Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Feeling accomplished

Yesterday I wrote nearly 1,000 words for my MTh Essay!!! and a 750 word blog.  That's some pretty good productivity for me.

Also, I figured out how to attach a favicon to my blog - that's a little image that shows up in your tabs, or favourites next to my Blog...it's a tiny little bee.  Did you spot it?

I think on balance I'm most pleased about the bee; every time I see it on my bookmarks bar it makes me smile.

Although the 1,000 words means I'm half way through the essay....

Monday, January 30, 2012

What I am looking at at the moment

There’s been a load of new TV series with potential, and a couple of books I’ve quite liked:

New Girl – the one everyone’s buzzing about with Zooey Deschanel.  My Dad always used to say that John Wayne wasn’t an actor; he only ever played himself, but it was so good you wanted to watch it over and over, so he made a decent living out of it.  I suspect that Zooey might be the same, but I’m not sure how long we’ll want to go on watching cute and kooky.  Plus, when she’s 73 it might not work so well…although Estelle Getty and Jessica Tandy seemed to manage OK on that one.  Anyhoo, that said, New Girl is quite fun, with an occasional nice twist.  This week Jess was being over-bearing about being emotional open and sharing about something she’d seen, much to her male flatmate’s horror.  This all seemed very predictable until the moment Nick stopped her in her tracks by calling her on not being able to use the proper words for what my daughter referred to as a “privacy area” when she was little.

Verdict:  I’ll stick with it and see how it goes.

Suits – This is a bit of a hidden gem lurking away on Tuesday nights on Dave.  It’s about lawyers and offices and business stuff, but in a rather interesting way.  The two main characters are interesting and nicely balanced, with good supporting characters, including the fact that the head of the prestigious law firm in New York is a black woman.  Yay for a good, strong female boss who kicks butt.  It fits into the slot in my TV life filled recently by CSI and House.

Verdict:  I’m recording it for weekly watching so I’m impressed so far

The Big Bang Theory – saved the best TV till last.  It’s just genius; really Sheldon Cooper ought not to have any friends because he’s a nightmare, but he does and they are very rich characters, although the humour often derives from them veering into caricature.  It’s a bit like Friends, in that as you get to know the characters you know how they’ll react so you start giggling when you know what’s coming, but then there is an occasional curveball.  So Rajesh is painfully shy and can’t speak in front of women, unless he is drunk.  One night he gets drunk and he and Penny end up in bed.  The next morning you think “Surely now he’ll be able to speak to her” but no, he is still struck dumb!

Verdict:  I’m hooked

Rivers of London and Moon over Soho by Ben Aaronovitch – I do love me some crime thriller, and I do love me some supernatural stuff, so put the two together and I’m double happy.  These two books feel like the start of a series that could run and run, and I really hope it does.  The characters are so well written, and the plots so tight and clever that I’m feeling slightly bereft that I’m going to have to wait until June for number 3.  If Harry Potter is Mallory Towers and Billy Bunter meet magic, RofL is Poirot and Miss Marple meet  magic, without the horrendous plot holes Agatha Christie let slip.  Also, they would make fantastic telly, much better that the utterly ridiculous Eternal Law (ITV) about which the less said the better.
Verdict:  I’m pining for number 3

The Ghost – a political thriller by Roman Polanski.  The reviews on IMDB were very complimentary and I cannot for the life of me fathom out why.  It was meant to be a dark sophisticated thriller with plot twists and sinister overtones about global conspiracies but really it was just silly.  It was blatantly obvious who was the baddy from very early on, Ewan McGregor’s character was so thick and trusting it was unbelievable and the film didn’t so much finish as stop because there was no way out of the plot’s weird combination of simplistic and over-complex.  It is not possible for even the CIA to organise a hit and run accident in the time it takes for someone to walk out of a building and cross the street!!!  As punishment, Mr Polanski should be made to watch Tinker Tailor (any version, Alec Guiness or Gary Oldman) until he understands what a complex political thriller really looks like.

Verdict:  That’s two hours of my life I can’t get back.  The only redeeming feature was the Malteasers my husband gave while we were watching.

