2013-05-18T09:54:25-04:00 Lauren Davidson http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=lauren-davidson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Lauren Davidson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2480505 2013-01-16T19:00:00-05:00 2013-03-18T05:12:01-04:00

Lauren Davidson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-davidson/
But I have begun to notice sexism around me - not overt discrimination as such, more a tone in which women are spoken about, or just a person's awareness of someone's woman-ness. At this week's Golden Globes, where women from Jodie Foster to Lena Dunham were celebrated and co-hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler stole the show, the ladies were scrutinized for their fashion choices and number of facial wrinkles.

The wonderful Jennifer Lawrence - the youngest person ever to receive two Academy Award nominations for best actress - won a Golden Globe for her role in Silver Linings Playbook. But her dress seemed to be more worthy of comment, sparking the busiest Twitter traffic of the evening. Some declared it a hit, some dubbed it a disaster - but everyone had something to say. As for Ben Affleck, Daniel Day-Lewis and Quentin Tarantino? No one blinked twice at their choice of attire.

Admittedly, people rarely take to Twitter to discuss what I'm wearing. But I've been the subject of other instances of sexism. Just a few weeks ago I was reporting a post-Hurricane Sandy story about lines at a gas station which involved me interviewing several people waiting in their cars. One man I approached immediately started flirting - asking personal questions, making suggestive comments and asking for my phone number. It made me uncomfortable and it inhibited me from doing my job properly. Would someone walk into a male lawyer's office and comment on his looks, pry into his personal life or respond "what will you do for me?" if he asked a question? I doubt it.

I experienced sexism of a less intrusive nature at university. When I was elected to run a major university society, the student headlines screamed, "Women take command at Union." I was the 24th female president in a history of many hundreds of presidents, admittedly, but despite a recent run of female presidents and committee members, the press still felt the need to comment on my gender. When my female successor was elected, the student tabloid headlines said, "'Drop Dead Gorgeous' [Candidate] Wins Uphill Battle." Would a newspaper comment on the gender or physical appearance of a male election winner? I doubt it.

Sexism is not just confined to personal encounters or tabloid headlines. Last year, I went to see award-winning movie The Help at the cinema. It is one of the few films that truly pass the Bechdel Test - the rules are that two named female characters must talk to each other about something other than a man - with flying colours. It has a strong and inspiring cast of female leads who speak out against racial discrimination and act with bravery. Standing up to stretch at the end of the film, my male friend commented: "Good movie, but I would have liked to see more men in it." Did he ever remark on the lack of impressive female leads in action movies? I doubt it.

I have no doubt, however, that sexism still exists. Take, for example, the Royal Wedding in 2011. It was an event that united a country and celebrated an age-old British institution with all the inevitable pomp and circumstance - but the biggest news stories of the event turned out to be Kate's hair and Pippa's bottom.

Anna Van Heeswijk, a women's rights campaigner, summed up the wider problem in a video interview with the Guardian. Speaking on the 42nd anniversary of the Page Three girl - a young woman who poses topless for the first inside page of the Sun, Britain's most popular newspaper, and an "innocuous British institution" according to its editor Dominic Mohan - Van Heeswijk said, "I can choose not to buy [the Sun], but the thing is I can't choose the kind of society that I live in."

"If other people are forming attitudes and behaviours which are discriminatory against me, that has an impact on me," she said.

In the US - a country that has never had a female president - a mere 15.7% of people serving on Fortune 500 boards are women. In the UK - a country that has had one female prime minister - only 12.5% of FTSE 100 board directors are women. In Australia - a country whose female prime minister (its first one) felt the need to address the opposition leader's sexism while speaking in parliament recently - women count for 12.5% of ASX 200 company boards. In China - which has also had one female leader - the comparable figure is just 8.1%. I don't need to argue that gender discrepancy exists; the figures, in politics and academia as well as business, speak for themselves.

