Trotski

He was brown. This might seem irrelevant, but it isn't. He was the only pup in his litter that was completely chocolate brown, the rest of them had a white mark on their chests. He was also a bit smaller than his brothers and sisters, but that didn't stop him from being... feisty should I say? He was an aggressive dog to other dogs (usually males), but he loved his sister Tina and his nieces, Luna and Moka. Anyway, he was brown. He was called Marroncito (Little Brown or Little Brown One) by his mum's owners before I brought him home.

I remember the day I brought him home clearly. We still had the Chrysler van. It was the start of December (oddly sad, it's not impossible that he lived in my house for exactly fifteen years) and it was cold outside. I was nine years old, about three months shy of the age my mum had promised me I could have a dog. I'd already met him, my neighbour had adopted his sister, and I was in love with him. He was originally meant to go to someone else, but I seem to remember the lady had an accident, broke her leg and couldn't take him in the end. And so I got Trotski. The name was proposed by my dad (I was the one to bastardise the spelling) and I loved the idea of naming the dog after the man who had organised the Red Guards (I don't really know what the name meant to me back then, I knew Trotsky had been a communist, I knew he'd been exiled and erased from the record by Stalin, I knew he'd been murdered). I remember that the day I went to pick him up, I had a huge fight with my parents. I can't remember what about, I just remember it was  very serious. I remember sitting down on the living room coffee table, the one that sits in the basement now, while my dad was telling me off, but I can't imagine that to be true (doesn't quite seem right that I'd sit on the coffee table). During the argument I remember being scared that they wouldn't let me have my dog. He was already "my" dog by then (saying that a dog is yours is rather... strange. It's like saying that a parent is yours, or that a sibling is yours. It's more a relationship status than an ownership. You can't own a dog. They're each a world of their own. You just get to play with them and feed them and take care of them and enjoy their company. They're family.). Somehow we got through it, and even though everyone was still a bit angry, we got in the van and went to get Trotski. It was already dark, and I seem to remember it being cold outside. I'd brought a blanket for him, but his mum's owners also gave us some rags that had been kept where the mum and puppies slept, so he could be comforted by her smell.

A detail here: Trotski was given to me. He was a pure Spanish Water Dog, but he didn't he didn't have pedigree papers, I didn't buy him. At the time, I wanted a dog and taking him felt right. Now, I'm not sure I could take a puppy from its mum. An argument for it would be that otherwise the puppy might not have a home, that it's adopting in the same way that taking a dog from a shelter is adopting, because chances are if the puppies in the litter don't get adopted they'll end up being abandoned. The arguments against it are many: by taking a dog from someone who had the mum and decided to get her to have puppies, you really are promoting backyard breeding (pretty much), which inevitably ends up with more dogs in the world, which means more abandoned dogs. Adopting from a shelter takes a dog that's "already there" and does not promote backyard breeding, because backyard breeders don't get any benefit from it (unless having to leave a litter of puppies in a shelter is a "benefit"). In addition, adopting from a shelter usually means that the dog is already neutered, reducing the chances of a female getting pregnant by accident or a male siring a few puppies on an escapade, which might happen if the owner (like I did when I adopted Trotski) feels that maybe their dog could have puppies one day. A more sentimental argument against adopting puppies directly from their mum is, precisely, that you're taking them from their mum. They should be able to grow up with their mum, play with their siblings. By picking them up and taking them away, for a while at least, you're putting them in a hostile environment that is scary and you're taking them away from their mother. I don't know. I'm glad I did it at the time, because I've been with a fantastic dog for the best part of 15 years. Not sure I could do it again though.

In any case, I picked up the tiny puppy (and tiny he was, sometimes I wonder how we didn't lose him in the house) and I cuddled him all the way back into the car, through the stop at a pet shop to buy him some more food and all the way home. One of the things I remember vividly (but I can't confirm if it happened when he got home or a few days later) was putting him on the floor of the living room, which in those days was some sort of smooth, shiny, tile. He was standing up when I put him down (he'd stretched his legs out to "land"), but the second I let him go he looked at me, and slowly, started slipping. He ended up on all fours just looking up at me, not really understanding. The truth is, he got to know the properties of the floor very well, he used them when he was older to leap and then slide on it when he was older.

He was an amazing puppy. He was housetrained very soon and he was smart. He was cuddly. He loved cuddles. He could not get enough of being petted and hugged and scratched behind his ears. In fact, he would bark if you stopped. He didn't beg for food (he was a very fussy eater, he liked oranges and apples, but not banana or lettuce, he liked meat generally, and legumes, but didn't like tomatoes...), and sometimes he didn't eat enough, but he was healthy for the most part, even though his health was a bit delicate: he had some liver problems as a puppy and we had to take care of his diet. He was smart. I taught him (to the consternation of everyone in the house) how to open the trash can and if we left the kitchen open, he would feast on leftovers.

He grew up, and I couldn't have asked for a more loving dog. He adored me (and I him). He was always there when I needed a cuddle (and even when I didn't need one), or when I wanted to play or when I wanted to take him swimming to the river even though he got dirty and I knew my mum would disapprove. He liked being in the car, window open. He liked walks, and didn't pull on the leash too much. Considering the fact that he was trained by a nine/ten year old who didn't know much about dogs other than what she'd read in the tens of dog books she'd bought through the years, he was well behaved. He liked sitting in my mum's balcony in the mornings, watching the comings and goings of the neighbourhood.

I left for uni, first in Salamanca and then in the UK, and I left him. I've always felt a little bit guilty about that. But he loved me anyway. Whenever I came back it was like I'd never left, he would go crazy when he saw me, wagging his little stump of a tail.

I can't imagine what it'll be like to go back this Christmas and not have him around. I'm dreading it.

A tiny note on consent and alcohol (where I say alcohol read drugs or whatever)

Cleary, I'm not keeping up with the times.

Part of the reason, I've said it before, is because I'm tired. Reading the same pieces over and over and over again, having the same arguments, realising that there's no point.

Take a comment section on a piece of news. Most of the people who comment are bigots. And then I think about it. Can this be? Can every single person who's decided to comment on a post be an incendiary troll? The easy answer is yes. They can. Normal people don't comment. Normal people read and maybe give a passing thought to replying, but something has to affect you quite deeply for you to respond. So my conclusion is that comments sections are full of outliers, people with extreme views on topics, or quite simply, people who are incendiary. There's no point in arguing with them because, not only will they not change their minds for the most part (I've had incredibly productive conversations and discussions and even arguments with people who have not changed their minds, nor managed to change mine), they will also refuse to admit that they have changed their minds when they have, just for the sake of angering another (foolish) person, or simply because they refuse to admit they were wrong. There's no point in arguing with people such as this, especially over the internet.

But anyways. Here I am again. Yesterday, we had a sexual consent talk at college. I think a lot of people disagreed with me (I find it funny, but when it comes to feminism and consent people assume that if you don't agree with them it's because you are not as enlightened as they are) in that it's not always clear when someone has been drinking (please read that sentence, it says "when someone has been drinking" not "when someone is drunk" or "when someone is passed out from drinking") whether they can give consent or not. I didn't want to get into it too much yesterday, but I've been thinking about it all day. I drink. I enjoy drinking. I like having a drink at the end of a very long day, or simply going out for a drink with a friend once in a while. Occasionally, I really enjoy going to a house party and getting considerably more drunk than I should. And yes, I don't recommend it as a lifestyle, but sometimes, being drunk can be fun. Anyways, (and obviously with the disclaimer that this is only my experience) whilst I've done a couple of things I regretted whilst drunk, I've never been so drunk that I couldn't give consent. Actually, this is inaccurate, I have been so drunk that I couldn't give consent, but when it has happened, I had already realised I was going to get to that state so I made my way home. This is, any person I've made out with or had sex with can rest easy that it was willingly, even though on occasion I had been drinking before, and I was somewhere ranging from tipsy to actually very drunk (and in this last case, the sex probably shouldn't have happened, in the sense that it was obvious I was drunk and the person in question didn't have a way of knowing whether I consented other than I was a very willing participant... but then again, they were drunk as well). This is not to say that a) this is the experience for everyone (that would be stupid) or b) it makes it any better if one has sex with a drunk person who didn't want it. All I'm saying is, it's not always clear that someone isn't in the right state of mind to consent to sex.

