Self-indulgent, I know.

As much as on one level the idea rankles with me as a combination of arrogant and self-indulgent, I have decided to write a book. It's something I've always, always wanted to do; as a 13-year-old I completed several chapters of a Tolkienesque fantasy epic before my lack of self-confidence put a cap on the proceedings. Writing is somewhat of a love of mine, and I've decided to return to it, albeit this time not in the genre of fantasy. The work I'm looking to complete this time will be non-fiction.

I'm looking to tackle the issue of women in Ireland, or more specifically feminism in Ireland. You see, I'm in a bit of a quandry as to which I'm actually dealing with, since the two are pretty intrinsically linked. But perhaps an explanation of my reasoning in pursuing this topic will help to clarify.

I cannot tell you how many people I have spoken to in recent years, who have *informed* me that feminism is no longer relevant, or important, in contemporary society - as though we had reached some kind of plateau of equality and could progress no further. I also cannot tell you the precise extent to which I disagree with this. Not only do I disagree with it, but I take grave offence to the attached implication that women's treatment and emancipation is of limited importance, and we should not inconvenience society by pointing out how much further there is to go.

The truth is - according to me, which you are obviously free to reject - that feminism, or the struggle for perfect equality, will never cease to be necessary. It is not a finite project with a clear, preset goal which, once achieved, renders further endeavours pointless. It's incredibly complacent in my book to ever even suggest that society has reached some kind of pinnacle of equity - society can regress just as easily as it can progress, so that even if things are relatively just and equitable now, ideologies like feminism will always need to be vocal to prevent our society from backpedalling.

As it stands, in its' strictest interpretation, the most central goal of the feminist movement can never be *perfectly* achieved - that is, the absolutely equal treatment of men and women in all areas of society. For the most part, we cannot even agree on what that means as applicable to several areas. Personally, I see it as the availability of maximum choice - of lifestyle, career, etc - and the assessment of each individual on their own merits, rather than a broad assumption of their merits due to their belonging to a specific subset of the population. Namely, women. In my view, this is only attainable to a certain extent because it is part of the human condition to sort others into categories in our own mind for the sake of simplicity, if nothing else. Humankind, and the complexity that makes us so incredibly special and wonderful, is ironically something that we cannot seem to handle. Instead we break ourselves up into neat compartments - blacks, whites, men, women, children, elderly, Muslim, Christian, atheist - and assign each group a set of attributes. "Black women are bossy", "Irish people are all alcholics", "Germans are really uptight", "People under 30 have nothing to contribute", etc. etc., ad nauseum. I'm not commenting on how accurate or otherwise these assumptions are, just that we all have them to one extent or another.

Not only do we assign people categories, but very often we attach values to them as well. The extent to which we do this is largely dependent on our own levels of maturity and self-esteem - the more insecure we are individually, the more likely we are to project our inadequacy onto others in a classic "diminish the value of others to make yourself feel better" manouvre. Like the quintessential playground bully, we find a series of criteria according to which we can deem ourselves superior to our counterparts. Now, I'm no psychologist, so all of this is purely based on my own observation thus far, but I think it's fair to say that if we think about it, we kinda see this all the time.

Why Ireland, specifically? Well, obviously, it is the country of which I have the most first-hand experience and knowledge. I would want to do some pretty extensive research in order to feel comfortable tackling women's issues within an alternative cultural context. I also think that feminism is highly relevant to Ireland, perhaps even more so than to other European countries. Progress in the area of equality in general has been slow and hard-bought, and mostly at the behest of the EU since our membership began in 1973. Think back, in 1973 - contraception was still illegal, as was homosexuality, and women were still forced to quit their jobs int he private sector upon marriage. Because naturally, women cannot expect to be both a wife AND an employee, that would just be patently ridiculous!

