-one was thinking in green, white and green.

Today, in the aftermath of the Paris attacks which have left 128 dead, I have been enveloped by the news updates of the horrific killings that took place yesterday all day.  The French borders have been closed and the leaders of the biggest states in the world have announced their solidarity with France. My Facebook feed is full of friends who have stamped their profile pictures with the French flag to reflect their unity with the people of Paris. 

          I am glad to see this humanity. This shared spirit which cares for the suffering of others and calls our hearts to pray for peace, to the point that even those that typically identify as agnostics or even atheists join in praying for Paris. But I am awakened to the irony of it all: this humanity has been largely dormant when we have seen the news bulletins over the past decade or so alerting us to suicide bomb attacks and terror on the same innocent civilians in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, the list goes on. I too am guilty: I feel a pang of pain and shock when I see these bulletins but after a few moments I continue with my life because I am not affected. My family in Nigeria is far away from where the Boko Haram attacks have been taking place so after a while I’ve developed a sort of mild immunisation even to that.

Paris has stirred me: it has given me an inkling of what it feels like to live in dread that those you love are in danger of dying at the hands of crazed terrorists. It has reminded me that this is only one example of what has been happening for years around the world. It has pointed out a characteristic of our human nature: we pay the most attention to things that directly affect us. It has taken seeing such horror so close to home to realise just how horrible it is.

The attacks in Paris have marked a new turning point: next time I see or hear about terrorist attacks in Syria or Palestine and such countries, I will not listen for a few seconds and then go about my business. I will give them the time they deserve, just as I have spent time following the news of what’s happened in Paris, knowing that they have the same evils in common, all being heinous attacks by misguided individuals on innocent people. I will not satisfy myself with the excuse that I don’t know enough about the crisis in the Middle East to follow what is happening. I will go and educate myself. Murder is horrible, no matter what colour the skin it’s inflicted on and no matter the country.

I’d like to hope that instead of thinking just in blue, white and red we will think in the colours of the world. Facebook’s novel idea to stamp people’s profile pictures with the colours of the République is a great way to show solidarity and support for France, but it leaves untold the stories of the countries that live this terror every day. I’d like to see the defiant stripes of the Syrian, Libyan, Iraqi, Palestinian, Israeli, Lebanese, Nigerian (etc…) flags introduced as stamps for Facebook profile pictures too.

The same humanity that has led me to pray for Paris will urge me to pray for the others.

There's one type of discrimination that nobody seems to be talking about.

                Racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, you name it – there are a lot of words being bandied about nowadays to refer to prejudicial attitudes. But there’s one type of discrimination that nobody seems to be talking about and I want to change that.

                I’m black, I’m a woman, and I’m a Christian. And recently I have come to realise that those three parts of who I am open me up to discrimination on a regular basis. Fortunately more people are talking about racism and sexism than ever before (although not enough, I hasten to add) but nobody seems to care about discrimination against Christians. Apparently our human rights just don’t matter all that much.

                Now, I’m used to being discriminated against due to my being a Christian. That has been the case since I was ten years old at primary school. And although it’s not been easy, I accept that it’s part of the package. Jesus Christ told us: “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

But whilst I’ve been used to people thinking me weird or disagreeing with my faith, I’m not used to being shut down – effectively not allowed to speak because of my views. And I’ve found that in the last few years it has become more and more common to think that Christians should put up with this. Well, sorry, but I don’t agree.

Particularly during my last two years at university I have found that there are a lot of people that quite like to shout me down or shut me up whenever I talk about my Bible-based views on contentious issues when asked. Usually a very confident person, I find myself feeling cornered by a horde of people who want to paint me as some outdated idiot or worse, someone who hates on groups of people. I’m not the only one being treated in this way.

Homosexuality

                My home church is one often referred to as a ‘holiness church’ and ‘Bible-believing’. That’s evident enough in the name: ‘Deeper Life Bible Church’. The Bible is the basis of everything we do. In the average DLBC service you probably look up around 50 Bible passages. We know our stuff.

                So it is with some confidence I can tell you the Bible’s stance on homosexuality. The Bible does not condone homosexuality.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9

                Please note that homosexuality is listed as a sin alongside fornication (sex before marriage), adultery, and theft. Homosexuality is not regarded by God as worse than these sins. It annoys me when people try to paint homosexuality as the worst of all sins. That is just not the case. “For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:22b-24.) Later in the same chapter, we see these words: “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.” Sexual immorality refers to anything that goes against God’s plan for marriage, because God made sex for marriage. That makes sex before or outside marriage a sin, and it also makes sex between the same sex a sin. Just like any other sin, homosexuality is forgiven and forgotten by Jesus once a person surrenders their life to Christ. That doesn’t mean people do not struggle with temptation once they become Christians. Just as a man may admit to lusting after other women despite being in a happy marriage, a person may struggle with attraction to the same sex after becoming born-again. It is when one gives in to temptation that it becomes a sin.

We already know that Jesus spoke of a man leaving his father and mother to be “joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”.  No references to marriage in the Bible talk of a man leaving his parents to cleave to his husband, and the young women are never admonished to love their wives. So can someone please explain to me how a person saying that objecting to same-sex marriage on Biblical grounds is unfounded?

Even this meme is deemed offensive to some people. Isn’t telling people that espouse the view above that they should take this off their pages doing exactly what they are asking not to be done – for their right to say what they believe to be taken away from them?

I have a lot of non-Christian friends, but I’d like to think they love me in spite of my being a Christian. I don’t drink: does that mean I hate or fear all people that drink? Nope.  

                I have a right to say what I believe, just as you have the right to say what you believe – as long as neither you nor I are spouting hatred. And I don’t believe that saying I don’t support homosexuality as a practice is spouting hatred. 

Sadly there are too many people who do just that under the name of Christianity and they are giving people like me a bad name. For instance, I was incensed when I read a story a friend sent through to me of a ‘Christian’ pastor telling his church that all homosexuals should be executed. You would be right to call this homophobia. ‘Phobia’ can be defined as a ‘strong fear, dislike or aversion’. I’d say calling for all homosexuals to be wiped off the face of this earth is demonstrating a fair amount of aversion, wouldn’t you?