This is not the political thriller you were looking for

Sunday, January 29, 2012

That reminds me of a McFly song

This is it!
I was straightening my hair this morning and admiring the colour; the most outrageous my hairdresser and I have ever gone with it, when I totted up the various products on it.  I used shampoo and conditioner.  So far, so normal.  Then a leave-in rescue treatment while it was wet.  OK.  Then I blow dried it, then added some sprays (or spritzes as they say in the fashion mags) of Thermal Styling Protectant and then straightened it.  This makes a grand total of four products!!  All of this is on top of the six different colours the talented Helen* put in it last week!!!

And why is this interesting I hear you ask?  Well, let me tell you about my skin care routine:  nothing.  That’s it.  I rinse my face with water in the shower and dry it on a towel.  If it’s very cold and wet I might feel the need for a little moisturiser, in which case it’s cheapish supermarket stuff, but mostly I don’t bother.

You’re still wondering whether you are going to get interested anytime soon aren’t you?  My reflection on this was that I do the hair thing for two reasons:  the first is that it makes a difference, if I do what I did my hair looks nice and shiny and styled and quite eye-catching; the second that it’s because playing with my hair, particularly colouring it, feels like fun and creativity.  It’s for me and my own pleasure. 

The skin care thing doesn’t seem to make any difference: I’m fifty this year and my face shows it.  I’ve got a slight extra chin thing going on, laugh lines that suggest I’ve watched Sarah Millican** non-stop for the last 25 years, and bags under my eyes that tell you I probably drink a bit too much coffee and read a bit too late at night!  But on the whole it’s an OK face for who I am and slathering cleansers and other gook on it doesn’t feel life-enhancing in the way that messing with the hair does.

So I’ll stick with the hair being 6 different shades of pink and orange, and I might stick a bit of mascara on if I can be faffed, but that’s your lot – I’ve got other things to do.

*I’d tell you about Real Hairdressing in WB, but I want to be able to get an appointment.
** Genius British comedian – I can recommend her Chatterbox DVD

Friday, January 27, 2012

Becoming Becca Dean

 I know I’m supposed to be becoming more Christ-like but somehow when it comes to coffee shops and blogging, Mizz Dean* inspires me, so here’s a coffee shop review:

A cosy corner for chatting
I had my third lunch in seven days in the rather nice Copper on Central Avenue in West Bridgford.  This pleasant spot does function as a kind of annex to most of the churches of the area, as I rarely go in without seeing someone or other I know.  This makes it all feel rather cosy.  That and the fact that it is rather cosy, does very nice lunches, and the cakes are utterly amazing.  They are the best bit really – tantalisingly displayed in glass domes on the counter, they usually included some glittery or shiny embellishments, and taste utterly amazing!  Staff are cheerily pleasant and helpful and service is swift without being rushed. 

Look at that utter deliciousness!
Coffee is good and teas, cream teas, cakes and other delicacies are all to be recommended.  If you’re there at breakfast time I can recommend the muffins with rarebit topping, and the lunchtime sandwiches are always tasty and a bit unusual.

As you can see from the frequency of my visits it is my fave coffee spot

*Becca’s blog can be found here:

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

This gives me hope

I did an assembly in a primary school about friendship so I used some material by Lucy Moore from here:

I invited two children who have been friends all their lives up to help me, and talked about the things they do together.  I asked them if they shared things, and when they said yes gave them a packet of sweets to share, which they carefully did.   I then produced the toilet brush,* explained about the boys toilets needing cleaning and asked the first boy if he would share that with his friend.  He staunchly said “No, I wouldn't!” to which his friend said “But I would go and help him anyway.”


These two little boys were aged about eight or nine, and one appeared to be white and the other Asian and the depth of their commitment to each other was truly moving.  There may be places in Britain where people fight because of age or race or some other divider but this episode showed me that the future might just be in safe hands. 

*It was a new unused one in case you were feeling a bit funny

Monday, January 23, 2012

Name Change

My previous name was a bit lame...it was the only thing I could think of when I started this blog.  Now I'm blogging regularly it seemed that I needed something a bit more to the point and since I'm often rambling about the thing that's buzzing around my head at the time, the new title seemed better.  I hope you like.

EDIT: Do you like the pic of the lady in the bonnet - she'll get a lot of bees in that

The Feminisation of the Church

I’ve read a few things recently, and heard a few people argue that the church over the last decade/century etc has become feminised, and that this means we are losing men who don’t want to be part of something that makes them feel “girly”.  We must therefore stop this trend, they suggest, and start to make the church a bit more masculine so that young men in particular will be attracted back.