But the problem is far bigger than sexism still being rife. The real issue is that people don't think it is. In Western countries, women have had the right to vote for decades, they say. Women are welcome to be chief executives, prime ministers, lawyers, doctors, editors and academics, they say. Women have represented more than half of enrollments at American colleges for years, they say. The gender revolution is so last century.

Not so.

We still live in a society where our woman-ness defines us, where lewd gender-based jokes are made at our expense, where wolf whistles on the street are so commonplace we hardly turn our heads, where George W. Bush's views make him a ridiculed person but Sarah Palin's comments make her a ridiculed woman, where female comic book and action characters are overtly sexualized and seductive, where male presidential candidates debate whether women should have control over their own bodies and where it is worthy of note when a woman makes it to a position of leadership. These are just not issues that men face to anywhere near the same extent.

It is these long and gnarled fingers of sexism which probe their way into issues of body image, self-confidence, ambition and public attitude; they twist how we treat our fellow human beings and how we develop as a society. For the sake of everyone - both men and women - sexist treatment of women is an issue that needs to be, once again, at the front of the public consciousness.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2122586 2012-11-14T19:00:00-05:00 2013-01-14T05:12:01-05:00

Lauren Davidson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-davidson/
School also taught me to hate Dickens.

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Dickens' birth, and for months England has been full to the brim of Dickens exhibitions, festivals and TV programs. Rightly so; we should cherish and celebrate one of our greatest literary exports, whose lessons about society and humanity seem as relevant today as ever.

But perhaps, as the bicentennial year draws to a close and we move into Dickens' third century, there is something else the Victorian author can teach us - and that is not to teach him to our children.

I first read Great Expectations when I was 11 years old. When I say read, I mean I was handed a sticky-back plastic covered copy of the book by my grey-haired teacher, instructed to plod through a few chapters a week at home and then subjected to the laboriously slow reading aloud of my fellow classmates. Needless to say, my expectations of the English Literature syllabus quickly plunged below great.

To continue with the example of Great Expectations - because there are several other books which were ruined for me when I was forced to read them at too early an age, including Jane Eyre and 1984 - it is not the content of the novel which I find to be unsuitable for young people. Though some might argue the story of an orphaned child, who meets a convict in a cemetery and throughout the course of his life is racked with debt, disease and abusive friends, is inappropriate for an 11-year-old, this is not my main concern.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower, the movie adaptation of which was recently released in cinemas, is one example of an excellent young person's book which addresses mental illness, suicide and child molestation among other difficult issues. Lord of the Flies, a high-school staple, follows a group of boys as they descend into savagery, butchery and insanity.

Nor is it the length of Dickens' books which is off-putting; I have seen children plough through 700 pages of Harry Potter in just a few days and, on reaching the final page, be thirsty for more.

My gripe is that Dickens, as an author known for his wordiness, elaborate vocabulary, anachronistic characters and intricate plots, is an awful choice with whom to inspire a love of reading in young people. For my 11-year-old self, for probably the first time in my life, reading alone became a chore and reading in class became a bore.

Earlier this year, Claire Tomalin, author of the biography Charles Dickens: A Life, said of her subject, "Everything he wrote about in the 1840s is still relevant: the great gulf between rich and poor, corrupt financiers, corrupt members of Parliament, how the country is run by old Etonians - you name it, he said it."

You could argue that Dickens' exploration of these topics is particularly relevant now as people struggle to regain financial stability while bankers continue uncastigated, as the British press comes under more scrutiny for the close relationships between media owners and politicians and as the government is run by a largely Oxbridge-educated Conservative majority. But what 11-year-old cares about or relates to any of this? I certainly did not.

Admittedly, it's tricky - if not impossible - to prescribe a book that a whole class, or a whole country, of 11-year-olds will enjoy. And I agree that we should not bring the class down to the level of its lowest participant, nor underestimate the intelligence and capability of children and teenagers.

But the point of English lessons is not to squeeze as many novels - rated as all-time favourites by adults, not children - into the mental library of students. School is not about cramming as much information into pupils' heads; it's about equipping them with the skills and the thirst to continue learning outside the classroom.