               But to consider people like him on a par with people like me is utterly ridiculous. It would be as ridiculous and unfair as stating that all Muslims are terrorists. If doing the second is indicative of Islamophobia, shouldn’t the first be tantamount to Christianophobia? Wait, you think that isn’t a word. So does Microsoft Word. So did I. Well, I’ve got news for you! Christianophobia, or Christophobia, is a real thing! Just not enough people care about it, so no-one’s really talking about it.

Just because hardly anyone knows that Christianophobia is an actual thing doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I can give you numerous examples of cases that confirm it to be real.

I could talk to you about the attack on Christians at a Kenyan university by Al-Shabaab which left 147 dead, or I could remind you of the numerous attacks on Christians by Boko Haram in Nigeria, or I could talk about the terrorisation of Coptic Christians in Egypt, or the beheading of Christians in Iraq. But I think you’d agree without question that these are clear cases of anti-Christian sentiment. What you might never have considered is that right here, on Western shores, Christianophobia is rampant.

One quite recent case from here in the UK springs to mind. A Christian couple in Northern Ireland lost a court case over their refusal to make a cake with the words ‘Support Gay Marriage’ imprinted on it; the judge ruling them to have ‘unlawfully discriminated’ against the customer. In response to the court ruling, they stated: “We happily serve everyone but we cannot promote a cause that goes against what the Bible says about marriage. We have tried to be guided in our actions by our Christian beliefs.” They made clear it was the message, not the customer, that they had a problem with. I for the life of me cannot understand how this can be labelled discrimination. It’d be absurd to expect a halal meat shop to supply bacon for your bacon butty or a kosher butcher to provide you with sausages for a hot dog. So why doesn’t the same go for Christians who aren’t comfortable with carrying out a particular action because it goes against what they believe to be an important doctrine of their faith?

The Parliamentary Assembly within the Council of Europe has recently called for its member states to allow for the ‘reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs and practices’ and has warned specifically against intolerance towards Christians in the wake of recent events; (See http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2015/03/02/the-council-of-europe-religious-intolerance-and-reasonable-accommodation/)  a case in point being the dismissal of a nursery worker who when asked, told a lesbian colleague of her views on homosexuality: ‘If I tell you that God is OK with that, I’m lying to you. But if I tell you that God hates you because of it, I’m lying to you’. (Hating people is not in line with Christianity, but sin is something we are called to do away with, hence the line, ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’.) Her employers also sacked her for her refusal to read stories about same-sex couples to children which conflicted with her faith. It is a human right to be able to practise one’s own religion, and to deny someone that right is by no means right.

I have another example of such a predicament unfolding closer to home. At my university, the senior research scholar at the theological college Wycliffe Hall, named Ravi Zacharias, was censured by our university student union for reportedly being ‘homophobic’ and ‘Islamophobic’. Now all that this man had said was that homosexuality was not part of God’s plan for human sexuality, and pointed out what he felt were the failings of Islamic teaching. He did not say anything that could be considered spouting hatred, he simply explained why he didn’t agree. It would be silly to call a Muslim Christianophobic simply for saying they don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, because this is something that their religion teaches.

The fact is, calling someone an ‘x/n-phobe’ is a very quick and easy way to get them to shut up. And lots of people don’t like what Christians say and believe so they attach these labels to them in a valiant attempt to shut them up.

I don’t think that’s fair. 

Abortion

                

            Sorry if you’ve heard me go on about this already, but the time when a debate was scheduled to take place at my university entitled ‘This House Believes Britain’s Abortion Culture Hurts All’ was another clear case of shutting down a view that isn’t shared by the majority. It was ruled that the debate had to be shut down because of “security concerns, both physical and mental” of students, since in some women’s eyes, “my uterus isn't up for discussion”. Say what now? I am a woman and I am fully aware that should I get pregnant, (don’t worry, that ain’t gonna happen any time soon) it would not be just me that would be affected. There would be a father involved, family members, and of course the child. So to suggest that it’s simply me as a woman that would be affected by an abortion, to my mind, is frankly ridiculous. (If you’d like to read more about my views on abortion, click here.)

                I believe in the equality of the sexes and frankly I don’t see how being pro-abortion is obligatory in this stance. But there are lots of women who’d like to shut me and others down for not agreeing with them.

Another controversy, involving both the Oxford University Student Union and the pro-life society Oxford Students for Life, clearly revealed this. The student union, which is supposed to represent all students, decided that it would be donating £50 each year to a pro-abortion group. Speaking to The Oxford Student, one second-year undergraduate, who describes herself as a “pro-life feminist”, did not wish to be named for fear of being “vilified by Oxford’s pro-choice mafia” and said: “I don’t see why they need to formally declare an opinion. I am a female student at this University, and I am pro-life, and I don’t feel represented at all by our student union. They treat people like me as evil, immoral people, just because I happen to think that life begins at conception. I didn’t even go to the OUSU meeting about it because I knew I would just be shouted down and not listened to.”

                This is exactly the kind of discriminatory sentiment I am talking about.

Transphobia

                I’ve recently found those like me labelled as ‘transphobic’ and I’d like to address this matter to explain why I believe this is unfair. As I’ve already discussed, the word and suffix “phobia” can be described as “strong dislike, fear or aversion”, in this particular case to transsexual people, who have decided to undergo surgery to change their sexual characteristics.

                Not too long ago I attended a talk centred on whether or not the Bible oppresses women (I am confident that it doesn’t; for more on that keep your eyes peeled for a post from me) and I remember in the Q&A session which followed, the lady who had delivered the talk was asked about the Christian view of transsexuality. She talked of how most human beings are born with clear sexual characteristics which make them either male or female, and acknowledged that in rare cases there are those that are born without any clearly identifiable sexual organs or characteristics.

                She highlighted that most cases of those that undergo surgery to change their sex do so without there being any sign of intersex traits, but rather do so because they wish to live as a person of a sex different to that which they were born into.

