HONOUR CODE

It fascinates me how much of a premium warrior cultures place on respect and honour. All of them - Zulu, Spartan, Samurai - I've never found one that didn't. Sparta is perhaps the most famous Western warrior caste society about which we know a fair amount. We know how their society worked and what they believed. We like to think we know how they lived. Maybe, but do we know how they thought? A lot of what we learn today about the Spartans – and other warrior caste societies – seems to us anathema. But, like the founders of religions, the Spartans need to be understood in the context of their time.

They didn’t think the way we do – we have sufficient evidence from the plays and poems of Ancient Greece to know that. In the context of their world, exposing weak or sickly infants wasn’t cruel so much as pragmatic. Medicine wasn’t all that advanced, and diseases we’ve since eradicated were often deadly.  Slavery was just part of how the world worked.  Life was nasty, brutal and usually short.

In that context, Sparta becomes less spartan and more interesting, and it stands out among the Greek city-states by the relative freedom and power of its women. I’ve always liked that about the place, and admired their strict discipline and sense of purpose.

When I started looking into other warrior caste systems, I found a certain set of similarities between them.  In all the traditional martial societies – those in which warriors were held in esteem, for whom it was a way of life and social stratum rather than a those with a professional army such as we’re familiar with today – operated by a code. From Samurai through Sparta west to the Aztecs, the warrior castes were the nobles – the powerful, educated, cultured classes (however bloodthirsty).

Despite the apparent contradiction inherent in this, it makes sense, when you think about it. It’s the people with the bigger swords and better skills who win the war, and they then become the rulers. The ruling class has money and therefore access to education, and more leisure to pursue cultural interests. This is how conquering cultures become dominant – by beating and starving (often literally) the previous culture into submission.

Facts aside, however, we no longer understand them. We’ve lost their the world-view –empires are no longer fashionable, war is undesirable and ambition, especially for women, has become a guilty secret.  Those who want to rule the world are evil geniuses or soulless conglomerates, not role models.

The overwhelming similarity among them all is one of attitude – honour, discipline, pride in achievement, shame in failure to achieve. They judged others as they judged themselves – on deeds done, not promises made; on honest courage, not spin-doctoring.

The greatest tragedy of losing our drive to rule the world is that we’ve lost this ownership of both our achievements and our mistakes. We’ve lost our vertebrae along with our focus, and that can’t be good in the long-term.

MODERN DISCURSION

I am terrible for distracting myself from what I should be doing. Apparently I am not alone, and for the first time since the Gutenberg press was invented, mobile phone apps have overtaken books as a means of procrastination.

I thought my attention span was supposed to increase as I got older, not get shorter than a New York Second. But I seem to have lost the ability to focus on any one task, without distraction, with full absorption. It may be a product of this ever-connected, ever-informative (I use the word in its loosest sense) world.

When I watch my niece and nephews, they play with enviable single-mindedness, completely taken up in their own imaginations. I used to be like that, I sometimes still am in a movie, or reading. So why can’t I call on that ability on demand anymore?

Is it lost, or just a forgotten skill I need to revisit?

They say the secret is to create an insular environment – to deliberately cut away all distractions so you have no choice but to focus on the task in hand. A) that isn’t always possible and b) we didn’t need to do that when we were kids. Once absorbed, nothing from outside gets in.

We’ve forgotten that wonderful observation of F Scott Fitzgerald’s “that most limited of all specialists, the “well-rounded man.” This isn’t just an epigram — life is much more successfully looked at from a single window, after all.” (Great Gatsby). We’ve made ourselves multi-task, Jacks (Jills) of all trades, forgetting that a Jack of all trades is by definition master of none.

We cannot have it all, at least not simultaneously. We try and fail and then agonise over our “work-life” balance. That equation probably traces back to a generalised and somewhat creative interpretation of the old Greek saw: meden agan – Nothing in Excess, which dates back too far for accurate accreditation.