Then again, as someone else summarised very well, if you're deciding whether or not to proceed with sex with someone, there's a relatively easy rule to follow: if you're even a little unsure that what you're doing is consensual, don't do it. So, if you've seen a person have a couple of beers, and you don't know how well they handle their alcohol, don't have sex with them. If you meet someone on a night out and you don't know how much they've had to drink, don't have sex with them. If someone seems very willing but are slurring their words, don't have sex with them.

I almost sound like I'm telling people not to have sex. Nah. That would be dumb. People are gonna have sex (or not, as may be the case) regardless of what anyone else tells them to do. All I'm saying is, save yourself the trouble of maybe forcing someone to do something they don't want. After all, it should be fun.

It's personal

Yesterday, a good friend sent me a link to this post, saying that he mostly agreed with much of it.

I do too. Discussing feminism with other people (not to mention with people of a different gender) is difficult, and yes, certain comments and arguments seem like personal attacks, and people get offended or hurt. The same happens when discussing racism, sexuality, romantic orientation, etc. or any intersection of these matters. People get hurt. People feel attacked. People feel offended.

I know this first hand. I've always been a feminist, and I've always believed in equality, but for a long time I ignored intersectionality, especially as applying to race (mainly because I was ignorant). I've been one of the "not all white people" crew, and I've been one of the "no one's gonna listen to you if you don't keep calm" crew. So I understand where a lot of "not all men" come from.

But here's the thing. When I speak about feminism to men, they need to understand that I am part of the "oppressed" group, and they are a part of the "privileged" group. I almost feel stupid saying this, because for the most part, personally in my life, I have not felt oppressed or discriminated against for being female (I have, on the other hand, felt in danger or impotent for being female, mainly when men on the street have either said things to me that could easily be construed as threats or touched me), but it's true. When a man (gender) talks to a woman (gender) about feminism, he has to take into account that he's talking to someone who may have suffered a lot because of discrimination. It's not that his opinions don't matter, but his "hurt" at a woman's opinion is a lot less than the hurt of women who have been discriminated against just because they're women. Same thing goes for any other oppression.

For example, yesterday I was on Twitter, and I came across a conversation between two African American women who were discussing how living in Spain (even traveling) is a no-go for African American people (especially women). I was hurt by this. Spain is my country and I would like to think that it's welcoming, that as a population we are nice. I felt like asking these people whether they'd been to Spain (because I felt they were saying what they were saying out of a stereotype). And then I realised, it had nothing to do with me. They weren't saying I was a racist because I was Spanish. They weren't even saying that most Spaniards are racist, or even that we're bad people. They were saying that, because they are black, their experiences in Spain weren't or wouldn't be positive. And I can't argue with that. Mainly, because I'm not black, and so I don't have the experience of being black in Spain. Maybe the racism suffered by black people in Spain is minimal. Maybe it only comes from very few people. But I can't assess the damage. Furthermore, because there are relatively few black people in Spain, I can't assess how they're regularly treated, and actions that might be out of curiosity or even friendliness for Spanish people (such as looking/staring at someone different or calling someone "morena" [side note: I've been called morena and I'm white. It's very little to do with race]) can be very hurtful or offensive to the people subject to them. And I can't know because I'm not in their place. I can say "Spain is a beautiful country, and most people aren't racist", but that doesn't mean that the attitudes of a lot of Spanish people aren't slightly bizarre and possibly annoying, or that the attitudes of a few aren't incredibly damaging.

The other thing about this is "be calm and then people will take you seriously". Firstly, this is unfair. If my argument is good, it shouldn't matter if I'm angry when I'm making it (as long as I'm not being physically aggressive). I will admit, however, that for some people, anger is very distressful. I, for example, deal badly with people shouting at me. I shut down, and rather than remorseful or scared, it looks like I just don't care. So tone policing is more complicated, because although we are allowed to be angry (and we should express our anger), it has to be accepted that people will react differently to anger, and that sometimes it's not the best way to get a point across. This applies to personal situations, but when we're talking about a movement, sometimes the only way to be listened to is to be angry. Protest is important, being loud is important, being heard is necessary.

Secondly, I find the "be calm and then people will take you seriously" incredibly hypocritical. [TW, discussion of sexual assault or rape and reactions to it] Many women, upon reporting rape or sexual abuse are not taken seriously. Part of this is that many women don't "act the victim". For some reason, there's an expectation of women who've been raped or sexually assaulted to act a certain way, usually crying, breaking down, etc. Women who don't act like this, women who are calm and composed when reporting, are often disbelieved. And this is terrifying. Because let me tell you, the reaction most people have when they are attacked and can do nothing about it, is to shut down. They get quiet. They try to pretend it isn't happening. There is a huge emotional disconnect. Sometimes, the best way (or the way) that people handle trauma is to disconnect emotionally. The hurt is so bad, feeling it is so bad, that it's easier to just not feel. Treat what happened as a sterile event, or even as something that happened to someone else. Not be personal about it, because being personal would break them. So women, plenty of times, are expected to not be angry when protesting but to break down when they've been hurt. Again, this is hypocritical.

The conclusion to this post is the following: when speaking to someone who traditionally belongs to a group with less privilege than you, assess what you are saying and where your feelings come from. If you are hurt because you think you aren't like that, assess whether a) you're really not like that and b) whether it matters whether you're like that or not. The fact that you aren't a rapist does not change that most rapist are men or that many women have been raped by men. The fact that men can get raped also doesn't change that fact. The fact that you aren't racist (or that you think you aren't, examine your actions, many of us are unintentionally racist, or jokingly racist) doesn't mean that institutional racism doesn't exist, or that there aren't racist people, or that certain actions that may not seem like such a big deal to you are putting a group of people in an uncomfortable position.

Finally, and to end this post on an incidental note, the writer of the post mentioned above talks about a conversation about abortion and how a male friend of hers said that he and his partner wouldn't have had an abortion because "they weren't that shallow". She goes on to say that the guy is a nice guy and that she felt hurt because she felt like she was being called shallow but that she policed herself to stay calm not to have a fight. Now, I wasn't there. I don't know the situation. But I honestly don't see another fucking interpretation to "We didn't have an abortion because we aren't that shallow" than "People who have abortions are shallow". Which is bullshit. Another thing, what do you mean by "we" didn't have an abortion? What? No. Your partner didn't have an abortion. Unless the post is misleading (which is entirely possible) you are a cis straight man, so you can't get pregnant, so you can't have an abortion. You might think you had any say in the matter, but no. If your partner had decided to have an abortion, it was her body and she would have had all the right in the world to have an abortion, independently of what you thought. You didn't not have an abortion. Finally, I know a lot of nice guys. I know a lot of good men who make mistakes, or don't realise what they're saying is ignorant or wrong (I know a lot of good women with these characteristics as well). This doesn't make them right. Being nice, being a decent person, doesn't make you right. It doesn't automatically excuse you from doing the work that it takes to be a feminist, and it most certainly doesn't excuse you from my reaction when you say something hurtful about women or something that is simply wrong.

Hurt is hurt, but some things hurt more than others, and some things are institutionally hurting whole groups of people. So analyse your feelings. Maybe it's just you. Maybe you need to take a breath and accept that not everything is about you and making you feel better, and that not everything has to be a nice interaction. All going back to the idea that social justice and equality are not theoretical. They're not things we just spend evenings discussing with our friends. They have institutional consequences and affect a lot of people. So think before you react.

Apathy?

Every time I log in here I think it's been ages since I last wrote, and every time, I realise it hasn't been quite that long. In any case, it's getting to the point where it's been too long.