                I’m not comfortable with people hailing this decision as self-affirming and I don’t think it’s fair to label those that feel the way that I do as ‘transphobic’.

                It is serious and deeply saddening that there are people that grow up battling with problems with gender identity. But I don’t believe that people offering ‘gender re-assignment surgery’ is the right way to manage the psychological trauma that comes with this.

                Let me put it this way: the sex you were born into is an integral part of who you are. Let me go further – it cannot be changed.

                As I’ve already mentioned, I am a young black woman. I am black. That cannot be changed. My ethnicity is a central part of who I am and I believe that God made me this way for a reason. The Bible reminds me that God has a plan for each of the creatures He moulded: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”. Being black is not easy but I love being so. Being a woman isn’t easy but I am more than happy to be a woman.

                Why should it be considered anything but sad that there are people that feel unhappy in the bodies they are born into? We live in a society where it is normal to be dissatisfied with our own bodies, as reflected by the rise in plastic surgery: more and more people just aren’t happy with the breasts, noses, bums and tums they were born with. This is not something to celebrate or see as normal – it shows a large degree of self-loathing in our world.

                A very topical case comes to mind when thinking about those that try to change their phenotypic make-up. Remember Rachel Dolezal, the leader of African-American civil rights campaign group the NAACP? Well, she was revealed to not be black, as she had claimed to be and presented herself as, but rather to be a white woman who had covered herself with fake tan and donned an Afro wig, as well as rejecting her white parents and constructing a black family for herself.  There was an uproar from people of all races when this was discovered. Why? Because here was a woman presenting herself as something that she wasn’t.

                The results are in and although Rachel Dolezal managed to pass as black, the unanimous agreement is that she isn’t black. She can identify as black, she can make herself look black, but that does not make her belong to the ethnicity of those of African descent.

                As a black person who finds herself and those of her race discriminated against time and time again on a racial basis, I could easily decide that I’d like to be white. I could go through the process of lightening my skin and reconstructing my facial features and change my hair but I would still not be white. More than that, attempting to change my God-given ethnicity would be snubbing the one I was born into. It would be saying, being black just isn’t good enough and being white is so much better. Maybe that’s what some would like me to think but it just isn’t true.

                Scientific research shows that the same goes for transsexuals: they can go through all the gender assignment surgery they desire, forming or removing breasts, changing the shape of their genitals, taking in hormones, but that does not clinically change them from male to female or vice versa (e.g. transsexual women cannot have periods or give birth).  A review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transgender people conducted in the UK found “no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.” Walter Heyer, a man who underwent gender reassignment surgery in the 80s to become a woman, changed back to a man eight years later and has since been alerting others of the dissatisfaction that so often comes with undergoing transsexual surgery. Numerous cases point to the alarming prevalence of suicidal thoughts and attempts amongst transsexuals. See http://waltheyer.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/20-regret-changing-genders-over-40attempt-suicide-and-even-after-surgery-a-large-number-remain-traum.html.

                As we see with so many other dilemmas, people are quick to offer a ‘quick fix’ without considering the very real harmful effects. In my eyes we would do much better to make people facing gender identity crises feel comfortable in their own skin, rather than encourage them to change into something that they can never fully be.

                It is true that there are people that are born with intersex traits. Perhaps the most famous person in such a position is the South African athlete Caster Semenya, who in 2009, aged only 19, was subjected to humiliating scrutiny by the mass media after winning the women’s 800m at the World Championships in Berlin. A gender test allegedly revealed that the athlete was born with internal testes and neither womb nor ovaries, yet was born with the female-determining XX-chromosome. She was cleared after a gruelling 11-month stagnation period of being allowed to compete with women. Despite having both male and female sexual characteristics Caster Semenya is a woman and the IAAF (the international athletics governing body) ruled it would be unfair to treat her as anything else.

                It would be ‘transphobic’ to wish that those that choose to undergo ‘gender reassignment surgery’ should die or to declare that they are not worthy of being called human beings. However I do not believe that saying it is better for a person to be happy in the sex they are born in is discriminatory. And I think it’s time people realised that saying so is Christianophobic; it shows a fear or dislike or aversion to those that espouse views that are in line with the Christian faith.

                Thank you for reading through to the end. I hope from now on we can agree to disagree, as the case may be, with no hatred involved. Much love, Ruth.     

Why are the world's richest countries the least likely to practise religion?

If you know me you’ll know that I’m a Christian and take my faith very seriously. I’m also British-Nigerian and most of my family are Christians. In fact, most black people believe in God. I remember laughing with a friend when he joked that when you meet a Nigerian they’re either a Christian or a Muslim. There was no talk of being a Nigerian atheist.

And after some thought I’ve realised that this situation couldn’t really be more different in countries like the UK. At my university the average student is an atheist. The vast majority of those that do identify as Christians generally admit to it being more a cultural thing than a practice: they only call themselves Christians because they were christened; or because they went to a Church of England school; or perhaps because they go to church on Christmas Day. The case is much the same in other Western nations, as we can see in France and even the U.S.A., which in spite of its motto ‘In God We Trust’, maintains what many would regard as an irreligious stance towards a number of big topics (think sex, possession of guns) as to make it one of the most secular countries in the world. Although some 70% of Americans profess to be Christians, according to head counts in church, less than 20% regularly attend services. Australia, though on the other side of the globe, is much in line with the thinking of the geographical West.

On the other hand, countries that are less affluent are much more likely to have a higher rate of religious practice. Why is this? I’ve been pondering over it for a while and I’ve come to my own conclusions. Want to hear them?

I think it’s because when we’re well-off and have lots of luxuries and comforts it’s much easier to believe that we can do this whole ‘life’ thing all on our own.  

Wealth and Religious Practice  

The GDP of the European Union stands at roughly $18.5 trillion (£11.9 trillion), whilst the United States alone has a GDP of $17.84 trillion (£11.44 trillion). The average income of a UK employee is around $41,340 (£26,500) a year. Compare these statistics with the GDP of the Asian economic power India, whose GDP stands at $2.3 trillion (£1.47 trillion) and whose citizens earn around $1,570 (£1,007) a year. If we look at the rate of religious belief and practice on these two opposite-facing sides of the globe, the contrast is stark.