The ancient Classical world was very keen on moderation, discipline and austerity. And it’s that focus, that discipline that allowed Alexander and subsequently the Romans to conquer so much of the world. Empires are out of fashion now, and we’ve pretty much lost the discipline to focus like that (I am unsure which of those is chicken and which is egg), which view Donna Tartt echoes in 'Secret History' when her narrator talks of the modern mind as "discursive" and the classical mind as "focussed".  This is what makes Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” so outrageous to the Western mind – because the East hasn’t lost this ability, and one of the best places to learn it is through the Eastern Martial Arts (this isn’t just me. Anecdotal evidence suggests karate may be more beneficial for ADHD than Ritalin).

It also explains why China and India are the rising economies, becoming serious threats to America’s geo-economic crown.

So, to reclaim that discipline that allows us to focus in spite of distractions, it’s probably best to start small – ignore the email icon when it pops up, until you’re ready to deal with multiple emails. Ignore the phone – easy when the caller ID is someone we don’t want to speak to right now. If it’s important, they’ll either keep trying or leave a message

WOMEN BEHIND THE WHEEL

Last week, the EU decided it was time to end cheap car insurance for women. They ruled it was discrimination against men. I have to say, I’ve never understood why women automatically get cheaper car insurance. I’ve never liked the way in which my insurance premium is decided by other people’s mistakes. I don’t care what the statistics say – statistics lie. You can make them say anything you want, which is why they are an advertisers dream.

Yes, statistically, fewer accidents involve women than men. Statistically, fewer women drive than men, and they drive fewer miles. I cover a lot of miles, and I’ve been driving for many, many years. I have an advanced licence, and I haven’t (touch wood) had a serious accident for a decade. I’ve never had an accident that was in any way my fault.

Granted, I haven’t owned a car for about eight years, but I have and do own a motorbike. And my insurance on that gets ramped up because so few women ride that we don’t make into the statistics and my premium is based on what a bunch of petrol-head throttle-jockeys mess up trying to get their kicks.

I have never had a serious accident on the bike (hold tightly to wood). I am not a boy-racer or throttle-jockey and I don’t take stupid risks or ride under pressure. But try telling the insurers that. It’s improving with every year my licence stays clean and I have no claims, but it’s still ridiculous that my age automatically lumps me in with the accident-prone speed-freaks who cost insurers millions every year. And pushes my premium up.

It gets worse when you know that the accident statistics are completely erroneous, because virtually any accident involving a bike gets recorded as a KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) regardless of the actual level of injury, and usually, isn’t subsquently altered when it turns out that nobody died and the most serious injury is a cracked rib/ broken ankle. Which, again, pushes my premium up.

So, feminist though I am, I’m all for ending the automatically cheaper car insurance for women. Insurance should be based on individual driving history as well as blind, generic statistics (in my case, the claim-free car-driving years and advanced car licence should have been enough for bike insurers to get an idea of my riding style – clearly, I don’t take stupid risks, and the lack of an endorsement history on my licence should have told them what I think of paying fines), not on random criteria like gender and star-sign (I kid you not. If I was insured with them, I’d pay more because apparently, the stars say I’m a bad driver, contrary to my entire driving history).

Besides, on the road women cut me up more than men. I don’t know if they assume that, because I’m on two wheels, I must needs be a chauvinist boy-racer, or if they’re just so busy dealing with children/doing their make-up they can’t be bothered to use their mirrors for observation or their indicators as intended, but I reckon it’s half and half.

FAITH AND FEMINISTS

Every time i see on the feminist forums, yet another comment about chauvinist religions, right next to (usually) a comment about chauvinist secularism, I don't know whether to laugh or hide my head in my hands and groan deeply. I'm not arguing that we live in a misogynist society. We do. We will continue to do so until we admit that this is the case, and the battle for gender equality is still a long way from won.

It just strikes me a depressingly ironic not only that two posts are so often concurrent, but that the religions that come in for the most grief about chauvinism are the ones founded by feminists. (And boy, is that statement liable to get me into trouble).