There’s something circular in this argument, and it occurs not just in discussions about church life but in society more widely and it’s to do with men’s response to the strengthening voice of women.  It seems to me that men often feel emasculated when stereotypically feminine virtues are strengthened, but that this emasculation is predicated on the idea that we are playing a zero sum game, i.e. that if women are strengthened then men are somehow weakened.  People like Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) would argue that oppression dehumanises both oppressed and oppressor and that when the oppressed liberate themselves they also liberate their oppressors.

Attributes such as gentleness and humility, patience, kindness and self-control might be regarded as feminine but they are also biblical, for all of us, not just women.  One strand of Christianity that would seem relevant here is the Vineyard movement with its emphasis on intimacy with God through worship and spirituality, particularly with songs caricatured as “Jesus is my girlfriend” songs.  My local Vineyard church is packed full of “manly-looking” men; are they seeking a kind of faith that means they can drop the macho act and admit to feelings traditionally regarded as female?

It’s a live issue in some areas of the Christian blogosphere because Mark Driscoll is a strong advocate of the idea that the feminised church emasculates real men, but he’s not the only one.  This blog was prompted by “alastairjroberts” comments to Stephen Holmes’ article here:
in which “alastair” argues that nineteenth century evangelical gender politics “…led to a stigmatization of many stereotypically male traits, along with a celebration of many stereotypically female traits.”  He goes on to say that this led to a kind of “sticky” sentimentalism in church life.  

My critique of his comment lies not with whether “female traits” are better or worse, but with their stereotypical nature.  The traits that were stigmatised were to do with violence, aggression, and oppressive patriarchy and the traits that were celebrated were the biblical ones I mentioned above.  These traits have become labelled as masculine or feminine because of our cultural constructs, but they are stereotypes and it seems to me that the “up-side down” nature of the Kingdom of God demands that we reject them in favour of men and women seeking to become more Christ-like.  This might be very costly for some men but only in the short term; it was Jesus who said “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”

p.s. I could get started on the way the church does have more women in the pews but that still most of the power lies in the hands of men but I won’t.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

What I won't watch.

There are a few films I won’t watch, and a couple of genres I have no desire to watch. 

The genres are action thrillers and horror: unless there’s something a bit cerebral going on I’m not interested.  This means I’ll watch Tinker Tailor and Rocky Horror, but nothing from the Mission Impossible or I Know What You Did franchises.  The main reason for this is that I’m not very keen on watching violence with no point to it.
And the films I won’t watch?  It’s a smallish list and it starts with Schindler’s List.  The reason for this is that I think I would be too upset to watch it.  I read the book way back when it was called Schindler’s Ark so I know what the story is and I think I would be overcome with the sadness of it on film.  Others I’m avoiding are The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and Hotel Rwanda.  I also won’t watch Sophie’s Choice again.  I’ve seen Remember Me twice, but I’m thinking about whether I can watch that again, and I don’t want to see United 93.  Don’t misunderstand – they are all good films, and it isn’t a moral question, my issues with them are more to do with their effect on me.

There’s something about film that is immersive; it’s a multisensory experience, even on DVD at home.  That means that a film has more of an emotional impact on me than a book.  I read a lot and get very absorbed in the world of books, but the depth of my absorption is to a large extent under my control.  The vividness of the pictures I create from an author’s words can be moderated by how much I can stand, but when I watch a film it’s in the hands of the director and there are some images and emotions I would prefer not to have in my head.

Now I’ve started to think about it there are a few more coming to mind:  my husband has just asked me to set the recorder for 127 Hours and my blood has run cold at the thought of that film…and that reminds me, I don’t want to see Touching the Void either.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

I've made up a new -ism

Theologian Steve Holmes has written a very persuasive blog which argues that our Baptist Ecclesiology means that we cannot be complementarians, because theologically the two are mutually exclusive.

It cannot have escaped your attention that I am a feminist so when I read an article like this from someone like Steve it makes me cheer. I would also like to make a claim to be a Youthist.  If you don’t recognise this term, it’s OK, I just made it up, so let me explain myself.  A Youthist is not is guilty of ageism; this is where someone is discriminated against because they are a certain age, usually old.  A Youthist is to ageism as a feminist is to sexism.  It’s about identifying a group that is discriminated against and speaking out with and for that group.