Figures as of April 2015 show that 62% of Britons do not practise any religion.  72% of young Brits between the ages of 18-24 admitted that religion was ‘not important’ in their lives, even if some of them had previously described themselves as religious.  Compare these statistics on religion and belief to those of India, where approximately 80% of the national population practise Hinduism, with the practice of Islam and Christianity taking up 2^nd and 3^rd places (around 12% and 2.5% respectively.)  In Nigeria, Africa’s richest country, where the average annual income is $3,000 (£1,925), Christians make up some 50.8% of the population, whilst Muslims tot up to about 48%. A poll for the BBC in 2004 revealed that 100% of Nigerians believed in God or a higher power, and 91% said they regularly attended a religious service.

Suffering and Religion

You might wonder why people in these countries are so likely to practise religion and believe in a deity when they are part of the continents which people often think of when they ask, “If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world?”

In Afghanistan, although the poorest country by GDP in Asia and increasingly troubled by political instability and civil insurgency, 99% of the population are practising Muslims. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country ravaged by civil wars and the poorest country in Africa, 80% of the population are practising Christians. The citizens of Moldova, although faced with high levels of unemployment in the poorest country in Europe, are also primarily Christian, with 90% naming themselves as of Eastern Orthodox. In Bolivia, South America’s poorest country, 93% of the population practise a religion.

Some people may say that this points to religion simply acting as a crutch in people’s lives. They are too weak to manage on their own, they say, so they use something to help prop them up and make them think life is OK. Such people might be thinking of Marx’s quote: “Religion is the opium of the people”. This metaphor suggests that those that practise a religion have become completely incapable of using their brains and instead are dancing along drunkenly to a tune that makes them feel better.

Is that so?

Why would someone that has almost nothing – lives in a slum, has to walk miles to get water, doesn’t have access to a good education, you name it – still choose to believe in a God? Surely they are the people that should give up on any form of religion.

I often think about how the Jewish race and black race have suffered immensely throughout history. Yet as ethnic groups they are still highly likely to practise religion even now. To me, rather than showing weakness, this shows the strength of faith. It shows resilience to believe in a God even when times are hard; to continue to pray and attend worship services even in the face of hatred. Immigrant communities like those from Nigeria and Poland have done a great deal to stem the tide of decline in church attendance in the UK.

Religion in Fair Weather

I’ve come to realise that the luxuries and comforts that come with living a fairly easy life means for many it simply becomes unnecessary to believe in a God or practice a religion. You may not feel the need to pray because you’ve got everything you want: a nice house; nice clothes; a pricey smartphone and whatever else floats your boat. You may not feel the need for hope because you’ve got everything you could ever hope for. Religion becomes simply an accessory. By contrast, when you’re sitting on the hard floor of one-room house and your children are starving, you’re more likely to question whether this is really the meaning of life, or whether there’s more to it. Religion and faith are likely to have answers to your questions.

You don’t have to be poor to wonder what the meaning of life is. It’s probably true that if right from the cradle you’ve lived in poverty but are still here, you’re more likely to think that there really is a purpose for your life – otherwise why would you still be living? Most people that do believe in life having a purpose believe in a Creator.

Many of my non-believing friends agree with me when I say to me it is a pretty depressing thought this could be all there is to life: going through an education, getting a good job, doing some cool stuff along the way and then dying. I mean, you could have a wonderful life; a wonderful marriage and wonderful kids, but if there’s nothing at the end of it then what’s the point? If your well-kept body simply gathers dust at the end of it all, where’s the reward?

For me, my faith provides hope and something better at the end of this life. Even if I became the wealthiest person on the planet and achieved all of my life ambitions I am sure that what comes after this life would be better.

Remember how I said the United States is the richest country in the world? It’s also one of the most depressed – 19.2% of Americans report suffering from depression in their lifetimes. Money doesn’t buy happiness, clearly. France, the country which prides itself on being a secular state – with some 40% declaring themselves atheists – is the country which has the highest rate of depression in the world, with the average prevalence of depression at a whopping 21%. Dr. Stephen Joseph of the University of Warwick is quoted as saying, "Religious people seem to have a greater purpose in life, which is why they are happier. Looking at the research evidence, it seems that those who celebrate the Christian meaning of Christmas are on the whole likely to be happier.”

It seems kind of incredible, but it would appear that even in the toughest conditions and in the depths of poverty, religion provides happiness and fulfilment. Money may help provide short-term happiness and fulfilment: it gives people plenty of things to fill the jar of life with – but too often so much that they don’t have space for God.  

Social justice ~ Socialist.

The most famous and widely-read book in the world has amongst its many wisdom-filled lines: ‘The love of money is the root of all evil’. Some would say that the Bible is outdated and doesn’t fit our modern-day society but I would say that it is still relevant, thousands of years after its writers first penned the words that fill its pages. For even that one assertion has plenty of evidence to prove it valid: yes, still in the 21^st century.

I never used to be interested in politics. I saw it as boring and the concern of middle-aged men. But one sentence I heard uttered some time ago by a guest speaker on a radio programme changed my position. She said: “Women often say they’re not interested in politics. But the fact is, they want change. And that’s what politics is all about; it’s about seeking to change things for the better.” Her words struck me. They made me realise that I have actually been political since I was in primary school. I have always spoken my mind on matters that I believe to be indicators of societal problems and I have always sought to do what I can to change things. You already know that: you’re reading a blog post on The Change Channel.

As a child for whom the extent of political knowledge was the Prime Minister’s name, I remember once asking my mum what the job of the Conservatives was. Voting Labour is the the generally accepted thing to do around where I live, so I didn’t know much about ‘the other side’. She told me in simple terms: “the Conservatives are all about conserving things, keeping things the way they are.” She added half-in-jest: “They just want to keep all the money to themselves.”