But when you look at the foundations of those religions, their founders, were in the context of their time, feminist. Christ had many female disciples and some of them wrote gospels, became leaders and teachers of early Christianity. The Bible as we know it wasn't formalised until a couple of centuries after Christ, at the meeting in Nicea, from which we get the Nicene creed. Then the New Testament in particular was edited and catalogued, and the four books we call the Gospels today made the cut. Several others didn't. Like a lot of other religions, Christianity has been used to justify patriarchal systems. But religion can be interpreted to justify anything. The Bible was reinterpreted to justify Apartheid in South Africa, despite the opposition to Apartheid of several churches – which only goes to show that you can find justification for anything if you're sufficiently selective about which passages you choose.

The religion that comes in for most of the grief these days, is, of course, Islam. If you look at the history, at the original teachings (which I grant, I have only seen in translation) you find that the Prophet, when asked who a man should honour after his God, replied, “Your mother,” and when asked who to honour after that, replied, “Your mother.” How many times the reply was, “your mother,” depends on which version of the story you read, but all agree, after your God, a man should honour his mother at least twice before anyone or anything else. And as if to illustrate this respect for women, the Prophet's wife led an army against a man she saw as trying to usurp the Prophet's place. There are many stories of strong women fighting and leading in the early Muslim world, and it appears that oppression came later, with a reinterpretation of the holy teachings, which do seem to lean toward a “separate sphere” if you're looking for a justification.

Humans are fallible, humans have agendas, humans are devious. And there are always some prepared to twist anything useful into propaganda for their cause. And I can't help feeling that both Christ and Mohammed would be horrified to see the oppression and abuse their teachings are being used to justify.

PRICE-TAG

When I was a little girl, I was given the impression that I could have – or be or do – anything I put my mind to, anything I wanted. If only they'd told me what it means to put your mind to something, what it means to truly want it.

The whole motivational industry is based on this assumption – that nobody sat us down as kids and explained what it actually means when they say “You can do anything you put your mind to.”

The truth is – you have to want it. Whenever you want something, there is a certain price you are prepared to pay. And pay you will. Always. Nothing is free. Advertising is the black art of making you want something enough to pay the manufacturer's price for it. It creates the want and controls the level of want as well. Like I said, black art if ever there was one. (I should add I'm not averse to a little darkness)

We live in a world of information, constant connection and engagement and distraction. We call it multi-tasking, and tell ourselves we – especially women – should be good at it. We speak of 'All-Rounders' with respect and we've forgotten that 'Jack-of-all-Trades' actually means master of none.

Well, I'm not good at multi-tasking. I am, however, very good at distraction, at starting half a dozen things and not completing any of them, because I got sidetracked by one of the other things I'd started. I start with the best of intentions, I make lists to keep me on track. And then the phone rings, or I pick up a book just for five minutes. Those five minutes are endlessly elastic, extendible, and next thing I know I've finished the book and it's now too late to do any of the things on my list, so they get put off until tomorrow or another day. This is not getting anything done, usually because what needs doing doesn't really have a “want” value for me. (Yet. When I run out of clean clothes, watch doing the laundry become highly desirable. After all, I can read during the spin cycle).

As an adult, one of the problems is that relative and volatile “want” values make it hard to prioritise. I'd love to jack in the job, pack up and travel the world but a) that needs funding and b) I have bills to pay. So however much I want to travel, the bills have greater urgency, and there are other things I want, so travel plans remain on the back-burner, a distraction from other goals. As Barclays asked a couple of years ago: How many of your dreams and desires are the bills getting in the way of?

When we were small, we were more readily absorbed by single activities. We didn't even try to multi-task. Kids today may well be different, but I'm cynical about the value of that. If we really want something, we need to focus, to be absorbed by it, by the process of achieving it, until we “master” whatever it is. That's the price-tag, and while haggling may get you some kind of compromise, it's unlikely to feel very satisfactory.

