In sleep a king

. . . as a dream doth flatter, 

In sleep a king, but, waking, no such matter.

Ten years ago I would have hailed this as exactly what I wanted to say. This piece has been judged excellent, well thought out and a breath of fresh air by many people I like and respect. It claims that it is impossible to write fluently without someone jumping on you and accusing you of oppressing people who may be female, disabled, trans, gay, non-white, etc. That language itself is being ruined by attempts to be "correct". That what people says is being lost in accusations of oppressing someone, while in fact far more people who genuinely don't know what "correct" language is are being alienated and left behind.

When I was young, I hated political correctness. I hated racism even more, and made a point of spending as much time as possible with the international students. In fact, political correctness seemed to me to be racism, but with a shiny veneer: "Oh, I won't say 'black coffee', because it is a problem to be black, but I'm too polite to say so. I won't use any word which refers to your colour, positive or negative or neutral; aren't I nice?" To be fair, I did know some people a bit like that. I was also once publicly held up as a racist in front of a hundred-odd other people because I'd fallen into a deliberately set trap. I was distraught (especially when one of the people praised for their "correct" attitude then went on to say "that Paki" the very next day).

It makes me shrink to say this, but it's true: I was particularly upset that my friends would repeatedly talk about how unacceptable it was ever to even mention the word "Jew" or "Jewish" because that was not only racist, but pro-Holocaust. My family had been ostracised by some Jewish people - a very small minority, I didn't doubt then and don't doubt now - who had refused to speak to us, even to give us directions when we were lost, because we weren't Jewish. (At school, my dad had been in a football team of mostly Jewish boys, who had named themselves "The Smelly Yids"!) I was sympathetic in speech but irritated in private when a friend complained that the university campus made it hard for her mother to walk as she had weak ankles: did she want the whole place knocked down? (It was a campus largely made of steps and pyramids and walkways. An amazing place. But definitely designed without disabled people in mind.)

I look back on my younger self with mortification. Did I ever say terrible things about anyone just because I felt My Right to do so trumped political correctness? Did I make things worse for anybody? It haunts me. Which, of course, doesn't help anyone.

I think, now, that what I was seeing and hating was a caricature. Much like the caricature tabloids write of health and safety policies, which stop people buying cheese and saying "Christmas", rather than are enforced to save lives. Or of immigrants, who are here to take all our jobs and live off all our benefits (you know, in right-wing minds they can do both at once).

Caricatures can distract from reality. They divide and rule.

As Deborah put it in a talk she gave recently to Hackney Skeptics, it was common in medieval times for women to accuse other women of witchcraft because that was pretty much the only social leverage they had. If you're at the bottom and unable to confront those at the top, it's all too easy to turn on those also at the bottom with you. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the government and tabloids want the working classes to do - to spit at disabled people and call each other scroungers, rather than take our grievances to the government and to large-scale tax avoiders.

Another problem was that I was very ill at the time. It was an invisible illness. No allowances could be made for me. As far as I know, there's no special insult for "person with a major intestinal disorder who suffers from nausea and pain and anxiety" (as there is for many mental conditions or loss of mobility, for example) that could be not used. There were no physical adaptations that could be made. There was nothing to help me. I was jealous of those who could be helped and were.

Looking back, those who forbade mentions of various races or colours were invariably white. The girl who told me not to swear in her presence because she was a Christian also boasted about how she had destroyed her mobile's sim card to get a new phone on insurance. My Ghanian housemate was happy to talk about being black - but that was years later; he was not party to such discussions. I never heard what Jewish people thought of anyone mentioning the word "Jewish" or "Jew".

Well-meaning people wanted to speak in their support. Other well-meaning people disagreed with how to speak in their support.

The voices that should have been loudest were not even there.

So there I was, full of my own problems and without awareness of those I didn't understand - that I had no way of understanding. Until circumstance made me understand.

Three years ago I found work in a charity that provided information and hired out mobility equipment to disabled people. It was "run by the disabled for the disabled". I was the only person without a physical or mental disability. It was the most supportive place I'd ever known. My physical problems (the pain and nausea and weakness) and my mental problems (my depression, anxiety, workplace phobia as a result of bullying, and lack of confidence) were accepted and no big deal, but my colleagues were always there to listen and support me. I found myself doing the same for them. And a new part of me began to blossom.