It may have been a very simplistic explanation but even now I still think it’s an accurate description of the Conservative party. That is, the principal right-wing party in the UK. Now I’m not about to launch into eulogising Ed Milliband or begin a discussion on the rubberiness of his voice. Instead I’m going to tell you why I think a socialist approach goes hand in hand with social justice.

What is social justice?

Social justice is generally agreed to be ‘justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society’. Thomas Jefferson’s world-famous lines assert “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So if we were all born equal, what happened in between?

It’s self-evident that there are multiple inequalities in the world in which we live today. They can be found between men and women, the rich and the poor, whites and non-whites, the sheltered and the neglected, the able-bodied and the disabled . . . Social justice aspires to rid the world of these wrongs with the aim of bringing about a better, fairer world.  

And the place to start is acknowledging that some groups in society are dealt a better hand than others from the start. So we may all have been “created equal”, but the minute we enter a very unequal world, we are either ushered up to the top of the pile or shoved to the bottom, according to who society deems laudable or undeserving. The words of Rousseau come to mind: ‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’.

Capitalism

As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realise just how much the way our society is run is dependent on who’s got the largest amount of money (or who’s got hardly any of it). The fact is, money is power. So if you “ain’t” got much of it, you “ain’t” got much power. Capitalism as a system is characterised by the private ownership of the means of production (the raw materials and the labour force), and inevitably results in the unequal distribution of wealth. As its name suggests, it centres on capital (wealth), unlike its counterpart ideology: socialism, which radically places society at its focus, pushing for a society in which wealth is evenly distributed and is owned by a collective community, usually through the state. I studied Marxism as part of my Sociology course at Advanced Level and although the principles its founders propounded seemed interesting to me at the time, I never really fully realised the import of their ideological approaches until I came to uni. It was here that I saw Max Weber’s theories acted out in real life.

In simplistic terms, the model which Marxists created saw society as divided along class lines, the working class (the proletariat) and the upper classes (the bourgeoisie); staying in tune with a system intended to keep the labour workforce in their place – working hard for the richer people. Provided the proletariat stayed in their place, other institutions, like the media and education could flourish effectively. Flourish effectively for one group of people that is. Yep, you guessed it: for the rich dudes (the bourgeoisie folk). Very simplistic illustration but that’s basically how capitalism works – there are people on top who push others beneath them and make them do all the work so that they the rich people at the top – can have a good life: whilst the people breaking their backs get very little or nothing in return.

Doesn’t sound very fair to me! How about you? Not really the right conditions for social justice, I would say: makes for unequal  distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges in a society. Want me to give you a few examples?

Women

OK so let’s look at the position of women in society. I’m sure you’ll agree that even in the 21^st century a massive amount of inequality exists between men and women. Women make up 51% of the global population but worldwide figures show us that women are less likely than men to get an education, be employed or be elected to parliament – all the while they are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, rape; more likely to be victims of sex trafficking; forced to be child brides – and worse still, some will deny females their right to live before they are even born, based on the lie that they have nothing good to offer the world.

Pretty horrible state of affairs.

You might be wondering what all this has to do with ‘the love of money’ that I referred to earlier, and the Marxist model and all of that. Allow me to explain my thought process: men have been the ones in positions of ultimate power for the past several centuries. In this modern age, women face fewer obstacles (although still many) to their endeavours than they once did, and so positions of power are no longer solely occupied by men.

It follows that some men feel threatened by the emergence of women in an arena in which they once found themselves alone. They resent that women will now have more of a say in their own lives, rather than having matters decided for them by those who want to “keep them in their place”. As things currently stand, in many cases women are still not paid the same amount of money as their male counterparts for the same work and they find themselves up against a ‘glass ceiling’ which prevents them from getting promoted in their fields because those positions are reserved for men.

How can we explain this if it not with capitalism? The more women get promoted, the fewer men get more cash in their pockets. Capitalism has a system to uphold and anything that shows any signs of messing with that status quo is soon stopped in its tracks. Think Jimmy Savile, that fishy so-called philanthropist who in actual fact used his powerful position to abuse thousands of young girls. Looking back on his life and the plethora of complaints made against Savile in his lifetime, it seems mind-boggling that something was not done earlier to change things.

But once I thought on things more deeply, I could see that it suited the interests of capitalism to leave a powerful man like Savile alone. The guy had been honoured by the Queen and was one of the most famous presenters on the TV: if he were to be charged, that would mean the end of high ratings for the BBC for Top of the Pops. If they got a man with that much power into trouble they would surely lose out on the power stakes themselves. People often have difficulty understanding why survivors of rape do not immediately report the crime: but in Savile’s case should it be so hard to believe? A rich white man loved by the British public against young teenage girls – who would be believed?

To my mind there is a clear link here between ‘the love of money’ and the evils sustained against women. Capitalism stacks the odds against those whose oppression it benefits from.

I’m not saying that capitalism is to blame for all the inequalities that women face today. However it is responsible for giving men more opportunities than women and it does grant the powerful safety nets which protect their interests, and this governs who ends up where. In spite of all this however, women continue to work hard and are still achieving great things. Despite being told they couldn’t do it, they are making their mark on science, sport, literature and many other fields. The thing is, it’s just so much harder for them to get there than it is for men. And that’s not fair.

Class

Capitalism presumes that the path to success is easy – because the path to success for those at the top of the capitalist ladder is easy. David Cameron (leader of the Conservative party) comes from a family which to this day is still benefiting from the ‘compensation’ they gained when they lost their slaves after the abolition. This sum, which equates to millions in today’s money, didn’t do Cameron any harm when he attended some of the highest fee-paying schools in the country.

The Conservatives, in their practice of capitalism, would tell us, ‘Work hard and you’ll get to where you want to in life.’ That’s their answer to everything. Work hard, that’s all well and good – but what if you have the attitude of a high-flyer yet are constantly having the opportunities which are your due right snatched away from you? That’s what happens if you’re a member of the lower classes – we see it everywhere.