The most contented people I've ever met are the ones who either changed their desire to meet their circumstances (but I wonder, being the incurable cynic I am, how genuine their contentment is) and those who let the bills go hang, and went for their dreams. The rest of us seem to quell a restlessness while we multi-task, distract and compromise our way through life. Maybe we just don't want it enough to pay full-price. But there isn't going to be a sale, we can't haggle, it's never going to drop into our laps. Lotto and reality television are lying – instant gratification and success don't happen often enough to be considered as a viable option, and even when they do happen, the success in particular is fleeting. If that 15 minutes is really all you want, go be my guest. But for most of us, the decision is whether to pay full price or let the dream go. In the end, life is too short to compromise.

THE HANDSTHAT ROCK THE CRADLE...

We live in a misogynist society. We’re so inured to it, we forget about it, so we forget that: women can be misogynists (see Girl On Girl), misogyny can be harsh on boys, and it breeds what is medically known as a secondary infection – misandry, the hatred of men.

Misandry is the flip side of the misogynist coin. The two are symbiotic parasites. Denying that won’t make it go away.

Most women carry a weight of disappointment in men, both generally and specifically. As children, they were sold on Cinderella and Snow White. Relationships don’t end in the rosy freeze-frame sunset of happy ever after. They often do end, but in pain, confusion and an endless blame game, leaving the kind of baggage it takes Heathrow a year to lose.

Men grow up with the weight of their mothers’ disappointment and of their unrealistic expectations, and the weight of a misogynists society’s expectations of men.

These days, what makes a man? It’s not manners or clothes. Is a real man macho? Or sensitive? A player? Or a gentleman?

Our perception of manhood is just as dictated by misogynist constructs as our idea of femininity. The insults flung at gay men in particular are accusations of femininity – of acting or looking like a girl.

But misogyny dictates that men are macho: rugged, sexually promiscuous, etc while girls are the opposite… Every definition Google can find compares “metrosexual” to the gay male vain shopper stereotype, the female vain shopper stereotype, or both. Misogyny and misandry had their wicked way with the concept of ‘metrosexual’ long before the term was coined.

Girls grow up with fairy tales in which they have no purpose but to wait to be whisked off into married happily-ever-after by Prince Charming. The real world doesn’t operate on the basis of happily-ever-after, and Prince Charming is charming, not nice.

So women are disappointed – as a society, we make sure we set ourselves up for disappointment. So women tend to hold something of a grudge towards the male of the species, however much we may love individual men.

It’s this somewhat twisted dichotomy that mothers pass onto their sons, this misandry – the flip side or secondary infection of misogyny – that perpetuates the cycle.

As misogyny engenders misandry, so misandry engenders misogyny as both sexes get twisted up by what we’re told to be, and to expect of each other, and who we actually are.

So let’s have a look at that bastion of manliness – lads’ mags. Your average lads’ mag, the world over, is only interested in depicting girls as: girls not women – young, nubile, slim with large breasts (often not real) and always ready for sex.

The models, of course, get paid for baring their breasts, and the lads pay to see the results. It has been argued that this means men rather than women who are exploited. But it creates a vicious circle that exploits both sexes. It tells boys how they should behave, who they should fancy, how to be ‘lads’ – and they buy into that because it’s virtually impossible to resist, and girls know boys buy into it, so they try harder to fit the unrealistic stereotypes, and the cycle sprials to extremes.

The boys are being told by lads’ mags that real men eat man-sized macho meals, they drink manly amounts of macho drinks. Surely the macho man stereotype is as restrictive to men as page 3 is to girls?

Men and women need each other to survive, to procreate. And ironically, it’s the act of procreation that created this mess in the first place. Men are needed for sperm, for sex itself. Women then carry the foetus, give birth, and nurse the child…. No wonder men began to feel slightly redundant.