As Rudolf Flesch wrote in Why Johnny Still Can't Read, an examination of illiteracy among children, "Learning to read is like learning to drive a car. You take lessons and learn the mechanics and the rules of the road. After a few weeks you have learned how to drive, how to stop, how to shift gears, how to park, and how to signal. You have also learned to stop at a red light and understand road signs. When you are ready, you take a road test, and if you pass, you can drive."

You do not teach a person to drive by starting them off on the motorway, or by speeding through all the most famous roads. You give the young school child Goodnight Mister Tom, or The Butterfly Lion. Then nudge him on to Holes, or Alice in Wonderland. Hand the 14 year old Animal Farm and The Hunger Games. Nod him onto Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby. The sixth-former might enjoy Wuthering Heights and Madame Bovary - and, before too long, will read Charles Dickens of his own accord. These are some of my favourite novels, because I learnt to drive before zooming off in a Porsche.

If we accept that nineteenth century novels - the so-called "classics" - are not the be-all and end-all of English literature, are not written for children and do not address the most relevant issues in young people's minds, we can cater our school curriculum to the taste and interest of students. We might then yet again instil in our children great expectations of literature.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1101021 2011-11-18T06:34:06-05:00 2012-01-18T05:12:01-05:00

Lauren Davidson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-davidson/
Many feel the opposite, which is fair - each to their own. But why is there this need to mock and ridicule those who love it? People scorn the saga for being about vampires and werewolves (and therefore unrealistic), for being lovey-dovey (and therefore unrealistic) and for promoting a worldview through the eyes of a female (and therefore unrealistic).

Since when was realism such an issue? Is the Bible, overflowing with myths and poetry, not one of the most influential books ever? Were you not raised on Ancient Greek myths, legends of Robin Hood, Grimms' fairytales and Disney movies - stories of love and sacrifice, discovery and adventure? If not, I pity you.

We do not read fiction for its truthful account of the world we inhabit; that would be non-fiction. We read it for the places it takes our mind, for the ways it enables us to understand ourselves and what we encounter, for what it teaches us about the human condition and for how it makes us feel.

On this count, Twilight gets a gold star from me.

Bella Swan and I do not have much in common. What we do share is our favourite book, both hers and mine thumbed almost to dust: Wuthering Heights.

I defy anyone to read the classic tale of Cathy and Heathcliff and not feel heartbreak and horror at their situation: a love so strong that it tears your world apart, a passion so deep that it haunts you in life and in death, a fate so inescapable that it consumes your every thought. Cathy says:

"I cannot express it; but surely you and every body have a notion that there is, or should be, an existence of yours beyond you. What were the use of my creation if I were entirely contained here?... If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and, if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the Universe would turn to a mighty stranger... Nelly, I am Heathcliff."

It is the same emotion that causes Cathy to realise, "He's more myself than I am", and it is this understanding of self and other, of love and enemy, of choice and fate, which is at the core of the Twilight saga.

This is pretty obviously stated in the book (as are references and comparisons to another great and heart-wrenching love story, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet) and I am not the first to write on the matter. While it is not in the same league as these texts, Twilight is an exploration of some of the key themes in classic literature - ideas and emotions that speak to us now as much as they did in the Shakespearian London of the 1590s, or on the Yorkshire moors of 1847. Its protagonists are epitomical tragic heroes and heroines.

Stephenie Meyer may not write in the most beautiful or sophisticated language. Her books may be, at their core, abstinence propaganda. But Twilight is a franchise for teenage girls, and in this sense it is refreshing, if not unique.

Should they not be allowed to suspend their disbelief in a way that speaks directly to them? Why should teenage girls be left with nothing more challenging than a movie about robots who can transform into machinery, or some baseball analogy modern adaptation of a classic text?

If you don't enjoy Twilight, that's fine. It's not for everyone. It has its flaws. But it is a tale of love, loss, power, family and the search for meaning outside of our mundane lives. In my eyes, that's some biting fiction. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1017270 2011-10-18T08:46:36-04:00 2011-12-18T05:12:01-05:00

Lauren Davidson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-davidson/
Today he was released, five years and almost four months later - a total of 1941 days in captivity during which he was deprived of International Red Cross medical care and visits, contravening the Geneva Convention.