Here at Oxford, where I’m studying, the evidence of classism is plain to see. It is with good reason that the university has a reputation of being a place for the cultural elite. Within the infrastructure and the intake of the students each year the upper classes most definitely come out on top. Studies in the past have shown that applicants from private schools were 14% more likely to be offered a place at Oxford than those with the same grades who went to a comprehensive school.  Although only 7% of British children attend fee-paying schools, students from private schools make up 43.2% of Oxford students! I mean, is that classist or what??

How can we say that where you get to in life is dependent on solely how hard you work when we have figures such as these staring us in the face? We all know that Oxbridge-educated people dominate the political sphere. David Cameron went to Brasenose College, Oxford, Ed Milliband went to Corpus Christi College, Oxford and Nick Clegg went to Cambridge (don’t expect me to give further details, we two universities are arch rivals!). I write from a college where the first and only female Prime Minister of the UK so far, Margaret Thatcher, and India’s first woman Prime Minister, Indira Ghandi, completed their degrees. 

So it’s evident that people that go to universities like these are more likely to have a say in the running of their countries. If they’re more likely to have a say in how the country is run they will be directly impacting on the lives of thousands, even millions, of people. And if only one small subsection of society is allowed to have a say in how people live their lives, how are things ever going to change?

We need a change from the bottom-up. The working classes and middle classes need to be given a say in how the country is run – because they make up over 70% of the nation. When less than 20% of the country is making the decisions that affect everyone then things are never going to be fair.

That means that universities like Oxford and Cambridge have a duty to accept more working class and middle class students than they currently are. The education system at large needs a massive overhaul to get the less well-off and the more deprived on the straits to success. At present those who live in poorer, more crime-filled areas, are less likely to get admitted into good schools. ‘Good schools’ being those who provide an adequate amount of teaching staff with decent sized classes so that each student is given the opportunity to learn properly. They are also more likely to be encouraged to take more vocational paths, being whispered the lie they are not skilled enough to go into the field of academics. And of course it is those who go into the academic field that end up having the most power in society. So the false consciousness to which the Marxists referred – the state of being that the working classes often find themselves in: where they are so accustomed to being exploited that they no longer question it and instead adopt the views of their oppressors – becomes instrumental in maintaining the status quo.

Many repeat that oft-used phrase: “They’re taking all our benefits!” to excuse the mistreatment of the working classes. But what they fail to realise is that the “scroungers” that sit on their bums all day and get paid by the state are very much in the minority: an unfortunate piece of the puzzle but very much in the minority. There are thousands of people in this country who work hard but find themselves displaced from the top-earning positions in the world of work (for reasons I have discussed above) and rather find themselves earning just enough to be out of the benefits cap but not enough to live comfortably. With childcare costs at a ridiculous high, many young families find themselves in debt before they have hardly gotten off the ground – and still they find themselves faced with that mantra: “Work hard and you’ll get where you want in life.”

It’s for people like this that I believe we need a re-structuring of wealth distribution. The richest 10% of the UK population owns something like 40% of the wealth. That’s just not fair – especially when those at the top largely didn’t work for what they had, but were just born into it – whilst those at the bottom find themselves dealt an unappealing deck of cards.

Race

Equality of opportunity is important again when we consider the structural inequalities that result from divisions along racial lines. Racism just isn’t over. If you’ve read my post about racism and the role of ignorance, you’ll already be familiar with the advice that black parents are wont to give their children:  “Work twice as hard at everything you do, because it’s going to take twice as much effort for you to get as far as a white person”.

If the working classes are in the minority in Oxford then ethnic minorities are an even rarer find. Out of term-time I live in the highly ethnically diverse and multicultural city in the North of England known as Manchester. It’s a vibrant place of friendly faces. The contrast between Manchester and Oxford couldn’t really be more different – when I return to the city of Dreaming Spires it’s literally a game of ‘spot the black people’. I can remember when I told a friend that I had been admitted into this university. He said: “You’ll be the only black person there!”

Figures have shown that in years past, over 25% of white applicants to Oxford University were successful, with only 17.2% of ethnic minority applicants getting in. White applicants to Medicine were twice as likely to get a place as minority ethnic candidates, even when they had all obtained 3 A* grades. Institutional racism is very clear to see. Only 3.9% of Oxford’s professors are of a BME (black, minority ethnic) background, to talk less of the curriculum being fiercely Eurocentric. Oh and don’t forget, one of the world’s most notorious racists has a library and a scholarship in his name over here. (That would be Mr. Cecil Rhodes, the man behind the apartheid in South Africa.)

Thankfully I don’t go to one of those super elitist colleges in Oxford where I’d be the only black person there in 5 years, or the only person from the North of England in my year, or something ridiculous like that. Somerville College is one of the more open and diverse colleges, with the majority of students having attended state schools. (I’m also proud of it for being one of the first colleges in Oxford to cater for women.) However that hasn’t made me oblivious to the racism that unfolds here in this university on a daily basis. 

Every time I go to a debate at the Oxford Union I am genuinely astonished by just how oblivious some people are to the plight of others, and just how easily they can spew racist bigotry without batting an eyelid.

Equality of opportunity as far as race is concerned is imperative if we are to see true social justice take place in the nations of the world. Ethnic minorities find themselves more likely to be demonised by the police, more likely to find themselves out of work, less likely to get good housing, less likely to be believed when filing a crime complaint . . .

The status quo keeps the traditional owners of wealth and power at the top. They “keep us in our place” by telling us that we’re not good enough, not pretty enough, (here I explore the relation between capitalism and the “beauty industry”), not skilled enough.

Disability

Disabled people are a group I fear we don’t talk enough about. They’re often forgotten in discussions about discrimination and equality. They shouldn’t be: there are over 11 million people living in the UK with a long term illness, impairment or disability, meaning they often cannot work. The school of thought that puts society first says that everyone should have the same amount of wealth so that we can all lead fair lives even if we're born into difficult positions: those who are on the capitalist side will only make those who are hurting the hurt even more. (click here to read more about how disabled people are already unfairly treated under current law.) Not a very just system, I don’t think.