I have (dare I say it?) writer's block. Not real writer's block: I can write my day to day stuff, I can write about my PhD project, I can write a little bit of fiction); but I feel very lazy about writing on the blog. Not just because it takes time and effort (part of the reason) or because my home laptop has broken and I can't use the keyboard anymore (any suggestions for good keyboards? Or for a new laptop for that matter?), but simply because I have been missing originality. Not just in my writing, but in what I read. On Twitter, on Facebook, on the papers, even books! Everything reads stale. Like each person is repeated what someone else said for the millionth time. It's exhausting. And it's boring. Having to say the same things over and over and over again. Having to fight. Having to argue over the same things, make the same points. I find myself picking arguments with people I agree with just for a breath of fresh air (to any of my friends or colleagues I've done this to: my sincerest apologies. I am just bored when it comes to discourse). Even this blogpost feels stale, I think I've written it before (but again, I am a bit lazy about looking it up and linking it, because what's the point? You reading a duplicate? Having a blog that reads like the Guardian articles where any buzzword is linked, even if the link has little to do with the original article).

Don't get me wrong, there are things I want to write about: I want to write about sex and race in biology. But I don't want the fights that come with it. I want to write about sexism (or lack thereof) in science. But I don't want the fights that come with it. I want to write about whether or not it's "normal" to want to own a house and live independently. But I don't want the fights that come with it. I want to write about animal rights and veganism. But I don't want the fights that come with it.

Some may say I'm lazy, or not engaged enough, that I don't care enough. Maybe they're right. Or maybe I've come to the realisation that people are stubborn and don't change and that arguing is only going to lead to bittersweetness, to the realisation that people are stubborn and don't change.

So yeah. I guess this is me saying I don't want to convince people anymore. I don't want to argue. Anyways. If anyone wants to suggest a topic to write about, feel free (not promising I'll do it). I might feel more inclined if I think my opinion actually matters to someone.

Back home...

The local and regional elections in Spain took place on the 24th of May this year. They were important elections, not just because any elections are important (especially in a country where there weren't really any elections for about 36 years), but because for the first time in a very long time it was felt that there might be a real change in the political make up of the country.

For the past 24 years (this is, for most of my life), the regional and local map of Spanish politics has been dominated by the PP (Popular Party, if I were to make comparisons with the UK they would be the "tories") and the PSOE (the Spanish socialist workers' party, if I were making comparisons with the UK they would be very, very watered down labour); but mostly by the PP. The PSOE dominated in some regions (Andalucia especially), and the Basque country and Catalonia have always had a strong presence of their own nationalistic parties, but for the most part, the PP has been incredibly strong in a lot of Spain for a very, very long time.

I'll put my city as an example, because it is the place I know. Ávila is a gorgeous city (see picture below), very small (about 60000 people live there) and with a high proportion of older people (slightly over half of the population is older than 40). This last fact has to do with many factors, the main one probably being that Ávila does not have a state University. The University of Salamanca has been conceding more and more degrees to schools in Ávila, and we have the private Catholic University, but the fact is, Ávila is not a particularly attractive place for young people to live. It is small, there's not that much going on, and (for its size) it is expensive. On the other hand, it's beautiful, it is well located (within an hour and a half of Salamanca, Segovia, Valladolid and Madrid), like all small places it is comfortable, and considering its size there is plenty of variety in terms of things to do.

Picture of the Ávila walls, I think the oldest conserved medieval walls in Europe. Taken from here, but don't really know who to credit the photo to...

 Ávila has been governed by the PP since 1991. This is not surprising considering its demographics (in Spain it is quite normal for the older generation to vote "conservative"), but it has been pretty awful for the city. During the economic boom of the 2000s, building licenses for apartments in the area of town where I live (a working class neighbourhood in what used to be the outskirts of town) were handed out very irresponsibly, and now there are about 3 people per house in Ávila (that is a huge proportion). This might not seem like much, let me put it into perspective.

My family moved to my neighbourhood 24 years ago. The house I live in was (at the time) at the outskirts of the city, meaning you could very easily go biking or for a walk in the country; it was also close to the public swimming pool, and Ávila being small, it is about a 15 to 20 minute walk from the centre (and only that long because Ávila is a very hilly town, so the walk to the centre is quite steep). Now, Trotski (my dog) is 15 years old this year, and the mass urbanization of the area around my house started about three or four years before I got him (by my calculations, it is likely that it started earlier but the effects were only seen a few years later), so about 1997. The mass urbanization of my neighbourhood means that we are no longer in the outskirts of town, and that places we used to bike to or walk around have now been turned into streets. This wouldn't be a problem if this whole new area of Ávila was populated. It isn't. Some of the apartment blocks haven't been finished. Others have only two or three families living in them. Slowly, more people (especially young people) are starting to move there, but it's still a bit creepy to walk around at night, because it feels like an abandoned city.

The economic crisis hit hard in Ávila. A lot of people made money off the building of all these homes, but more than that, a lot of people were employed in the building of these homes. When the crash occurred and money started running out, these people ended up without a job. Many now work in construction in Madrid and commute from Ávila, many have left. But the fact is, a lot of people, especially older people with secure jobs, have stayed in the city, and by now the economic recovery is starting to be felt. But after 24 years of PP majority leadership in the city, this year there was a surprise. The emergence of new political forces (especially Ciudadanos, a party that calls itself a centre party, but which many consider to just be the PP with a washed face [personally, I don't have a lot of trust in this party, but if they keep their promises and keep going the way they're going, they could garner a lot of good will. They have some very good proposals, and despite the fact that in some aspects they are very economically liberal, they do agree that they have an interest in maintaining public health and education services, but this is a discussion for some other time]) has meant that the PP has lost its political lead and for the first time in 24 years, in a city known for being conservative and a stronghold of the PP, the PP might not lead the government. These are very exciting times.

Now, for the past few weeks (since the 24th of May), there has been no political leadership in my city. There is no "governing body" or anything like it. And (surprise surprise) everything keeps working just fine. The trash is still cleaned, schools are still opened, people finishing bachillerato are still taking selectividad (best of luck!!!), the public libraries are still open, the job centre works, etc., etc., etc. This makes me wonder if we really want or need a political leadership in the city. Personally, I would go a step further, avoid deals and keep the city going as it is. If problems arose, solve them through talks with the people involved; if they involve the whole city, hold a referendum. Politicians in Ávila have never done much but smile for the photo anyway (note: this is sarcastic. Some heavy weights of the political landscape in Spain have started off in Ávila, and I am sure that certain political decisions in Ávila have affected the citizens in important ways, I just can't think of any right now).

In any case, it's exciting times. I think the city (and by extrapolation the country) was in need of a change. I should point out that in many places, the change has been a turn to Podemos and other left "minority" parties, and that Ávila is not necessarily a good generalising example, but in any case, it is exciting times when a country like Spain, with a heavy bias towards a two party system, gets to the situation where it is now. I'm looking forward to the general election (I will probably stay up for that one) and I'm hoping more change is in the way. It's needed. Corruption in politics needs to be weeded out, and social policies need to be put in place. My country desperately needs it, and for the first time in about seven or eight years, there's hope.

Cleaning up

Lately I've been having some trouble with feeling superior. Not generally. Definitely not personally (I don't think I've ever felt that I was "better" than anyone else, whatever that means, maybe better at something but not just better). But lately I've been a bit exasperated with people.

I've sort of talked about it before: reading Facebook statuses and Twitter and feeling like nothing anybody says is worth the time they took to write it, feeling everyone keeps going in circles (myself included) and that there's only negative feelings and no creation; reading papers and reading the same exact things over and over again, repackaged and sold as though they're new. That's part of it.

The other part of it is even worse. I feel like people don't own up.

I've spoken before about how in Spain a lot of people got bursaries who did not really work for them (they got them on an income-assessed basis, which is fine, but they were not required to actually do much in order to keep them). I think I've also written before about my feeling towards humanities (if not, here it is in a nutshell: humanities are fascinating, I love them personally, but I'm not sure someone should be paid to do research on a topic that isn't productive, plus, I'm still not convinced that they require academic study). I feel this same way about pretty much any topic that I could learn by reading on my own and that doesn't produce benefits for society (perhaps maths could be included in this, except in the long term, maths does produce benefits for society). Obviously, a lot of people will say that humanities (and arts) are the only way to reach transcendence or to understand humanity, or life. Although I agree I think this finding is personal, it does not come out of someone else studying humanities or trying to explain these findings.

Anyway, my feelings of superiority are partly borne out of this, and it was necessary to explain it before I get into the question concerning me today.