 I would like to re-read Steve’s article with a youthist lens, and make the same arguments for inclusion of young people in church life.  If we take seriously our Baptist ecclesiology then we have to be open to receive from young people.  We need to really listen to young people, to be ready to have our faith shaped by them, and also to give them this responsibility for us and the church that Steve speaks of.

Steve argues that our Baptist polity means we have a responsibility to watch over one another, to sometime take authority over one another, and to submit to one another.  He argues that we have a very flat structure, with Jesus as the head and the rest of us as equals.

There are those who might want to argue against this.  They might argue that it isn’t right that young people should have authority over their elders; there is biblical teaching about the role of parents and children.  Yes there is, but complementarians use similar arguments about the role of women.  They might argue that young people can’t understand well enough yet, or don’t know enough; again complementarians have argued that women don’t have the mental capability to lead.  In addition, since when has mental capability or otherwise been the measure of how someone can be involved in church; there has never been an IQ test as part of baptismal preparation.   

Others might take a more positive attitude, but temper it by saying that it would be alright, as long as the young person is a baptised member.  My question would be: “Do we make this distinction between men in the church, or between women?”  Even complementarians don’t argue this.

Steve claims that if our Baptist ecclesiology is right, then we can’t be complementarian about the role of women in church life, and I would want to make the case that we therefore can’t be complementarian about the roles children and young people are allowed to take, are encouraged to take.  

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

On the other hand...

A few days ago I wrote this:


And I still think that.  Then today I read this:


And I think its about both/and not either/or...but trying to hold on the the ends of two tightly stretched bungee cords.  Not an easy trick, but better than trying to do neither?

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

In case you were wondering…

…Why the flurry of unaccustomed blogging activity?  It’s a vague new year’s resolution type thingy.  One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that writing something down helps me to process it.  It’s second best to talking about it:  as a Myers Briggs Extravert I tend to think with my mouth.  There’s nothing I like better than a no-holds barred discussion about some meaty subject – it helps me to sharpen my thinking, shows up when I’m not thinking very well, and helps me to see a bigger picture.  However, a ready supply of Argument Elves is not something that is easily obtainable, and Mike’s ears sometimes reach their limit, despite nearly twenty two years of intensive training!  I therefore decided that it would be good for me to blog more and actually publish the stuff…well actually write it in the first place.  In the past I’ve edited my blog out of existence before I’ve even put fingers to keyboard, with the result that I haven’t had an opportunity to work out what I really think, or to get things off my chest.  But this is the year of trying something different.  It does mean that sometimes I might talk rubbish – feel free to tell me so (kindly!) or that my line of thinking needs pushing around a bit – feel free to join in. 

Let’s see how it goes….

Monday, January 16, 2012

Martin Luther King and Mark Driscoll

One of the questions I’ve been asking myself over the past few days is “Why am I getting my knickers in such a twist about the Mark Driscoll thing?”  I asked myself why I bothered to blog about it, why read more about what he said, follow up things on his website, feel upset etc. etc.  There are plenty of other people better equipped than me to comment, other people more nearly affected by it than me.  The chances of my life being seriously impacted by anything Driscoll says are vanishingly small aren’t they?  Aren’t they?

This is a bit of a perennial question for me: I do get churned up about things that I perceive to be unjust.  I get irritated by individual acts of injustice in those around me: someone who speaks sharply to a young person in a way they never would to an adult; someone who tells a slightly sexist or racist joke without thinking about it; someone who behaves badly so that others feel diminished.  When I’ve talked about this with trusted friends, they say “Just let it go.  Just because so-and-so has behaved badly doesn’t mean you should get all stressed and anxious about it”  or “It isn’t your battle, if Sue feels bad about what Edith said, it’s up to her to say so”.  It’s a very real question as well, because my response causes me a lot of stress, which some might argue is unnecessary – you could even make a scriptural case for “tomorrow having enough worries”. 

I think there’s some wisdom in what people are saying that I need to listen to carefully, but I also want to make a case for speaking up.  And explain myself a bit.  The quote below comes from a letter Martin Luther King wrote to the church leaders in Birmingham, Alabama.  They had criticised him for getting involved with non-violent direct action in a city they regarded as not his patch.  His detailed and measured response contains the following:

“All I'm saying is simply this, that all life is interrelated, that somehow we're caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.”