As much as progress *has* been made, there are still major speedbumps along the road to perfect gender parity in Ireland - a road which has no definitive end. I want to look particularly at the way in which issues like domestic violence, sexual assault and discrimination are handled here, as well as Irish legislation that impacts on the independence and wellbeing of women in general. In my experience, there are major flaws in the way violence against women is handled in this country, and the experience of the victim seems to hang dangerously on the level of sympathy they receive from individual Gardai/lawyers etc they encounter. This is more than likely the case in many countries, but there seems to be very little recourse for those whose cases are mishandled.

For those of you who follow my blog, what do you think? Do you have any ideas? Do you think there's a place for such research? Let me know what you think, I'm always open to feedback :-)

Blasphemy Law

I've said it before, to friends, but here I go again: it's a rare thing for me to find myself in perfect agreement with Richard Dawkins. Under normal circumstances I find him too abrasive and purposely antagonistic to take seriously - however, when it comes to the recent introduction of the law pertaining to blasphemy and blasphemous libel in Ireland, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Here's a link to the article I'm referring to:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0713/1224250543694.html

As of the 1st January 2010, it is illegal in Ireland to utter publicly, or publish, matter which is deemed to be blasphemous toward any religion. I'm really at a loss as to the reasoning behind the introduction of this legislation, it has me practically foaming at the mouth with rage. I'm all for respect and tolerance towards a wide range of diverse belief systems, but this is just stupid. The government itself has all but admitted that the legislation only works on paper and is unenforcable in practice. It's just... so ridiculous, on so many levels, that I don't even know where to begin.

Mr. Dawkins has deemed the new law "a return to the middle ages", and I agree with him. Not only is it contrary to my understanding of free speech (please understand, I see a clear distinction between incitement to hatred/sectarianism, and a personal disagreement with certain aspects of a religion), but to introduce such a law in Ireland, of all places, seems almost ironic. We have such a history of our government having an unhealthy deference towards the Catholic church in particular. The recent spate of reports and tribunals investigating clerical child sex abuse, including the Ryan report, have chronicled for us the miserable truth of what happens when the relationship between church and state is too close for comfort. The Irish government has a lot to answer for in terms of assisting the clerical hierarchy to cover up the pandemic of abuse that took place in this country - and unlike the church, I feel the government has never been held to account for its' role. Bearing this in mind, Dermot Ahern's move seems nothing short of brazen.

I have to wonder if this law could potentially be used to stem the tide of criticism and fury against the clergy in the future, possibly in the wake of further revelations of abuse and corruption. I mean, will some of the most vehement criticism of the Catholic church be deemed "blasphemy" and penalised accordingly? If so, was that the idea all along? I cannot be sure, but the possibility worries me.

Aside from anything else, the premise of what the term "blasphemy" even comprises is ill-defined. For instance, what is to be done in the instance of certain religious doctrines being considered blaspemhous against the premise of another religion? If you interpret many religious texts and scriptures in a very literal manner you will find a myriad of passages that could be considered blasphemous, contradictory or offensive to those of other belief systems. Are these doctrines, then, to be outlawed under the new legislation? Does the government even know? I doubt it, it appears to be beyond the skill of the current government to consider bills with such foresight and scrutiny - and it drives me bloody nuts.

We are, now, being held up in foreign media as a sort of social and legal pariah, and deservedly so. Or at least, deservedly of the government. It really just disgusts me, even the way that it elevates religious convictions above personal ones. I mean - if I hold specific beliefs as an atheist or agnostic person, that are founded on personal observation or empirical evidence rather than a theistic system of belief, my views can be freely criticised or even vilified by those who take issue with them. Since they are not part of any formal religious structure and atheism is rarely recognised as a belief system, let alone a "religion", and agnosticism never is, they are not protected by the blasphemy legislation, and people can take the piss out of me all they like. On the other hand, my freedom to return the favour by criticising people's religious views is now limited. I'm not saying that I should go out and deliberately tick people off or make fun of them - but why should the views of some be protected from vilification under the law, and not those of others?

So in my opinion the new legislation is not only impractical, it's discriminatory.

Mnnnnnnnnnnfffffffffffhhhhhh. I think I need to go calm down now.