Yesterday I was reading an article about "mileuristas". "Mileurista" is a term coined in the 2005 by Carolina Algucil in a letter to "El País". In its most basic form, it describes people who make 1000€ per month. In its complexity it is something more: it is a word that describes someone, who after obtaining a degree, maybe a masters, "who has languages" (this is a direct translation from the article) can't find a job that pays more than 1000€. Apparently, this is dramatic, but I think this depends entirely on what moment of your life you're in, I think it might be dramatic if you're 30, but not so much if you're 22 and you've just graduated.

In any case, the article presented the cases of a few people, between 24 and 35 who are "mileuristas". Let me tell you what they all had in common (except one of them, who was working towards a thesis in Biology and was making about 1000€, which is fairly normal for a PhD studentship, it depends, but they're not particularly well paid, after all one is still a doctoral student, it's not considered a full-blown job): they all had humanities degrees. Now, I know a lot of humanities students who are doing well. They finished their degree and are now working in advertising or publishing or (in one case that I am particularly jealous of) journalism. Here's what I don't get: people who finished a degree in Spanish (in Spain) and now complain that they can't find a job "in their field" that pays well. Well, what did you expect? This is not rhetorical: what do these people expect? For one thing, there's already plenty of Spanish students, the top ones get places teaching Spanish in schools (sometimes in Universities). What other jobs are there for people who've studied Spanish and not done too well? Working in publishing? Sure, but let's be honest, the publishing industry is not what it was, and especially not in Spain. Not that many editors are needed. Journalism? Again, sure, but there's only money if you become a regular in one of the big newspapers, and even then it doesn't pay that well. Plus, there's already plenty of journalism students jumping to get these jobs. What did these people expect? I genuinely don't understand.

Now, I'm not saying a degree in humanities is useless. It's not. People who study humanities do incredibly well in a lot of fields, but sometimes I wonder what they consider "their" field. I find this particularly funny when most scientists I know are happy working outside of theirs. Scientists might not admit it, but for most of the ones working in banking or accounting or consulting they are using skills learnt in their degree, but they are not working in their field. I could have gone into a job in banking (if only I could learn to dress professionally, it's really not my thing), and I would have been hired because I graduated with a "science" degree from a "top" UK university, but I wouldn't have been using Biochemistry in banking. I wonder when humanities students will realise that working in "one's" field is something that only academics and incredibly talented people (writers) get to do. That fields are flexible. That jobs are jobs and that for the most part they are not fulfilling. That nothing quite compares to studying.

I suspect part of my feelings come from the fact that we've been sold a lie: "find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life". I won't pretend to know who first said this, it's been repeated a million times. I know people who like their jobs. I know people who love their jobs. I know few people who would rather be at work than resting at home, or reading a book, or watching a film, or out for drinks with friends. I know even fewer who would keep working at the same rate they currently do if they were rich (a lot of people, particularly in the UK, say they would continue working because "what else are they going to do", but most of them admit that they would probably worry less about their superiors and work at a more relaxed pace).

The other side of things (the other "feeling of superiority") comes from an entirely different corner: yesterday I was reading a blog about people's experiences with academia on tumblr and all I could think was "stop fucking crying and do your job", in other words: "stop complaining and deal with it". Now, I didn't think this about all the posts (a lot of them are about mental health problems being ignored, a HUGE problem in academia both at undergrad and postgrad levels), and some of the cases described are horrifying, but with a lot of them I can't help but thinking "what did you think you were getting into? Did you think it was gonna be easy?". Part of this stems from the fact that I have had (in the past) a relatively difficult experience in a lab, and I got through it, and I do think that sometimes people have to learn to not take things too personally (even though at some level I can understand that this isn't as easy for everyone). Another part, however, does come from people's expectations. I speak to a lot of people in academia because I am working towards a PhD, and I'm often surprised as to the "I thought this would work in x way", especially relating to working hours or workload. The reason I am surprised is not because I necessarily think it's ok, but because you can ask almost any PhD student and they'll tell you PhDs are hard work, there are no fixed hours, and a lot of supervisors expect you to be "on call" 24/7. How did this person get into a PhD without doing research into what the conditions were first? Part of it is simply that we like to complain. I have a very nice life as a PhD, and yes, sometimes the hours are long, but a lot of the time things work out quite nicely in terms of work/life balance (at least for me). But part of it is genuinely people failing to ask questions and realise what they were getting into. The other thing is this idea that because you reported a health problem (it comes about a couple of times in the blog, both times with mental health problems) people are going to care about it. This is, that it is wrong for them to not do anything beyond recognising you are ill and giving you time off. As far as I know, you are doing research for your supervisor. They are not your friend. It is their job to facilitate you getting time off or getting treatment or whatever when you are ill (by signing off on time off, by accepting as true what you and your doctor have told them to be true), but it isn't their job to ask how you're doing, walk on eggshells around you once you're back or provide any sort of personal support beyond the job.

Anyways, I just wanted to get these things off my mind because the fact is at some level I don't like thinking the way I do, but I really, really do think this way.

Finally: said before, but repeat it here: mental health is a serious issue in academia, and it is often ignored or even, in a way, encouraged (a high proportion of people in academia are bipolar and it goes undetected or it is "beneficial" since the academic schedule follows ups and downs in activity that can match the illness, for example). It is the responsibility of all of us who are part of academia to improve this situation, not just for our work colleagues but for ourselves. The levels of stress academia puts on some people are dangerous and can lead to mental breakdowns (schizophrenia, although genetic, has been known to surface after a particularly intense time of stress), and even when they don't, it has been shown that high stress levels (not low stress) make us less productive and (more importantly) more likely to die younger. Look out for it. If there are things your department or University can do to improve the mental health of its students and workers as a whole, fight for it. It is important, it can save lives.

On Bravery

Every day, or almost, I see an article describing women as brave for speaking out about harassment or rape. I myself have been called brave by a good friend because I wrote about the fact that some idiot once grabbed my ass when I was out running.

Apparently, there is a lot of shame and victim-blaming going around, and this is why women don't talk about these things, and why women who do are brave. I say apparently not because the shaming and the victim-blaming isn't true (it obviously is, just look at any of the rapes that have been reported in fraternities in the past year, or at the fact that women are being told to stop drinking to protect themselves), but because I wasn't brave, and a lot of women who I know have spoken up weren't brave (this isn't to say all of them aren't, just that a lot of them are not).

Now, some will say "you don't think you were but actually...". This isn't true. Bravery is the quality of someone ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage. When I spoke up about the fact that a man had grabbed my ass, that wasn't brave: I wasn't ready to face and endure danger or pain, because I didn't expect to endure it. I knew (or at least I felt, and I was proven right) when I spoke up (and I didn't even think of it as speaking up, I was just talking about something that happened to me) that no one I knew would tell me "you were looking for it". That no one would ask "what were you wearing?". Obviously, when I say I "knew", what I mean is that I would have been surprised if anyone had. I wrote about it in my blog and I received positive responses all around. No one said to me "you deserved it". At the time, I didn't tell my parents, because I didn't think it was such a big deal (it pissed me off, and broke my run, but the guy didn't physically hurt me) but mostly because I didn't want to worry them. Not because I was ashamed it had happened. If I thought I was in danger or that it would happen again I would have told them.

It's a good thing that more people are speaking out about rape. It speaks volumes to the work being done by a lot of people to stop invisibilising abuse, but also, in a lot of cases, it reflects a, perhaps small, change in our society: less people are afraid to speak out. More people feel safe enough in their environment to speak out. More safe spaces for people to speak out are becoming available. And this last point is perhaps the most important.

I think more and more women are feeling secure about reporting stranger rape and stranger assault. Although horrible attitudes still exist and victim blaming exists, I honestly believe that things are better in terms of safety for people who speak up than they were two or five years ago, if only because more people are speaking out. However, more needs to be done. Safe spaces need to be created for people who have suffered assault to speak up, specially for people who are in situations where speaking up puts them in danger (people who are suffering abuse from a friend or their partner or someone in their family). Means have to be provided for people who are in these situations to get out of them, but with utmost respect for the victim (I personally think that coping with rape and assault are very personal things, I disagree with people who insist that others have to speak out, although I do wish everyone could speak out and feel safe about speaking out). 