I was appalled by the rage I saw in some of the newsletters, such as Disability Today. They seemed to personally loathe anyone whose legs worked properly. But I was equally appalled by the slurs levelled at disabled people not only in the newspapers, but from a random man who took it upon himself to walk into the office and berate me for handing out blue badges to his neighbour who he was certain didn't need it. And I began to realise that slurs were spoken, judgments were made, policies were drawn up, without the involvement of the people they affected.

Perhaps one problem with knowing that others are disadvantaged is that decent people have an immediate instinct to speak up for such people. The trouble with that is that it gives those who don't actually have much knowledge a false idea of how much they do know. There's a point when you just have to say: I don't know what it's like to be coloured, disabled, or trans. And I have to shut up and listen.

There are men who write in favour of feminism, who speak volubly and passionately about how much they care and how anyone who thinks them sexist is hateful and misunderstands - but who will then ignore women's voices as soon as they don't like them. I doubt they realise they're doing this. They want to do good. They already get stick from those who disrespect their feminist stance, and this hurts, but they keep going. They genuinely mean well. Just as I meant well to say that political correctness was racism made respectable.

There are men who simply retweet women's words without comment, who chase away harassers, who protect vulnerable women even after their friends have been shot doing so, who don't tell everybody else what to do. These men are much harder to see.

A few months ago, a new website for feminist writing opened, and they asked me to submit an article. I wrote about my two sides of what I consider feminist activism: women in science, and Galactic Orchids. They turned me down. They wanted their first article about female genital mutilation to be from someone involved in the relevant culture. I was hurt - rejection always hurts - but they were right. I should be quietly supporting and amplifying voices of those actually affected. Not leading the discussion.

It wouldn't be right for me to tell my trans friends how to survive, or my non-white friends when to consider someone racist and when not. I don't know what that's like and it's not for me to say.

This is a difficult post to write, because if you're on Twitter you probably know there's been a big blow-up between prominent feminists over the issue of language. I have friends on both sides of the platform. Passionately so. One side says: they attack you if you don't know the words "intersectionality" or "WoC"; you can't open your mouth without them jumping down your throat. The other side says: you can be polite and they ignore you; you can get angry and then get labelled a bully. One side says: there's a core group of trouble-makers who are making this space less safe for women. The other side says: they just don't want to listen, they don't want to learn, their only solution is to continue oppression and marginalise anyone who dares disagree.

It is heartbreaking to be told you've used an oppressive word, such as "cretin", when you only meant "someone who has done something very silly and very funny" - and when you've just spent a huge amount of time and energy supporting someone with mental health problems, listening to them, pointing them to places that can help, leaving yourself drained. It is all too easy to leap to the defensive. "You KNOW I didn't mean that. Why do you assume the default position is that I'm ableist when all the evidence points the other way? Who cares about words over actions?"

But why spend an awful lot of time and effort for a cause if you're then not willing to listen those you're supposed to be supporting? Over something that really won't hurt you in practice? Calling out someone actually doesn't have to mean "you're ableist scum, I hate you and I'm going to shame you before the entire world. You will never live this down" - even though it feels that way. When people have pointed out I've used a word I shouldn't, they've generally only meant, "Please don't do that. I know you don't mean to, but it hurts, and it adds to the problem."

That's all I've meant when I've asked men (especially on Facebook) not to keep posting pictures or jokes that objectify women - that discuss us as if we're pieces of meat, that rate us by our attractiveness, that tell us to accept it was our fault for dressing wrong if we were raped, that we are too emotional and illogical to be scientists. Many are resistant. They know what they mean. I should keep quiet and accept it, right?

"Do call me out if I screw up, as I'm sure I must do from time to time, being white," wrote Scattermoon on Twitter. A different approach from defensiveness: Teach me. I will see it as teaching. Not accusing. I will grow.

Joining Galaxy Zoo and Skeptics in the Pub meant that I had to be very ready to accept correction if I ever made a scientific mistake. Being a feminist - and one who includes women (and men, and transfolks, and etc etc) of all colours and abilities and backgrounds, which is my current understanding of the word "intersectional" - means I have to be ready to accept correction, too. In my family we never used "nut" to describe mental health problems - it was often an affectionate word, sometimes actively complimentary, in praise for a really silly joke. But just as I learned a new language when I moved to Spain back in 2003, I learned a new language when I left home.