I’m a socialist because I believe in social justice: fairness and equality in society. And I think I’ve explained why I don’t think capitalism is the best model for this: ‘the love of money’ gets to people’s heads and makes them forget what humanity is all about. As a Christian, reminded of the importance of helping those less fortunate than myself, I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing anything other than supporting the side that puts society’s interests at heart. That’s a much better picture of society to strive for than the one that we currently have.

Why I don’t wear Make-up

I’ve addressed a lot of big issues up to now on my blog but this may well be the most controversial stance: I’m a girl approaching twenty and I don’t wear make-up. Before you have a heart attack I would prompt you to look at the description above and keep in mind that you’re on The Change Channel and the script over here is different to the general one that society tends to follow. There’s no doubt that deciding that make up is not for you is being very different, especially in our culture. It’s very daring.

You probably remember it yourself: the plentiful ticks of the clock that would go by before the girls would come out of the toilets (if you’re a guy); the hours that your peers would spend in front of the mirror caking themselves with make-up before they revealed themselves at school (if you’re a girl). I remember it for sure. Funny thing is, make-up was against the rules of our school – and it is for most schools in the country – but it was still seen as essential for a lot of the girls, especially from Year 9 (ages 13/14) upwards.

1. I like to be the real me.

 I remember the advertisement of this product that always used to come on when the teen TV had finished for the day and was replaced by teleshopping. It was called ‘Sheer Cover’ and it was a form of foundation that promised to cover all skin imperfections. What I found ironic was that their slogan was ‘Let the real you shine through’. Ermmm…

How is covering your entire face and often other parts of your body with make-up letting the real you shine through?

I don’t pretend to have perfect skin. I’m nineteen and we all know that those teenage years bring a lot of spots. Do I get annoyed when I spot yet another raised surface on my forehead? Yes, I do. Do I wish my skin was perfect? It certainly would be ideal. But why pretend? Everyone repeats that saying so often: ‘Nobody’s perfect.’ But with make-up we suddenly try to pretend that we are. Why?

I feel guilty even considering the prospect of painstakingly applying make-up to my face when I know that there are issues I need to address on the inside of me that are much more important. Studies show that the average woman spends over a year of her life applying make-up. Think what I could do in a year! I could travel the world, have a baby (but that’s not going to happen any time soon, don’t worry!), learn another language – I could spend that time developing my inner self to have ‘the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight’. (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Peter%203%3A4)

If ever I became perfectly perfect then perhaps it would make sense for me to look perfect. But at present I can tell you I need more patience and faith and have other things to watch out for – so I’m not there yet.

Another reason I refrain from agonising over eye-liner and fumbling for the foundation is actually I think God did a pretty good job of making me on His own and He doesn’t need my help to create a masterpiece. I am ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ and I know it. I believe every one of God’s creations is beautiful and precious – even if they don’t fit the standards of beauty that our society lays down as law. To read my treatise on the world’s botched-up perception of beauty click here: Why the World’s Definition of Beauty is All Wrong.

I’ve grown up in an environment where make-up wasn’t valued. My mum doesn’t wear make-up and my home church has never put it on the cards. But naturally, being a young girl in today’s society there did come a point where I started to think about it and wanted to be sure I was not wearing make-up because it was truly what I wanted to do and not something I felt was being forced upon me. I had a weakness for eye-shadow – it can be used to match your clothes really well – and after a friend told me I had “camel’s eyelashes” I thought perhaps mascara wouldn’t be so bad.

Way way back when I was in Year 7 a couple of my friends bought me make-up as birthday presents. I didn’t know what to do with the little packages, seeing as I didn’t wear make-up (and at eleven years old felt no reason to do so) – but as the products were powders my mum suggested I keep them and use them for art. Being a very creative person I did so, and you can still find eyeshadow in some of my most intricate work.

I never used the make-up for anything else. Until years later: I decided I would try it for myself so that I could say I knew for sure what my stance was. I fished out the make-up discs from my art supplies and applied some eyeshadow and the different shades of ‘lip shimmer’. It could be that it was my first time applying make-up and I didn’t know how to do it ‘just so’ but it didn’t appeal to me at all. The more I tried out the shades the more I felt like a clown. I looked fake. There were a load of colours painted on my face and it just didn’t feel like me. I stared at myself in the mirror and blinked back at my reflection. Then I decided that make-up wasn’t for me. Eyeshadow might be able to match my outfit but my face wasn’t a handbag or a dress in need of being accessorised. It was a natural part of me and I wanted to keep it that way.

2. I want people to love and respect me for who I am, not what I look like.

It’s my approach to life in general: I appreciate much more when someone compliments me on something I’ve done rather than how I look. It means so much more to me when someone tells me they loved something I’ve written or hearing me sing than when someone tells me I look good in the dress I have on. I’m not saying compliments on appearance are bad. What I am saying is I did not do any work to get the face I did – God did all of that work and I can take no credit for it. But I do work hard at my singing and writing and other skills so encouragement on that front is something that I had something to do with.

It’s something I’ve discussed with friends before: would you want your lover to wear make-up or would you as a lady wear make-up for your beau? I’ve been particularly interested to hear the male point of view – and actually, my guy friends have told me they much prefer the natural look on a girl. It shows that she’s comfortable in her own skin and feels free to be herself.

On the other hand, girls my age have told me they wouldn’t wear too much make-up on their first date with a guy because they wouldn’t want him to expect more than he was getting. I find that quite intriguing, upon considering what happens on the next dates and when you eventually get married: do you have to make sure you have on that same amount of make-up as you had on that first date so that he’s never disappointed?

And what if he falls in love with you only because of the face you had on when he first met you? We already know how much our culture values physical attractiveness in women. When you’re wearing full foundation, concealer, blusher, eyeliner, mascara, eyeshadow, lipstick, even fake eyelashes (!), can you really be sure that it’s anything but your decked-out face that has drawn him over? He might hear you speak and actually not care about what you’re saying but linger around because he thinks you look ‘sexy’.