Now, there is a (small?) problem with this. If I get raped, I report my rapist, it goes to trial and he is declared not guilty, and then I continue to call him a rapist, I can be accused (and found guilty of) slander. This is how the justice system works, and I would never agree to change it (a person's life shouldn't be ruined because of a false accusation, even if that means that guilty people get off). However, I somehow feel that even if I can't call out this person publicly, there should be spaces (support groups are the obvious ones, but also personal conversations with friends) where this should be ok... The fact that I think this horrifies. Basically, I'm saying that I can't call someone a rapist in public if this person has been cleared, but I can do so in private if I want. There is a huge problematic in this: when does the private become public? But there is also an element of safety: if I know that someone is a potential danger because that person has hurt me, but declared not guilty, is it really slander to warn my friends off that person? I don't know the answers to this questions. I know what I would do personally, and I know what is fair, but I also know how the law works and that we don't live in an utopian world (or even in a non-utopia where there is a simple way to prove if someone has raped someone else or not).

Bravery is a big word. It means standing up to something, speaking out knowing that by doing so you are putting yourself in danger. I am not brave. Very few people are. And contrary to popular believe, that is not a bad thing. In a perfect world, people would not need to be brave to speak out for social justice, because that would be the norm. In a perfect world, speaking out against social injustice would never put you in danger.

Reading

I like reading, I really do. It's... nice. It's fun. It's distracting. It's liberating. It's a coping mechanism, and a escape mechanism, but more than anything it's pure pleasure. There are few things to me as enjoyable as picking up where I left off and making my way slowly through a novel. Or reading a newspaper article to take a break from work. Or reading poems aloud.

Reading has taught me a lot of what I know. If I couldn't read, I wouldn't speak English right now. I also wouldn't be able to understand French. I probably couldn't have studied Biochemistry, and I simply wouldn't know a lot of the random facts I've picked up through a lifetime of reading randomly.

I also really like shows. TV shows. And movies. I love movies. If I had to choose between never reading again and never watching a movie again, I would choose reading, but probably only because there's more and they occupy more time, and they have been more central to me. But I don't see many fundamental differences between the two media. They are different media, but in the end, they are ways of telling stories. And stories are what captivate us. Stories: they are how we communicate and how we think, and to a certain extent, how we think about our lives. Even in science, which people insist on calling "objective", we like stories. A good article has good evidence, but more than anything, it is readable and it has a good story.

It is common around these dates (the 23rd of April is Book Day in Spain, and all over Spain there are book fairs) to see a few articles or letters to the editor (there was one in "El País" today) about how great reading is and how parents should do more to make their children read.

I tend to agree with the sentiment. Reading is fantastic. It provides entertainment and escape. I was an only child and it provided hours of entertainment when there wasn't a neighbour or a cousin or someone around to play with. But every time these letters go on to say something along the lines of: "read, your children will imitate you, you'll be investing in their future" or, less subtly, "read so your children will imitate you, it will make them 'better'/'smarter'". I don't deny that reading is useful, and that literature is part of culture. But please, don't make your children read because "it will make them more cultured" or because it's "better than watching TV for so many hours a day". Maybe it will, and maybe it is, but these are not reasons to read. I know plenty of people who are smart, funny, intelligent and cultured who only read in class. Some of them listen to so much music that I can't compute how many hours they spend listening, others know more about movies or TV shows or whatever other hobby they have than I can even imagine remembering. A lot of them are brilliant, they can read and write perfectly, and they've just never found reading that interesting.

While I may think that not finding reading interesting is sad, because to me books have more to offer than almost anything else, "being cultured" or "it will make them smart" are not good reasons to get children reading. Children will read for the same reason that they will do anything else: because it's fun and interesting.

Parents who go on about how "good" reading is gets on my nerves. Who cares if it's good? Vegetables are good. School is good. Reading isn't "good". It's fucking amazing. It's fun. It's escape and fascination and hours upon hours of conversation with other readers. It's friends and family. It's inside jokes and getting references. Reading is as much part of my enjoyment of life as any other thing. I don't do it to be smart. Or to be cultured. Or because it's "what I should do". I do it because there's nothing else is worth my while more.

Weird dreams and the Capgras syndrome

Today, rooting around the internet, I came across the Capgras delusion. This in itself isn't strange, I've been coming across quite a few psychological disorders lately, partly because I've been reading quite a bit of Oliver Sacks.

The curious thing is I was reading the symptoms and despite what the internet agrees upon (that it only happens to people with mental damage of some sort) I recognised the symptoms perfectly. I have experienced it before.

First of all, let me explain a little bit about Capgras Delusion or Capgras Syndrome. It is a psychological syndrome in which a patient, usually after having suffered some sort of brain damage (a concussion, but also dementia or Alzheimer's), are convinced that their family members are impostors, this is, that they are the exact family member, with the same voice and mannerisms and memory, but that they are not "their" family member, that "their" family member has been supplanted. The delusion can extend to several people and even to inanimate objects or pets.

Curiously, the only reported case in a healthy person was someone who'd taken ketamine. However, I suspect that the reason for this is that in healthy people Capgras delusion only occurs extremely sporadically and for very short times.

Now as to my experience with it.

It happened a few years ago, I must have been 16 or 17. I remember waking up, and I remember it being a weekend (or something like it, I didn't have to go to school). I remember lying in bed and feeling very, very comfy. And terrified.

Because here's the thing: even though everything I could see seemed "right" I couldn't shake off the feeling that I was in a parallel universe. That that house was not my house, those books were not my books, that world was not my world. I felt like I was in a sci-fi story and I'd fallen through some sort of wormhole and gotten somewhere where everything was exactly the same, but it wasn't my the same.

The scariest thing is that I had no one to turn to. I've had very vivid nightmares since I was a kid, and at some point I found relief for them: my father said to me that if I told them to someone they would stop being scary. This is true. I have tried it plenty of times, whenever I tell someone about a scary dream (now that I'm older I rarely have "scary" nightmares, but I still have very intense stress nightmares) it stops being as scary, and I feel better because the subject of my fear becomes a bit comical once it is expressed out loud. I realise that my worry is not that big. Now, imagine the same situation but knowing with almost certainty that the people I would usually tell about it were not them. That if I told them they would try to tell me it was them, but that I would know it wasn't true. That everyone in the world I trusted did not exist in this parallel world.

I got out of bed and out of my room, and around the corner and down the stairs, all the time expecting to find something that would confirm my suspicions that I was not in the "real" world, and more and more terrified because everything looked exactly the same, and I couldn't tell the difference.

The prevalent feeling was isolation. I'm not sure anyone can imagine it, but it was essentially the feeling of being in a world of complete strangers, where nobody knew me or knew who I was, even though the my pseudo-family seemed to know me and I seemed to know them.

Talking to my mum was a challenge. She acted like my mum. I don't think I was very friendly that morning, probably replied to things in monosyllables and didn't really ask questions. I was terrified. As the day wore on things started to slowly fit back into their place. This metaphor has been used before, but it was like a rubber band had been stretched too far and now my reality was slowly going back.

I went to sleep that night and woke up the next morning and everything was back to normal.

But whenever I think about it, it terrifies me, for several reasons: firstly, things never "snapped" back. I never went from believing I was in this parallel universe to believing I wasn't and that it was my world, but rather, as I carried on through the day things kept going how I expected them to, so it became easier to somehow convince myself (or become convinced) that the world I was seeing was indeed my world. Because of this I'll never know for sure that I'm not in a parallel world, and as stupid as this is, this terrifies me. Secondly, I fear that I may have sacrificed my "real" world. After all, if this parallel universe was so much like my world that I couldn't tell the difference, maybe it's ok that I'm here and that maybe the girl from this place is in my original place. After all, we can't tell the difference. Finally, and I guess this is a weird one, but I wonder about the rest of the people. I wonder if they were all originally "here".

But only sometimes. Most of the time I believe that that day my mind played some weird trick on me, probably because of some weird dream I was having.

In any case, I wonder if anyone's had a similar experience and I also wonder if it has to do with the Capgras Syndrome.

I suspect it doesn't, if only because it appears that the Capgras syndrome is a result of a damaged pathway linked with visual recognition (people are able to identify people they know, but he neurological pathway that links that recognition to a feeling of familiarity does not function properly) and I don't see how that could be damaged for a day, but who knows? If anyone has any light to shed on the case, please let me know. It doesn't terrify me anymore (this world is my world now, bitches!), but I am curious.