It really hasn't hurt to watch how I use the word, and similar words, now. To adapt a little is a very small price to pay for knowing a vastly more diverse group of people than I used to - and knowing so much more as a result.

It's true that lots of people don't know what "intersectional" means and there's no point assuming they do. That doesn't mean the word has to be rejected out of hand, though. New words do spring up. "Cis", for instance, to describe "not trans". "Straight", for example, to mean "not gay". Yes, language is complicated, and frankly, columnists, you can't please everybody - it just isn't possible. Any read of any comment section will demonstrate that.

As I read on a blog yesterday which I now can't find (if you know the one I mean, please post it in the comments!), it is very easy for a campaign to seem whiny and unimportant if you don't know what it's about.

And the only way to learn what it's about is to listen.

Orbit

Come take my hand and run swift with me,
Leap high till we skim over road and tree,
Till oil-painting fields fall fast down below
And wind burns our faces, and cotton clouds grow.

Come take my hand and fly round the world
Race faster than falling, up into the cold
Slingshotting us into the deep blue of sky
Soft pale horizon, dark airless roof high.

Hold my hand tight as stars stream overhead
And Orion turns cartwheels and our sheer speed has led
To our satellite orbit round Earth blue and bright
The landscape tingles with stars in the night.

The Moon and the space station make paths like a spell
We roll steady and safe in Earth's gravity's well.
Come take my hand and fly high with me
Join the dance of the planets in our galaxy.

I've never been satisfied with a poem I've written, but hey, it's always good to push yourself out of your comfort zone. Seriously, with space suits and considerably less gravity than the Earth's - say, a large asteroid - this is actually possible. Or a rocket. The reason things stay in orbit, be they moons or binary stars or the International Space Station, it's because there's a perfect balance of speed and gravity. Everything in orbit is in freefall, but moving so fast that the falling only amounts to being pulled around in a stable ellipse or circle.

Do you think, from the aeroplane window, that British fields look like oil paintings? I do. Spain, with all its olive trees, looks like black-dotted yellow graph paper. Norway looks like dark green papier mache, and Nova Scotia - which I think is the black-and-white icy mountainous area we flew over when I went to America two years ago - looks absolutely amazing.

This is one of my favourite ever pictures of space. I'd love to do this some day.

Crowdsourcing a Galactic Orchids talk: What are your astronomy questions?

Why do stars live in galaxies, rather than being spread out evenly through the Universe? Where did the Big Bang actually happen? Doesn't the Moon pull on water and therefore affect us? These are just three questions I've been asked and have got round to answering on this blog (here, here and here, in the same order) - and now, inspired by Dean's Comic Relief crowdsourcing efforts, I'm inviting you all to send me astronomical questions out of which I might make a whole talk.

My most major astronomical activity these last few months has been Galactic Orchids, a series of talks to raise funds for the Orchid Project and Daughters of Eve, two charities fighting (in very different fashions) to end female genital mutilation. I have about seven talks now, but I'm running out of ideas for them, and would like to keep going in autumn 2013 - so I'd like your ideas, please! What puzzles or interests you about astronomy? What would you want to hear about?

Your question might have a short answer, such as: Why is a lunar eclipse red? Or it might be major, such as: What exactly have we done so far to explore Mars? So I hope to make an entire talk out of short questions, and I also hope to make a few talks out of longer ones. Feel free to suggest what you'd like an entire talk to be made of!

If you'd like to come, the next two will be Wednesday 10th April and Wednesday 8th May, both at 7pm at the Newington Green Unitarian Church in Stoke Newington. There'll be tea, coffee and biscuits available afterwards and a question and answer session - it's very informal. We began in October 2012 and have so far raised over £300.

You can ask questions or suggest topics by leaving a comment here, tweeting me or Galactic Orchids, or visiting our Facebook page.

Thank you very much!

NGC 5218 from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. At Galaxy Zoo we call it "the rose".

38 things you might not know about the Moon

(Unless, of course, you are extremely keen on the Moon, in which case you probably do. Anyway . . .)