The conditions of his release have meant that 1,027 Hamas and Palestinian prisoners will be released from Israeli prisons. My eyes have brimmed with tears of joy at the thought and sight of families reunited and homes rebuilt - whatever the background of those involved. Humans are humans, sons are sons, mothers are mothers.

But I have been following the BBC's coverage of this long-awaited event and some of the readers' comments that they have chosen to publish on their live feed have bewildered me. There is so much to say today, so many coins with so many sides, but here I will reply to an apparent misunderstanding in the nature of this prisoner swap.

The Middle East is a conflict which runs deep in many veins and on which few agree. Nabeel from Gaza, in a comment published on the BBC live feed, said that he is "deeply saddened for the 5,500 prisoners who remain in Israeli prisons" and believes that this "disgraceful" swap deal serves the Israelis better than the "disappointed Palestinians".

Faysal Mikdadi from Dorchester similarly wrote, "As a Palestininan, I am saddened that there is a perception that one Israeli prisoner is worth 1,000 Palestinians. This is a typical construct manufactured by Israel... Why shouldn't [the released prisoners] go home to Palestine as they are entitled to do under all legal and international norms?"

Abdullah Obeidat from Jordan, on the other hand, commented that "Some Palestinians were in Israeli prisons much longer than Shalit. I'm glad Shalit is out but more than happy as it is a triumph for Hamas over the Israeli government. 1000+ Palestinian prisoners for one Israeli prisoner is indeed an astounding victory."

Astounding indeed. To the people who think that there is common ground between the abduction of Gilad Shalit and the imprisonment of most of these Palestinians, read on.

Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and kept in contravention to the Geneva Convention for over five years. He was not arrested by the police under suspicion of committing a crime. He was not tried. He was not found guilty. He was not serving a prison sentence.

On the other hand, a number of the 1,027 Palestinian prisoners being released have been convicted of heinous crime. One is Ahlam Tamimi who was found guilty of involvement in the bombing of Sbarro pizzeria in 2001, in which 15 people were killed. According to Frimet Roth, the mother of 15 year old Malka who was killed in this terrorist attack, Tamimi said in an interview while in prison that "she was not sorry and had no regrets for what she did. When she was asked if she'd do it again, she said she would."

Yehia Ibrahim Al-Sinwar was convicted for his involvement in the kidnapping and murder of IDF soldier Nachshon Waxman, and for the murders of two Palestinian Authority Arab men who were thought to be cooperating with Israel. Sanwar was given five life sentences. He was on the list for release.

Walid Anajas was sentenced to 36 life sentences for participation in the Café Moment bombing of 2002, killing 11 and wounding 54, and a terror attack in Rishon Lezion. He was on the list for release.

Abed Alaziz Salaha, the man showing off his hands stained with blood from the lynching of Vadim Norzich in the famous photo that has become emblematic of the second intifada was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was on the list for release.

I could go on. Other prisoners wanted for release include Mohammed Shratkha, responsible for two counts of kidnapping and murder, who was sentenced to three life sentences; Ibrahim Shammasina, participant in the murders of two teenagers, a taxi driver and an IDF soldier; Fatkhi Abu-Sheikh, organiser of the Netanya Park Hotel suicide bombing in which 30 civilians were murdered and 140 wounded, who was given 29 life sentences six and a half years ago; Abbas el-Said, head of Hamas in Tulkarem and initiator of the bombings at the Park Hotel and the Netanya Sharon Mall, who has served six and a half years of his sentence of 35 lifetimes plus 50 years in prison; and Atiya Mohammed Warda, planner of three suicide bomb attacks in which 46 civilians were killed and dozens wounded.

It hardly seems appropriate to mention Gilad Shalit's name in the same breath as these convicted criminals.