On a last point, I did finally tell my parents about my experience, and more than anything they found it curious, and they seemed to think that if everyone was exactly the same and I couldn't tell the difference it shouldn't really matter whether or not they were the same people.

My politics

Most of you will know that I am no politician. My ideas are not clear enough, my ideals are... flexible to say the least (though not that flexible) and I am incapable of maintaining a position when I am not sure that I am right. However, there are a few measures I would like to see proposed by the politicians of the country I vote in (so, Spain. I would like to see it in the UK too, but it seems even less likely in this country).

1. Anyone elected for public office (this does not include people working in the public sector however, just those who have been elected) should be obligated to use the public healthcare system.

2. Anyone elected for public office should be obligated to use public education.

3. Anyone elected for public office should only be allowed to hold one public office at a time, perhaps excepting those cases where one public office requires the holding of another public office. Having been elected for public office implies that no other job will be held at the same time.

4. Those public offices that require holding another public office should be minimised, and if possible, eliminated.

5. Politics should not be a profession. People should be able to hold public office for the time when they do so, and be compensated for time taken off whatever job they had prior to obtaining public office, but once their term is done, they should go back to that job. No one in public office should be offered a life-long post or stipend for having been in public office.

6. All workers in the public sector (including people elected for public office) should make a salary based exclusively on their qualifications, years of experience and hours of work put in. In cases where results are measurable in an objective way, it could be possible to have bonuses based on performance (this is very difficult, for example, teachers, where good performance cannot necessarily be measured by good grades if the grades are handed out by the teacher, which is the current situation in Spain. Also, teachers cannot be penalised if they routinely teach classes with less intelligent students or routinely teach students with learning difficulties).

I can't think of anything else right now, but I think these measures would do a lot to eliminate corruption, nepotism, etc. in politics and the public sector. But whatever. I'll never be a politician, people who think these are measures that should be implemented will never be politicians, and if or when they are they would never get into power. So that's that.

A little bit on privilege

Note: I am the least appropriate person to be writing this post, but I think it deserves to be written. I apologise in advance for any oversights I might have because of my "privilege" (read: cis white female with University education who has a command of the English language, etc.)

This post comes about because of something that happened to me the other day which made me check my privilege majorly. Someone I know very well, someone who I consider a very good friend and whom I love dearly, is planning a trip soon. They will be going to countries that I have visited in the past, and they've realised that they won't have as much time as they expected, so they have to cut one leg of the journey. They asked my advice. I replied honestly with what I thought would make a better trip, which country I thought was more spectacularly beautiful. And got a reply that basically amounted "Yeah, I agree, but people tend to be more racist there". The fact is, that despite this person being an extremely close friend and me trying to have their best interests at heart at all times, I had not considered this at all. Racism had not come into my mind at all when thinking about his decision on the trip.

I think I apologised for not thinking about it, and said, quite honestly, that I unfortunately couldn't help him to decide based on that factor because I had not been aware of it when I had traveled in this country. I felt awful for not having thought of this. Effectively my "privilege" had been "checked" (specifically, my white privilege) (the reason I use quotes is because I don't like either of these words in the way they are used, but that's fodder for another post).

This made me think again about how many people who try to help from a position of privilege (acknowledged or not) make mistakes. But then there are mistakes and there are complete fuck ups. Patricia Arquette's Oscar acceptance speech could have been a mistake. If you want to read it in full, it can be found here. However, what she said later backstage was a fuck up.

Now, the first few paragraphs of her acceptance speech are the typical thanks to people who collaborated in the film and to family and friends. It's the last paragraph that worries me. It says "To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights."

I don't know how anyone else reads it. But the way it reads to me is "women have fought for everybody else's equal rights". What would this mean? This would mean that women fought for equal rights for other minorities, namely people of colour (especially black people in the context of the United States) and LGBT. Now this is problematic. Firstly, it is assuming that others' equal rights have been achieved. They haven't. Though there might (approximately) equal legal rights it is obvious that in the United States people of colour especially are discriminated against, suffering the most police brutality and the most incarceration, numbers being particularly grim for black people. LGBT people, especially trans people, are still routinely the victims of hate attacks and of assault, and these crimes are less persecuted (and I mean persecuted, not prosecuted). Secondly, it assumes that women did fight for these "equal rights". This is undoubtedly true, women have been and are involved and lead many of the protests that have led and are leading to changes for equal rights. Unfortunately, it was not all women. In fact, when it comes to fighting for equal rights, each minority has done more for itself than anyone else. To suggest that women, as a unified group, have done a lot for any minority is ridiculous. It is true that women of certain minorities have been instrumental in driving change and equal rights for those minorities (trans women come to mind, but also black women, who are doing an incredible amount of work on Twitter and other social media).

Furthermore, Arquette went on backstage. And that's when the fuck up really started. This is what Arquette said:

"It's time for all the women in America and all the men who love women and all the gay people and all the people of colour that we’ve fought for, to fight for us now"

Now, let's unpack that sentence. Firstly "all the women in America". Surely, that should include the women of colour and the gay women, but apparently they are not included in this "all the women in America", because she seems to need to point out "all the gay people and all the people of colour". So clearly, when she speaks of "all the women in America" what she really means is "all the cis-hetero white women". And this is not subtext. This is clear. She follows this with "and all the men who love women". I mean, I would ask all the men to do it, but ok. This, again, should include gay men and men of colour... or is she implying that men of colour and gay men don't love women? Or does she mean "white heterosexual men" who love women? Or does she mean by "love" heterosexual, in which case, again, she is either implying that black men are not heterosexual, or that they don't love women... in any case, fucked up. Let's continue "and all the gay people and all the people of colour who we have fought for". Now, this is where the shit really hits the fan. Firstly, are those two groups not included in "all the women" and all the "men who love women" if you are meant to be inclusive (and excluding the weirdo difference between men and men who love women)? Secondly, are this two groups not an intersection? She could have just said "We should all fight for", but no, she had to name groups, and she fucked up. Now, saying just "men" and "women" would not have been strictly all-inclusive, but it would have been a bit less of a fuck up, because at least it wouldn't have assumed that women and "men who love women" aren't women of colour and gay... Thirdly "who we have fought for". What the fuck? Who is this "we"? Is this all the people in America? The people in the world? Women? Who the fuck is this we, because it's fucking problematic. Let me tell you, the people who fight for people of colour tend to be people of colour. Unfortunately, very few white people can claim to really have fought for people of colour. They might abstractly or from afar agree that they have equal rights, but have you seen them march? Put their lives in danger? Because, for the most part, they haven't. The people who have bought for LGBTQ+ rights have mostly been LGBTQ+ people themselves. Most minorities fight for their own rights and don't get shit from the privileged majority. They get less than shit: they get push back. They get shot at, they get fought, they get attacked, they get incarcerated, they get insulted.

Finally, if what she's saying is that gay people and people of colour haven't been fighting for women's equal rights (which is a stupid thing to say, especially because so many gay people and people of colour are women themselves, and most women in the US want equal rights), all I can say is that they have a) a better track record for fighting for equal rights, because they have to fight for their own and they understand the need for equality better than anyone and b) some of the most active women fighting for equal rights.

So, Patricia Arquette, I'm sure you were well intentioned. I'm sure you were trying to do something good (although actions speak better than words). But you fucked up. This sort of comment is what "white feminism" is about: it's racist and it's exclusive. Don't be part of it.

Review: "Crónica de una muerte anunciada"

First of all, a couple of clarifications. I read "Chronicle of a death foretold" in Spanish, so in all justice I should have written this review in Spanish (in fact, I have written a review in Spanish, which I may publish here at some point soon if I have the time and energy to type it up). Secondly, I must insist that the translation of the title is a disservice to the novel, and explain why.