1) Our Moon is the largest moon relative to the size of its planet in our Solar System. Some moons are larger - Titan and Ganymede, for instance - but are hundreds of times smaller relative to Jupiter and Saturn. This of course leaves out Pluto and Charon, which besides no longer belonging to the "planet" class are more of a several-body system. On that topic, our Moon is more than five times the mass of Pluto!

2) It's as bright as a sunspot and as dark as coal. A sunspot is a darker point on the Sun's surface. If you could isolate it, it would shine as bright as a full Moon - which looks extremely bright in the sky, especially when full. But its rocks are about the colour of coal. Its apparent whiteness is because it's nearby, and we see it contrasted against a darker space. Its albedo is roughly 0.1, which means it only reflects 10% of the light that hits it. (Ice is about 0.9, meaning it reflects 90% of the light, and charcoal about 0.04, meaning it reflects about 4%.) The Earth's albedo is about 0.3, though of course it varies from place to place. Mercury's is similar to the Moon's.

3) In pictures, the Moon is almost always drawn much bigger than it really is - because it is so bright and captures our imaginations. Its angular size in the sky is between 29.43 to 33.5 arcminutes, which is actually very small. The Andromeda galaxy appears six times larger than the Moon from Earth - but then, of course, we can't usually see that.

4) The size of the Moon appears to vary because of its elliptical orbit - and not because of where it is relative to the horizon. The famous "Moon illusion", the fact that the Moon appears huge when it's on the horizon, has been documented at least since Aristotle. Various theories have been put forward to explain it: one from Ancient Greece was that the Earth's own atmosphere had a magnifying effect. In fact, it doesn't - and you can check this for yourself by holding an object of fixed size next to the moon, at a fixed distance from your eyes. The cause is probably from the way we see the sky: we imagine it as fairly flat, or at most, a gently curving dome, making objects near the horizon seem further away than objects immediately overhead. There are also more landscape features like trees and buildings to compare the moon to on the horizon.

5) Actually, it's not quite simple. The Earth's atmosphere does have a lensing effect on the Moon which can turn it into funny shapes - but you need to be lucky to see it! It can be due to layers of air with different temperatures, such as here:

From the International Space Station, astronauts have seen a "squishy" Moon as a result of the Earth's atmosphere diffracting sunlight!

7) The Moon is 1/81th of the mass of the Earth, but its gravity is 1/6th. Why? Because of Newton's laws of gravity. (To be pedantic, the inverse square law specifically, which was not Newton's alone.) Gravity gets stronger the closer you are to the centre of something. If you have two bodies of exactly the same mass, but one is smaller than the other, the smaller one will have a greater gravity, though over a smaller area. This is why, in a binary star system where one star has died, the white dwarf, neutron star or black hole will often start accumulating matter from the star. As the Moon has a much smaller radius than the Earth, an astronaut standing on the Moon is much closer to the centre of the Moon than she would be to the Earth's standing on the surface of the Earth. Surprisingly, this effect is more significant than the mass of the body - double the mass and you double the gravity, but halve the radius and you multiply the gravity by four.

8) There is no atmosphere or liquid water on the Moon, meaning there is no weather. The escape velocity of the Moon is 2.38 kilometres per second (so it's much easier to fire rockets off the Moon than off the Earth). At Earthly and Moonly temperatures, this is easily low enough for all gases to escape immediately. (At a very, very cold temperature, such as Pluto and Charon, gases move far slower, so it's easier to hold onto them.) This has many implications . . .

9) . . . for example: Moon dust is dangerous to astronauts and their spacesuits! It's extremely abrasive - because no water has rubbed it and rounded it, the way rivers make pebbles smooth on Earth. It's very hard, because meteorite impacts give it a melted, glassy coating. This hardness and abrasiveness means it pierces spacesuits easily. It's very fine, and having no air or water to drive this fine dust around or turn it into soil, it stays there - static and clingy, getting into the Apollo craft and into the astronauts' lungs. The static comes from UV light which knocks electrons off the atoms and molecules. All this will need to be taken into account if we want to live on the Moon.