Of course physical attraction is an important part of a relationship. But I can say without faltering that if a man were to fall in love with me solely because he found me attractive I would immediately turn the other way. I am not just a body. I have a brain and emotions and talents that go beyond the exterior, as does any other woman. We’re picking up from the bottom of the pile if we go for guys that don’t see that.   

3.  It’s a business that prides itself on making women feel bad about themselves.

It’s funny to me that feminism deals with so many other issues but neglects to talk about cosmetics. Like so many other social phenomena, make-up is the result of a male-dominated narrative. I can give you many examples throughout history that illustrate how when men said something it came to be and was accepted as fact. Take for instance the narrative in the 50s that dictated that women could be no more than wives and mothers. That was said by men who didn’t like the fact that women were doing the same job as them and doing just as well, and could eventually get to the stage where they were earning more than their husbands! How about shaving? Few people know that shaving for women only came about in the Roaring 20s, when sleeveless dresses became the fashion and suddenly the under-arm hair women had had for centuries became ‘unsightly’ and ‘objectionable’. Why? Because razor companies (owned by men, of course) wanted to create a new market to squeeze the money out of – and the perfect way was to make women feel that in paying their way and shaving away they were becoming more feminine. In the meantime guys’ bodily hair isn’t spurned at all. Apparently hair on women is unhygienic but on men it’s just plain clean. (Do you know I was once asked by a guy – at secondary school – if it was true that women grew hair under their armpits?)

It’s the same with make-up. Do you ever see make-up marketed at men? Cosmetics industries swallow up billions of dollars each year by telling women that using their products will give them power, make them stand out and will give them irresistible confidence. Is it any wonder then that women often feel low self-esteem without “putting their face on”? (Do you realise how loaded that term is? We’ve gotten to the point where women don’t even see their natural assets as worthy of being called a face…) You’ve seen the stories about women who never leave the house without make-up on. I’ve even heard depressing cases of women who get out of bed before their husbands stir so that they can put on their make-up afresh before their spouse sees them. (I can’t even…) Not everyone has it that bad, admittedly, but there are still very few girls I know who won’t leave the house without any make-up at all – just a bit of mascara and eyeliner and that’s all – but they will never be seen without it. I suppose there’s another problem with wearing make-up regularly – when you don’t wear any people don’t recognise you.

“Make-up makes me feel more confident”. That’s what many people tell me. More confident. The use of those two words to me indicates that most don’t feel confident enough without the stuff. Girls typically put it on to attract the attention of the guys as they’re told that this is the way to capture a man’s heart – or they may put it on so that they feel they “measure up” to the same standard as the other girls. I didn’t wear any makeup to my prom and I remember thinking that I wouldn’t look as good as the other girls. My mum assured me I looked beautiful just the way I was and I soon forget my concerns. In retrospect I realise that my qualms were just plain silly: what’s the point in competing over how we look? What a sad life.

4.  Make-up causes reduced self-esteem.

Remember the #nomakeupselfie campaign for breast cancer awareness that took social media by storm last year? I thought it was great, in that it pushed women and young girls to present themselves as they truly are on a platform. I was proud to see my friends wiping off the stuff. They looked beautiful and they didn’t need make-up to prove that.

So that was great. But the campaign did get me thinking about the social implications that it suggested. Usually when people fundraise for charity they do something difficult and out-of-the-ordinary. Here taking one picture of themselves makeup-free was what girls and women were doing to raise money – and what that showed me is that it really is an out-of-the-ordinary and difficult thing for females to do now, to choose not to wear le maquillage. So much so that many of the girls and women that posted pictures of themselves did so with make-up on: they just couldn’t take off that mascara or eye-liner – or even lipstick – for just one picture in the comfort of their own homes. Others just replied saying they didn’t think anyone needed to see their “disgusting face”. What a sad state of affairs.

 5. It’s actually quite physiologically harmful.

Il trucco (that’s what it’s called in Italian – literally meaning, ‘the trick’) does in fact cause quite a lot of physical damage. Covering up imperfections only makes them worse. Foundation blocks up pores and hinders the skin from breathing, which can often lead to acne and dermatitis. The vast array of chemical substances in cosmetic products have also been linked to health issues, surprisingly serious: cancer; hormonal interference; effects to a woman’s reproductive system; liver problems… Chemical impurities in cosmetics shockingly even include the toxic substance mercury, which is easily absorbed by the skin and can lead to kidney damage; and impair the nervous system, and can even interfere with brain development in unborn and young children. Ironically for a substance which is supposed to make you stay looking young – the presence of mineral oil in cosmetics can inhibit skin function and cell development, resulting in premature aging. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/04/10/you-have-the-right-to-know-17-chemicals-to-avoid-in-cosmetic-and-personal-care-products/

6.  It costs a lot of money!

The average British woman spends £9,525.91 on make-up in her lifetime. Need I say more? That is a heck of a lot money! That could fund a whole year of university tuition with money left to spare!

7.  Going make-up FREE is extremely liberating!

‘Makeup free’ used to be used by that oh-so-notorious British tabloid The Daily Mail together with ‘tired’ and ‘haggard’ to slate women who decided to ditch the rouge. I still have a lot of issues with that paper but I have noticed that they have now taken to praising women who go out make-up free as looking ‘radiant’ and ‘natural’. I hope to see this attitude welcomed more in the public vein. I’ve never worn an inch of foundation in all my nineteen years and I have found it extremely liberating. I can leap out of the house without thinking about having to flick my eyelashes up – or draw my eyebrows on. (Seriously I can’t believe that’s a thing now?) When people look at me I know they’re looking at me and not a fake, “improved” version. I gain hours every day by not having to apply and re-apply – and remove my make-up. I breathe confidence rather than have it stifled under a mask that clogs my pores.

I may still have spots that appear without being asked but actually I know they’re not that big a deal. They show that I’m a normal human being with imperfections, and the fact that my friends treat me in the same way whether or not I have an uneven skin tone shows that they value me for who I am and not for what I look like. Going makeup-free truly does make you feel free, my friend!