The problem with the translation is that 'anunciada' and "foretold" are not the same thing. Words are, of course, open to interpretation, and it is possible that my interpretation is wrong, of course, but I suspect whoever translated the title chose to have a better sounding title at the expense of having a better translated title. Here's the problem: the death of Santiago Nasar is never foretold. In fact, his mother, the only one who could have foretold it in his dreams, fails to do this. The death is therefore never "foretold". What it is is heralded, announced, made public, made known. "Chronicle of a death made known". That would have been a better title for me, although "Chronicle of a death heralded" may be my favourite of all the alternatives I've come up with. Because that is what it is. The death of Santiago Nasar is broadcast, known by the whole village before it happens, and for this same reason it should have been preventible but wasn't. But it happened.

This is one of those books that stays in my mind, that I find applies to so many things every day, and also one of those books that is so well written that makes me wonder if there is any point in anyone else even attempting to write something worthwhile. García Márquez is one of those authors who seems to write effortlessly, whose pages don't feel worked over but works of pure inspiration. And yet, I suspect this is perhaps one of his most studied novels in that it is almost as perfect as his short stories. It has an almost circular structure. It manages to tell, through the events of a couple of hours, the story of a village. It conveys the character of each of the players and their part in the story, and how they could have all intervened.

As in any García Márquez book, it doesn't avoid the supernatural, but rather it feeds from it: the reason the story is worth telling is because the death is inevitable despite that it should have been so evitable. It's almost an ode to the universal need for Ángela Vicario's honor to be avenged, but of course, by the end of the novel we feel that it was never avenged, and that the inevitability of Santiago Nasar's death was absolutely futile.

First and foremost, "Chronicle of a death foretold" is a story of love (not a love story). There are more couples in the book than I care to list here, but more than that, it is a story of the love of mothers for their children, and of friends for friends, and brothers for their sisters, and in a way, the love that comes from the familiarity of all the people in a village, and the pain and held back feelings and hate as well.

It is also, obviously, a story about death and about honor. I suspect that Europeans of my generation don't understand this book completely (myself included) because we don't just view murder as an atrocity, but also the possibility of murder. The fact that a person would consider murder as a way to defend someone's honor is unthinkable, partly because "honor" is not really a concept anymore (not in the way it is expressed in the book, where honor for a woman is maintaining her virginity and honor for a man is refusing a wife who hasn't) but also because murder is almost inconceivable in the modern "daily life". Murder is something that happens to others far away from us, and it is a tragedy. It is most definitely not a decision taken by normal people to defend their good names or the good names of their loved ones.

"Chronicle of a death foretold" is a perfect book, as an object of writing. It has a satisfying structure, and it is written in a way that feels real. It does not shy away from violence but also does not rejoice in it. In a way, "Chronicle of a death foretold" is a joyful story: the joy of the wedding party and the joy of everyone except Santiago Nasar surviving and getting on with their lives. In a way this is also something that nowadays is difficult to understand. Nowadays we seem to see death as a tragedy and its effects as disruptive and life-breaking, whereas in "Chronicle of a death foretold" death is specific. It happens in a moment in time, it makes someone who was alive dead, and because it does this it changes the lives of those around him slightly, but not really that much. In fact, most of the things that happen to the people after would have happened very similarly had Santiago Nasar not died.

As a final note I should make a small exploration of one of the themes in the book, which is the honor of Ángela Vicario. Now, in Spanish, there are two words with very similar meaning: "honra" and "honor". This is problematic, because as far as I've been able to find out, these two words don't exist in English, and they are both commonly translated as honor. Now, the difference between "honor" and "honra" is an important one: "honor" is "the moral quality of a person who acts according to established rules", whereas "honra" is "the good reputation of someone who acts according to the moral rules". So "honra" is the good reputation that you earn by having "honor". What this means however, is that you can lose your "honor" and conserve your "honra" (if people think that you have acted according to moral rules but you know you haven't) and you can lose your "honra" and conserve you "honor" (if you've acted according to moral rules but people think you haven't). This distinction seems of little importance in this story, except for one reason: Pedro and Pablo Vicario are avenging their sister's honor. But the only reason they care about it was because she was returned. If her husband had accepted the dishonor of having a wife who was dishonorable they would have both conserved their honra. By returning the wife, Bayardo San Román saves his honor and his honra, but his wife loses her honra. Now, his wife cannot recover her honra (not really, because her reputation is tarnished) but by killing the man who was responsible (or who is thought to be responsible) for making her lose her honor, her brothers recover her honor for her. It is a strange concept and might seem insignificant but in a book so entrenched in the Spanish literature such as this I think it is important to understand this.

Review: "The Silmarillion"

So, after many years and three attempts, I finally managed to get through the Music of the Ainur and read the whole of Tolkien's epic piece.

First of all, I should say that my edition of the Silmarillion (and I don't know if this is true of everyone else's) contains "Ainulindalë", "Valaquenta", the "Quenta Silmarillion", "Akâlabeth" and "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", meaning that it is doesn't just contain the story of the Silmarils, but also of the origin of Arda (the world), the coming of the Valar and the Maiar to Arda (the gods), and what happened after the Silmarils where found to the Númenóreans and also a bit more background as to what happened to the rings of power (although not as much as I would have liked).

As much as I criticise and demonise Tolkien for his heavy writing style (his descriptions of mountains in "The Two Towers" are not something I'll ever get over), I have to admit two things: firstly, he is one of the few authors who has been able to pull off creating an entire world, and a believable one, and giving it an origin story that is almost big enough (I'll come back to this later). Secondly, his style, whilst sometimes too heavy for me, is in some ways the style of the Nordic sagas, of anglosaxon myths, of his field of study, and he pulls it off incredibly well.

Now, there are parts of the Silmarillion that I still have issues with: the chapter named "Of Beleriand and its Realms" bores the hell out of me (I like maps, but deailed descriptions of the lands and who reigns where bore me), and I don't like the fact that because it is an epic the personalities of many (all?) characters are completely glossed over. I don't like that I can't remember the names of so many of the characters. And I also don't like that there seem to be no firm rules regarding certain aspects of the world (e.g. apparently Ilúvatar made it possible for humans and elves to procreate but left no instructions as to what sort of creature the hybrids would be, which bothers me enormously, though I understand it's an extremely useful construct for Tolkien to be able to have both Elrond and Elros and the Númenóreans... Also: if you think about it, Aragorn and Arwen are pretty much cousins. Ew.).

As to what I did enjoy: it is pure epic. It lives up to expectations and it does tell me most of what I wanted to know. I loved reading the story of Beren and Lúthien, although I now want to read both the earliest versions and the "Lay of Leithian". I loved the Doom of the Noldor and all the stories that go with it, and I love that (for the most part) Tolkien is not afraid of the destinies he has set upon his characters.

More than anything, I love that for a book so long that covers so many stories and characters, which could feel fragmented, it doesn't. It feels like a cohesive work, and it has an appropriate ending, even if it is a sad one.

It does make me think of this idea that for stories to be good they need to be sad. I never agreed with this. However, I might agree that in order for a story to be an epic, to get to the stature of legend, the story must be tragic. And Tolkien knows tragic. The loss of the Trees of Valinor is possibly the saddest story I had read in a long time, and the tale of how the way to the West was closed (and how the world became round), and why humans fear death, were comforting in a strange way.

All in all, I loved the Silmarillion. It made me understand a lot that I didn't about Tolkien's world, but more than that: it made me understand Tolkien fanatics, because it kind of made me wish I could understand the Elven tongues so I could read more and see the beauty of them. It made me wish I could for once see a Silmaril and speak to the Númenóreans and live in Middle Earth. It was a fantastic read.

PS: to any Tolkien fanatics who read this, forgive me for any mistakes (spelling or otherwise) that I have committed, and I'm sorry I didn't go into more depth, but I felt I'd have to read the book again to make a proper in depth analysis. I might one day, just not now.

On 50 Shades of Grey

 So... I thought I'd ignore the "phenomenom". I thought this week I would review the last couple of books I've read (and to anyone interested: in the twentieth century, South American literature is where it's at, though even that is a massive generalisation, but moving on) and talk about something happy and non-polemic for a change. But here I am. Discussing 50 Shades of Grey.

First of all, I should make it clear I haven't actually read the book directly (though I have read the absolutely best critique of it in the Pervocracy, here's the index for her posts on it, absolutely fantastic read) or watched the film, so I am not in the best position to make a proper in depth critique of it (again, Cliff's reading of it in the Pervocracy does that fantastically), but I do want to make something clear.