10) It has often been thought that there is water on the Moon - the Tintin characters, going there in the 1950s, see stalactites and stalagmites - and that hypothesis was correct: there is. It's ice, of course, and trapped within the rock - no rivers or lakes exist, and any water that seeped to the surface would immediately boil or be rapidly photodissociated. But absorption spectra by NASA's Moon Minerology Mapper show the presence of a tiny amount of water within the rock. This has wannabe lunar colonisers very excited indeed. Recently, researchers at the University of Michigan did a study on moon rocks which suggested that the water seems to have been there from the time the Moon formed. This is odd, because the Moon is thought to have been very hot when it formed, which would have boiled off any water. (The same, I suppose, goes for the Earth. Our water may have been brought via comets from the Late Heavy Bombardment.)

11) A "blue moon" is actually not a blue coloured moon at all, but simply the second full moon of any given month. Since the Moon's orbit is 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes, and your average month is 30 days and 10 hours, this doesn't happen often - every two or three years. Occasionally some Facebook page will tell you that a blue moon means something incredibly significant and spiritual. It doesn't: it's simply an inevitable lining up of human generated unequal series of numbers. Calendar months are entirely human choices. Sorry!

12) The Moon is red during a lunar eclipse because the light that reaches it is filtered through sunrises and sunsets. To visualise what is happening, look at this beautiful picture of Saturn:

Saturn's air itself is carrying the Sun's light around the planet (as the air does on a cloudy day on Earth). Earth's atmosphere does the same thing: the atmosphere around the edge of the planet carries the light on and diffuses it into Earth's own shadow. It's red light, for the same reason as sunsets are red: blue light is scattered and all goes off at an angle, leaving red light's path comparatively clear. There are also plenty of particles in the Earth's atmosphere, and particles tend to turn light redder. Light filtering through a sunrise and sunset has the most atmosphere to travel though. That's why people say there's "no protection" when you get sunburnt at noon: the Sun's light goes straight through the thinnest layer of air.

I made a silly little diagram to illustrate this for my March Galactic Orchids talk:

and incidentally, exactly the same thing happens when looking at spiral galaxies face-on versus edge-on:

(This lovely pair are NGC 4126 and NGC 3814. From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey telescope.)

13) We see perfect solar eclipses because of a wonderful cosmic coincidence: the Sun and the Moon appear exactly the same size. The Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, but also 400 times further away. Actually, this varies - if the Moon is near apogee (furthest point away) due to its elliptical orbit during a solar eclipse, it won't quite block out the Sun, and we get the "ring of fire".

The shadow of the Moon on the Earth is actually surprisingly small. From the Planetary Habitability Laboratory:

(Eclipses are very emotional events. If you want to cheer yourself up, I strongly recommend watching this Sky at Night episode about Chris Lintott's trip to Turkey to see one!)

There is almost certainly no other planet on the Solar System where we could see such perfect solar eclipses - and this is in time, too, as well as space, because . . .

14) . . . the Moon used to be closer to Earth than it is now - and is moving away from us at the rate of 3.8 cm per year. We check this constantly by firing laser beams at retroreflectors placed on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. As we know the speed of light, we can time how long the reflection takes to get back to us and get the Moon's distance to an accuracy of millimetres. In my lifetime, so far, it's moved away about 1.16 metres.

On average, that is. Its elliptical orbit varies by a huge amount more than that. But there's a slow progression. And the unavoidable conclusion is that the Moon used to be a lot closer to Earth than it is now. Tides would have been more dramatic; the Earth's own crust would have been under more strain, as would the Moon's. The friction this caused is why the Moon's face is always pointed towards us - and why we are heading the same way . . .

15) Earth's own orbit is slowing down, so one day we will always be showing the same face to the Moon, too. Our faraway descendants will never see a moonrise . . . But that will not be for a very long time.  At the moment, we only need to add a "leap second" less than once a year.

As Phil Plait put it: "I hope you liked 2008. Because you're going to get an extra 0.0000031689% of it today." (2008 was possibly the worst year of my life so I was not pleased, but the extra 0.0000031689% passed quickly!) As he explains, the Moon isn't the only influence - there's also the Sun, the fact that the Earth's structure is part solid and part liquid and generally uneven, earthquakes and tsunamis, and even the weather. So it's slow. But it seems that one day, a lunar orbit and an Earth day will be the same length - 47 of our present Earth days.

We know from fossil records and even rocks that the Earth's day was once 21 hours when life was very young, and 23 hours in the time of the dinosaurs. Coral is particularly good at showing this - they grow leaving marks like tree rings, marking days and years (or rather, periods of light and dark, and seasons, respectively). The older the records, the more days there seem to be in a year - indicating that days were shorter.