This is referring to something the Old Testament calls “Shalom”, which is usually translated as Peace, but which actually has a much wider and deeper meaning.  An important part of this meaning is that peace, health, wholeness cannot happen to the individual alone, but needs to be happening for all of us.

For me, this means that while one American Christian sister feels unable to use gifts that God has given her because she is oppressed by those around her, I cannot be all I can be, and neither can any of us.  I know I can’t fix everything, and I know I have a lot to learn about graciousness and love when speaking up, but keeping silent isn’t always the same as keeping the peace.  Jeremiah 6 addresses the oppressive practices of Jerusalem and declares God’s wrath against it.  Verse 14 says this: “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.  'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace.”  Interestingly, the King James Version refers not to “the wounds of my people” but to “the hurt of the daughter of my people”. 

It wasn’t comfortable being an Old Testament prophet, and Jesus made himself extremely unpopular when he spoke up, but if God has put some Holy Discontent within me, keeping silent isn’t an option.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

I don't really like doing this....

...because I hesitate to give attention to someone I disagree so profoundly with but I'm glad it's provoking some debate on some issues close to my heart.

Krish Kandiah has made a response to the Driscoll furore here:


But this comment from Jenny Baker to Krish really makes me shout Yay!

I wonder if the reason this has touched a nerve for you, Krish, is because it’s so close to home. After all you are a gifted bible teacher from the UK, who speaks in many different contexts. So in dismissing all British Bible teachers, Driscoll is dismissing your gifts, calling and to some extent your identity. I wonder then if this experience can help you understand better why women like me respond in a similar way to complementarians who say that we should not be leading and speaking and thus dismiss our gifts, calling and identity. I’m interested that you’re prepared to make a stand and call out someone like Driscoll for his comments about British bible teachers, and you’re not prepared to do the same for his and others’ comments on women in leadership.

Go Jenny

Friday, January 13, 2012

Guess what...Mark Driscoll...

That’s it…I’ve tried all day to come up with something that is adequate, godly, not bitter and not contentious and I can’t.  Because whatever I try to say I end up doing the very things I want to call Mark Driscoll on and I don’t want to be that person.

So all I will say is explain why I have felt so strongly all day that I wanted to say something.  I am hurt! 

Mark Driscoll I have never met you but you are my brother in Christ and today I am heartsick and in pain because of your words about my country, my brothers and sisters in this country, and more generally your words about my god-given calling.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Thinkin' 'bout things....

According to a new report by the Children’s Society, half a million children in the UK are unhappy

After discussing some of the factors that might be involved in this finding, as well as looking at children’s lives in more depth, the report offers six priorities that decision makers should bear in mind:

1.       The right conditions to learn and develop
2.       A positive view of themselves and a respect for their identity
3.       Enough of the items and experiences that matter to them
4.       Positive relationships with their family and friends
5.       A safe and suitable home environment and local area
6.       The opportunities to take part in positive activities that help them thrive

All of which I can go along with, but I do have a slight question about one of them: priority number 3, in particular the bit about “Enough… items…that matter to them”.  The report notes that children feel unhappy when they feel too different from their friends, and that this can relate to clothes, things they own, and pocket money, and I can see this with both my own children and the young people I work with.  But is the answer really to make sure they have enough of the things that matter to them?  

Might it not be better to begin challenging what matters to them?  The thing is, children are children, and mainly they copy what they see around them.  We adults have created a world for them in which the “items that matter” are consumer goods; phones, laptops, the latest version of Halo or Jack Wills clothing. I have to confess that I can be as guilty of this as anyone…just check out my iPhone 4!  But maybe if we showed them that some of the items that matter to us have little monetary value they might begin to copy that.

I’d also like to have a discussion about what the word “enough” means, but I’ll save that for another day.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Another Numbers Game

One of the on-going themes for me in youth ministry has been numbers; counting young people like beans as a measure of success, whatever that means.  I’ll have to be honest and say that a big driver for this has been the smallness and lack of the usual marks of success in my ministry.  Don’t misunderstand me; I work with some absolutely wonderful young people who I have known for the last three and a half year and of whom I have become very fond.  It’s just that my youth ministry doesn’t look like Mike Pilavachi’s.  My young people don’t spontaneously run prayer all-nighters, lead worship at church, go to extra bible studies or any of the other things I hear about from other youth ministers.  Plus, for quite some time there has only been a few of them, and that is the most significant fail of all!  I don’t get 150 young people to my youth camp, or take 75 of them to Soul Survivor.  But this doesn’t mean that it has been a failure or that the wonderful young people I have come to know in the last three years haven’t been worth it all and more.  It’s been one of the things I have muttered about though…I’ve made pleas to other youth workers to think about what effect they’re having when they boast about the size of their ministries, and on one occasion had a rant to Pete Ward without realising it was him*!  (It was at a Greenbelt Youth workers breakfast but that’s a whole other story)