This fear underlies misogyny. The trouble is: we are much more than merely biology. Our society is not purely about procreation, and it’s not only stupid, it’s indefensible to let such an irrelevant fear dominate our society to the point where it harms everyone: not only women, not only men. Worse still, it is misogyny/ misandry that lie behind attitudes like homophobia.

So: is there a way out? Well, yes, but it needs us to think for ourselves. We need to de-sexualise. We are all human first, male or female second. We need to learn to keep hold of the differences between porn and page 3, and reality.

And who knows? Maybe one day we’ll evolve to the point where page 3 and porn are at least realistic, if not gone.

WAR IS A FEMINIST ISSUE

Like fat, war is a feminist issue. Only not the way most people think. The depressing truth is, without the world wars, it seems unlikely that women would be in the position of relative autonomy they are in the West today.

In WW1, when nearly a generation of Europe's finest and brightest young men were killed in the field, the women at home moved out of the house and into the munitions factories. Their countries needed them. And for the first time since the Victorians, their countries paid them a wage, although not much of one, and women had money of their own.

The women's suffrage movement changed its battle cry to one of patriotism, possibly on the basis that "Male disbelief in female capacity can never be persuaded away. It can only be worked away." (Dr Elsie Inglis)

Women answered the call. They worked in factories, on farms, drove trams, buses, became electricians, plumbers and civil servants. Women became police, worked in army communications and other non-combat jobs. They worked in hospitals. Although the first two offers of nursing aid made by women to the British authorities were rejected, the women

went ahead anyway. Notably, Mrs St Clair Stobart, whose original offer to the Red Cross of women's Convey Corps had been summarily dismissed, and Dr Elsie Inglis, who had proposed posting of women's hospital units across Europe to the War Office. They joined forces and opened a hospital in London. France was not so short sighted, and welcomed all the help it could get, allowing Drs Murray and Anderson to open a clinic on French ground staffed entirely by women. In Russia, which pulled out of the war to have a revolution,  it was women who were guarding the winter Palace on the night on which the government surrendered to the Bolsheviks.

Many women had to continue being working mothers when their husbands did not return from the front. More men were killed in the field in World War 1 than in any other war before or since. War had broken down the barriers. It had done away with chaperons, and the delicate ettiquette that had attended inter-gender relations. There were, across Europe, now more women than men. And these women were vastly different from who they’d been four years earlier. These women knew their worth, and they weren't about to let their new-found freedom go. They had proved they were capable. It made it hard to argue against giving them the vote.

In 1939, another war was declared. As one general remarked, it was simply the second act of the Great War. Women returned to the workplace – in the munitions factories, in the Auxiliary forces, on radio stations, in medical corps, in resistance movements, as spies, secretaries, floor managers – as every role that needed filling, save actually fighting (except in Russia).

Women were not allowed to be pilots in the RAF, although many served on the ground as part of the WAAF. If they wanted to fly, they could - for the ATA – all classes of planes except sea-planes, on the grounds that those were technically boats, and you couldn’t have a woman steering a boat (whether that was nautical superstition or a convenient way to keep some small part of masculine prowess unassaulted, I’m not sure. I can’t find any reliable sources). The ATA flew planes from factory to radio/instrument fitting stations to RAF bases and back. They flew ferry planes of men and equipment wherever it was needed. They flew unarmed in war zones. While only about 10% of the ATA were women, they got the glory. Their safety record looks amazing compared to that of the men, but this isn’t because women are better pilots – it’s that, at least in the beginning, they had to have 500 flying hours experience, comapred to half that for men, and they were watched  far more closely for mistakes – being women.

And when it was all over, finally, the world was left in the charge of a generation who had seen civilian life completely disrupted twice. The old order couldn’t simply be reinstated, although you could argue that the 1950s tried to do just that. Without the social disruption and exigencies of war, women may never have got the vote, or jobs outside the home, and we’d probably still be fighting for those basic rights – a voice, a room and a purse of our own.