16) The Moon is speeding up! This is why it is receding from us, and how it will eventually only see one side of the Earth, as we do it. Essentially, it's taking energy from the Earth's rotation around its axis and putting it into its own orbit - like grabbing the hand of a spinning ice-skater. However, even though the Moon speeds up, it takes longer to complete its orbit, since it's further out.

17) The Moon may be responsible for the seasons. Some planets are very tilted (some ridiculously so, like Uranus); some are very sensibly aligned, with their equators on the same plane as the Solar System. Earth's is pretty tilted, and it keeps the tilt consistent as it goes round the Sun - hence, of course, the seasons. If the Moon was created in a giant impact (see later), this would have knocked us over; Uranus is thought to be tilted for the same reason. However, Earth also has a "wobble" (a very steady one; it's not going to fall over like a spinning top) which is shown in Milankovitch cycles. However, all these are steady and fairly minor, unlike Mars, which wobbles all over the place as its two titchy moons fail to exert any stability against the massive objects such as Jupiter pushing it around in the Solar System. The Moon has been shown to have a stabilising effect on the Earth's orbit - though this, much like the eclipses, will cease as it gets further away from us.

18) It may seem obvious, but art does not always capture it: the appearance of the Moon indicates where the Sun is, like an arrow. You will never see a crescent Moon looking like an open parachute: if the crescent is on its side, the "horns" will point upwards, indicating that the Sun is"below" the Earth's horizon. A full Moon indicates that the Sun is "behind" the Earth. My favourite ever scientist, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, wrote in a 1954 astronomy textbook, agreed at the time to be the best in the world: "It is an amusing pastime to note the 'impossible moons' portrayed by some artists: a new moon high in the northern sky, for instance; a full moon near sunset in the west; or a crescent with horns pointed downward." (That is probably the American version of this book - I wonder if I have bought the only 1954 copy on the market?)

19) The Moon has a molten core and magnetic field. Both are very small - but it's enough to perturb the solar wind from the Sun. The molten core was found with the help of seismometers left by the Apollo astronauts. This is pretty interesting, since not all planets have a molten core or magnetic field - Mars's, for instance, has pretty much shrivelled up, and Martians have no protection from the solar wind.

20) Tides are caused by gravity. Nothing else. Contrary to what you may have heard, the Moon does not preferentially pull on water. It does not affect us "because we are mostly water". True, the Moon does have some cultural effects, hence the werewolf, the word "lunatic", and the Sussex police claiming that there's a rise in crime around the full moon. I've heard people tell me in all seriousness that they "feel different when it's a full moon", that they "felt really angry when the Moon was red during an eclipse", but the Moon isn't picking some of the molecules in your body and dragging them around whilst ignoring the others. I'm not going to pretend I know why these mood alterations seem to happen, but I suspect a lot of it's simply that we expect them. Moonlight is a wonderful, shivery thing, after all - I will never forget taking a walk in a moonlit wooded area around the lake on my university campus. The water was black and silver and the moonlight reflected astonishingly off the silver birch trees. The thrill was slightly marred by the fact that it was so muddy that one of my companions had wrapped his shoes in plastic bags . . .

The Moon's gravity - not to mention the Sun's - pulls on everything, including the Earth's crust. CERN had to take this into account building the Large Hadron Collider, if I recall correctly what was said on my visit there.  There are tides because water moves around easily. As for the Sussex police, I also recall Chris Lintott's comment on a podcast called "Living Space": "Anything to do with the Moon in Sussex has got to be Patrick's fault."

21) The much-missed Sir Patrick Moore wrote his first paper about the Moon when he was only 14. He was invited by a local astronomer, W.S. Franks, to come and use the Brockhurst Observatory which was very near where the young Patrick lived. Mr Franks was suddenly killed by a car knocking him on his bicycle, and Patrick was asked to take over the observatory. He presented a paper to the British Astronomical Association named "Small Craters in the Mare Crisium". You'll find the Mare Crisium on the far right here. "I sent it in, and was notified by the Association's Council that it had been accepted, but I felt bound to explain that I was not exactly elderly. I still have the reply, signed by the then secretary, F.J. Sellers: 'I note that you are only fourteen. I don't see that this is relevant'." (This, by the way, is exactly what you should be saying to young people interested in science.) You can read more in Sir Patrick's autobiography. (You can also leave a tribute for him here - and yes, he did play the xylophone.)