However, recently things have started to change: young people are coming more regularly, and they are prepared to get involved in discussions about God and Jesus and stuff!  And there’s another change, and this is where my problem is…because of a promise I made to myself, I can’t tell you about it.  But I have to confess that I very nearly did.  I was so pleased about it that I nearly forgot the things I said to myself when times were thin.  But isn’t it interesting how deeply ingrained it is in Christian culture to use only numbers to assess what we do?  Can you see how I’m tying myself in knots not to say the thing that you’ve probably guessed already?

The discipline is paying off though, because the effect of it is to lead me to some important realities.  The reality is it’s not my youth ministry, and they aren’t my young people and success and failure aren’t dependent on me.  It’s God’s youth ministry, and just at the moment we are having a season of blessing** for reasons I don’t completely understand.  And they are God’s young people, and their own, and just at the moment they are choosing to show up at my door, but taking the long view (and I do, I’ve been in youth ministry for more than ten years) they might choose to move on to something else, and this will probably be nothing to do with anything I do or don’t do.

My job, or calling to say what it really is, is to keep faithfully “holding out the word of life” (Phil 2:16) to the young people, by my actions and my words, and to pray for them.  If I’ve done that then I’ve been obedient to my calling and I’ll have to leave the success and failure thing with God.

*Pete Ward is a major youth work icon and has been for many years…what he doesn’t know about youth work…well, you get the picture.  And I had the temerity to have a rant at him about this!  Personally I think he should have introduced himself at the beginning of the seminar then I might have been awed into silence.

**I know that sounds a bit twee but I don’t know how else to say it

Monday, January 02, 2012

Speak up - I can't hear you

I’ve had a very relaxing New Year Weekend; yesterday my friend Becca and I spent the entire day in our Jim-jams watching DVDs and occasionally raiding the kitchen.  Some of the things we watched led me to think about attractiveness in women.  Our culture constantly reinforces the idea that beauty and attractiveness are all to do with women’s outer appearance; women newsreaders don’t last once their looks start to go, female actors don’t get work over a certain age (except in rare cases) female celebs get panned for appearing looking anything less than perfect.

So yesterday we watched the rather wonderful Sarah Millican, a stand-up comedian of a deliciously rude* and subtly clever kind.  She is 35 and was attractively and stylishly turned out, but as she said “One of my arms is a size 12!”  I think she’s exaggerating, but she’s definitely not a size 6.  Then later in the evening we caught some of the singer Adele’s Albert Hall concert.  She looks fabulous, but she definitely isn’t a skinny minny either.  Her glory is her wonderful voice, her clever lyrics and her feisty attitude**.

What has struck me about these two women is that it’s not their appearance that is attractive, it’s their voices.  And not just the sound of them, although I do love a Geordie accent, and Adele’s singing has a magical quality.  It’s what they’re saying and how they’re saying it, and even the fact that they’re saying it at all.  But here are two women who are saying things about themselves, and by extension women’s lives in general, and if Adele’s mainly female audience are anything to go by, women are wanting to listen. 

I hope it changes something.  I hope it creates more space for women to be able to say the things they want to say, and not the things they think they should be saying.  Then maybe we’ll stop worrying about whether our bums look big and let the beauty of our brains shine through.

*The DVD is a 15 which is a big clue…if you’re of a sensitive, non-sweary disposition it’s probably not for you

**Here’s a couple of quotes from Adele to give you an idea:

I don’t make music for eyes, I make music for ears.’ 

"I love food and hate exercise. I don't have time to work out. I don't want to be on the cover of Playboy or Vogue. I want to be on the cover of Rolling Stone or Q. I'm not a trendsetter. I'm a singer. I'd rather weigh a ton and make an amazing album than look like Nicole Richie and do a shit album. My aim in life is never to be skinny."