So no, BBC reader Faysal Mikdadi. A prisoner swap of this nature is not an international norm, and the idea that one Israeli soldier is "worth" 1,000 Palestinians is not a typical construct manufactured by Israel. It is the unfortunate length that Israel must to go in its refusal to leave any man behind, even though it sets a precedent, even though it makes a mockery of the justice system, and even though it poses a great security risk to Israel. And that is why the released prisoners are not able to return to their lives as they knew them before arrest, because the ones who are being deported are convicted terrorists and murderers who were fairly tried and found guilty of killing civilians. They are not being acquitted of their crimes. They are being released from prison, as demanded, for the safe-return of a kidnapped soldier.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.958012 2011-09-13T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-13T05:12:02-05:00

Lauren Davidson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-davidson/ establish quiet carriages on London underground trains, and I can understand why.

Having just moved back to the capital after a few years at university, I now spend about two hours a day commuting. The approving beep of the Oyster card reader waves me through the turnstile, and I arrive at the platform to see the train coming to a halt as the double doors sweep open directly in front of me, enticing me with a promisingly empty seat. Elbow-deep in my handbag, fishing for the book I'm currently wolfing down, I smile knowingly at those who catch my eye. We are Comrades of the Commute; in the words of Larkin's poem The Whitsun Weddings, our lives 'would all contain this hour', 'this frail travelling coincidence'.

So far, a perfect workday morning - but not for long.

You know the situation. As you tuck into your book, or today's crossword, or the newspaper, you become aware of a steady, faint thudding. You glance at your feet to check it's not you tapping away to that song stuck in your head. It's not. You open your bag to check your water bottle isn't being rhythmically squashed against something else by the rocking movement of the train. It isn't. You're now so painfully aware of the noise that you can't concentrate on your chosen rush-hour activity. Your eyes flicker around the carriage in pursuit of the answer. And then you find it.

The man next to you, the one wearing the smart tailored suit with a shiny leather briefcase between his knees - who is clearly on his way to some high-power job - is listening to music. And because he is listening to music, everyone is listening to music.

Despite warnings that a high volume of music can lead to tinnitus or noise-induced deafness, some people insist on cranking up the volume in their earphones. It is my pet peeve du jour; I find it rude, invasive and disrespectful. How can I be expected to concentrate on my book when I'm busy giving the evil eye to the evil iPod? Not that its owner notices, engrossed in his music as he is.

So yes, I can understand the bid to have quiet carriages on the London Underground.

But it won't work. When you stand on the yellow line at the platform, mere inches away from the train doors, and still can't get onto the rush-hour tube for lack of space, you can't be picky about which carriage you enter. If you want to talk to your friend, but arrive at the platform just in time to hop through the nearest train doors, you can't be expected to wait for the next train to avoid spending your commute in hushed silence.

What would the rules of the quiet carriage be? Would the recorded female voice still make her announcements - many of which are longer, more detailed and more repetitive than necessary? (The next station is Tower Hill. Change for the District Line, the DLR from Tower Gateway and national rail services from Fenchurch Street. Alight for the Tower of London, Tower Bridge, and riverboat services from Tower Pier. Please mind the gap between the train and the platform.) Perhaps TFL will forcefully request that speaking be left to passengers of the non-quiet carriages - and God help you if you so dare to sneeze.

In this technology-ridden age, a ban on iPods and mobile phones would be regressive and unenforceable. Where would we draw the line - could you use an app on your iPhone if it was on silent? What about Kindles and iPads? If the train was delayed, would the embargo against phone calls be rescinded to let the babysitter know?

No, the answer isn't in imposing bans. While I long for the day when I can travel on the underground without hearing a cacophony of clashing beats, I dread the day when conversation between friendly members of the public is forbidden. It's just a bit Nineteen Eighty-Four.

All the commuting community needs is a bit of self-awareness and courtesy. Music is a pleasure. Don't make it a pain for everyone else.

Lauren tweets from @laurendavidson. You can find out more about her at www.laurendavidson.co.uk.
]]>