Now, what I want to make clear has been said before, but I fear that with a lot of articles being written about how 50 Shades of Grey is abusive it has been lost in the message, though some authors have attempted to remind readers. Anyway, here goes: 50 Shades of Grey is not an example of a (normal/good) BDSM relationship.

First of all, let me start with a quick definition of BDSM before I get into why 50 Shades of Grey isn't BDSM. BDSM stands for the following: Bondage, Dominance, Submission, Sadism and Masochism. Not everyone who practices BDSM practices all of BDSM (in terms of, some people like the bondage part of it but not the sadomasochism part of it, some people really like dominance and submission but aren't really into tying each other up or pain), although I personally find that most people who are into BDSM are into it because of the D/s (dominance/submission) dynamics in it. I don't want to get into what is or isn't BDSM because for different people it's very different things (for example, some people practice total submission to their partner, to the point where their partner makes all their choices as to food, dress, exercise, etc., whereas some people could never do this but enjoy being dominated at certain times, typically during sex).

Now, why isn't 50 Shades of Grey BDSM? A lot of the reasons expounded in articles are mixed and I don't necessarily agree with them. For example, a lot of people seemed shocked at Christian controlling Ana's food. This is not as unusual as one might think. Some people, in fact, prefer to have someone else control their food intake and in this way they can give up the anxiety that comes with, for example, eating healthily. This is what we do when we diet. Doing it in a BDSM relationship is absolutely fine and acceptable, it is a form of Dominance/submission. But it has to be agreed upon and consensual. And here lies the problem with 50 Shades of Grey, and with BDSM (mis)understanding.

BDSM is, for a great part of the people who practice it, about consent. It is about the people involved getting what they want and/or need in a way that is safe for them. I don't think many people would engage in any sort of BDSM relationship with someone they didn't trust. And for the most part, Ana does not trust Christian, but with much more grave consequences, Christian does not trust Ana at all.

So, let's get a few things clear. In 50 Shades of Grey, the book, Christian stalks Ana, breaks into her house and rapes her. Now, if any of these of these things had been consensual, if she had rape fantasies and wanted to act them out and they had talked about it and agreed it was something they both wanted to do, if she enjoyed being controlled, this would be sort of fine with me (perhaps not personally, because I find forced sex triggering; but I would agree that it was her choice to partake in a relationship in a way she wanted to). The problem is, very little in 50 Shades of Grey is consensual. For the most part, Christian coerces Ana, scares her, forces her to do things against her will and puts her in positions where she can't escape him. More than that: very few interactions in the book (maybe in the movie this was done better?) are what you'd expect from a couple in love. They are mostly him saying he wants something, her saying no, him getting angry and her giving in in a mixture of fear and horniness.

Now, I'm up for people reading whatever they want and having whatever fantasies they want. But please don't call having a person physically and psychologically hurt you against your will BDSM. It's not what BDSM is.

(Final note: BDSM communities, like any other community, have dangerous people. People who do want to hurt and take advantage of others. However, like in most other communities, these people are the exception and are often excluded after it is known that they are dangerous and new people tend to be warned about them.)

And (just maybe) I'm back

Hello all.

The other day (Wednesday) I read two different articles. And each of them pissed me off for different reasons. And both of them could be categorised under the same label. Guess what I'm talking about?

I spent a few hours posting on Facebook about it, so I thought I might as well blog about it (even though I had said I would stop).

Article no. 1: Not sure what the title is ("University Challenges"?), and can't easily find who it's by. Fantastic. Sorry, I would love to quote correctly, but finding it difficult.

Whilst I do not disagree with any of the facts about women employment I almost pathologically disbelieve in psychological studies. Mainly because I'm not convinced that things like "beliefs" can be measured. My disbelief was born (as so many) by reading Stephen J. Gould's essays on differences in IQ results between people that were used (at least partly) to support eugenics. IQ is considered a measure of intelligence by a large part of the population, yet few know that IQ questionnaires are far from standardized, that what they measure isn't necessarily agreed upon by all those who use them and that IQ can change quite dramatically through a person's life.

This is my main issue with this article. It is definitely true that in the sciences, especially in the physical sciences, there are more men than women, especially when it comes to senior positions. That this is due to the fact that people in senior positions believe that there is a "special quality beyond hard work and intelligence" needed in order to perform their jobs is a completely different story. Of course, this isn't what the study mentioned says (the study only correlates a strong belief in the need for this special quality and the lower amount of women), but the way the article has decided to interpret it (and probably the authors of the study, but I haven't had time to read the study yet so I won't pass judgement on this) is that this correlation means something. Which would imply that people who are entrenched in a field are more likely to believe that men possess special qualities than women. I don't have data to refute this conclusion. I don't have any data saying that people entrenched in a field don't think that men are more likely to possess a "special ability" than women. But in any case, I don't think this is a good way of going about things. Changing people's beliefs is difficult. Telling a group of people, especially scientists, that they believe a certain thing with no proof is tantamount to convincing them that they're right and you're wrong. And, finally, correlation doesn't imply causation. In fact, it could be very specifically the other way around: since there are more men in physical sciences it has led to the belief that men have a special quality allowing them to study physical science.

In any case, I think this type of article does very little for anyone. It might be hailed in the media a few times, and people in science will say it's not true, and then what? Seriously, will this change anything? Will this change the fact that names are included in most CVs and that most recruiting processes aren't blind? Will knowing this get more girls studying sciences?

There's a common belief that knowing the root of a problem is key to solving the problem. I don't deny that this is true in many cases. However, in this case, firstly, there is no inequivocal evidence that the root is the "belief in the special quality" and secondly, even if this is the root, what is one going to do about it? These types of beliefs are usually ingrained, not something one thinks about when hiring someone, in other words, an subconscious bias. They do not lead to solutions, and because often they are based on questionable science they only lead to disbelief amongst the community being accused. (Also: I am currently sitting in a lab where the majority of workers are female and the boss is a male. This is not an example of a place where clearly this doesn't happen, but just want to point out that I might be biased, since this is not the first time I am in a situation where women are the majority of workers and feel appreciated and not a bit inferior to the men).

Article no. 2: "Women in labs. Still unequal?" by Susan Watts.

I appreciated this article. In fact, I thought it needed to be written. And then I came across this sentence:
"The traditional academic lab culture of late-night and weekend working can hinder women who have children"
And it pissed me off. Not because it isn't (possibly) currently true, but because in what followed (something about automation making these late-nights and weekends unnecessary, which for the record, is not true in most of the cases I'm aware of) there was an implication that the way to go to resolve this issue for women was to make late nights and weekends less of a thing. There's nothing wrong with that. But there are experiments that will (at least for the predictable future) require a human to be there to look at the results or to set things up. There will always be times when things go wrong and a person needs to be there to overlook.

So the solution isn't for weekends and late nights to become less of a thing (because when they have to happen, it would still be men taking over) but for women and men to share child rearing. The above sentence presupposes that it's women with children who are hindered, which implies that it's women with children who are taking care of the children. I do agree that women just prior to giving birth and just after giving birth might need time off (in most cases, less than we would be made to believe). That's inevitable so long as women go through pregnancy. But in most cases, women can work almost until they give birth and can go back just a few days or weeks afterwards (if the birth has been normal and their job isn't too physically demanding). Most of the "juggling work and home" depends on one thing: is there anyone else to take up the slack at home? Because it's true. A child requires attention and time. But guess what? There are two parents. It's not (or it shouldn't be) just women benefiting from less late nights and weekends. Men have to start asking for time off work to take care of their kids too. Not just because it's just fair, but also because it's beneficial both for them and for their children. 

And yes, this has been said before. But it was just shocking to me that in an article written by women about a subject that would fall easily into feminism the above sentence can be found without a second thought. Late nights and weekends are incompatible not with women with children, but with people who have to take care of children. There's nothing about being a woman that makes it automatically more difficult for you to turn up on weekends or stay later in the evening. Except for sexism.

So there. I'm sort of back. Now that I've spewed all of this out I feel better and maybe can give the subject a rest for another year or so.

As usual, hope you enjoyed, thanks for reading, comment in the comment section below.

H