22) The darker areas of the Moon, "the man in the Moon", are called maria, meaning seas. Tell that to someone you know named Maria, if she'd be interested? The maria are of course not seas - they are in fact old lava flows, quite possibly made as the result of impact craters that filled with lava. There still seems to be debate whether the impacts caused an upwelling of lava or whether it was volcanism. They are dark because they are more iron-rich than the rest of the Moon's surface, indicating that they come from closer to the core. (Just like the Earth, the Moon has more iron towards its centre, because iron is heaviest, and it started off molten so heavy things sank to the bottom.) In this picture by Alan Friedman you can see a large lava basin which then received a later impact:

23) There isn't a "dark side of the Moon". There is a "far side" of the Moon that never points our way. But, as you can see for yourself, every side of the Moon experiences day and night with its rotation just as the Earth does. We can see the far side of the Moon, however, using spacecraft such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter:

24) The Moon does not, strictly speaking, orbit the Earth. Rather, the Earth and the Moon orbit a common centre of mass. This centre of mass, or barycentre, is just under 2000km below the surface of the Earth. That means that Earth goes round in a little circle, and the Moon goes round in a big one. (If they were the same size and mass, the centre of mass would be exactly halfway between them.)

The Earth and Moon feel equal and opposite forces: gravity balances a "centrifugal force" (I say that in inverted commas, because there's actually no such thing as centrifugal force, and the idle use of the term drives some physicists crazy. It's actually the law of inertia: the urge of the body to keep going in a straight line. If either body started going in a straight line, it would be going away from the other one. It doesn't, of course, because of gravity. When you whizz lettuce in a salad whizzer, it is flung against the wall of the bowl because it "wants" to go in a straight line, but the container prevents it from doing so). That's why we have two tides, not one. Water nearer the Moon feels the Moon's gravity more, and wells towards it. Water on the far side of the Moon feels the "centrifugal force" more, and moves towards outer space.

25) There are more maria and larger craters on the "near" side of the Moon that points our way, and the core is about 2km closer to Earth than the actual centre. It is tempting to conclude that all this is because the Earth's gravity pulled the heavy parts of the Moon towards us. But the Moon feels exactly the same effect as in the item above this: it has an equal and opposite "centrifugal force" pulling it away from the Earth as towards. It could be due to a massive impact (or several) coming from roughly Earth's direction; but we don't know. Perhaps one day we'll find out?

(It is not shameful, by the way, to answer a scientific question with "we do not yet know". It doesn't mean "scientists are stupid or lazy", but that the Universe is too big for us to have explored the whole thing yet. Otherwise we wouldn't need any scientists! Indeed, it's often when we think we're close to tidying up and claiming to understand the Universe that the greatest surprises of all occur - relativity and quantum theory, for example, or the accelerating expansion of the Universe. OK, rant over.)

26) The Moon is the second densest moon in the Solar System. The densest is Jupiter's volcanic moon Io.

27) Because of the Moon's elliptical orbit, we do get to see occasional corners of "the far side". This is called libration. Here, have a pic and get nice and dizzy.

There are other reasons for the libration: the moon's own axis is not quite at right angles to the plane of its orbit, so we see a "nodding" movement; and the fact that we're over 6000km from the Earth's centre, so we ourselves see the Moon from a very slightly different angle at the beginning and end of a night.

28) Phil Plait has a huge list of debunkations for conspiracy theorists who claim that the Moon landings were faked. You can read it here. I'll just go through one: the idea that upon launching, the Moon's dust "should have been blown around more".

Do an experiment. Next time you get out of the shower and the bathroom's full of steam, watch that steam for a while. Then blow on some steam quite far away. Or a balloon, if you desire; or a boiling pot of water or the kettle or a candle half a room away - whatever takes your fancy. You will notice that there is a pause, and then it will start swirling about. What did that?

Air, of course. The air from your lungs? Well, partly. But also all the air that's in between you and the steam. The air from your lungs knocked into air molecules, which knocked into more air molecules, which knocked into . . . well, on the Moon, this doesn't happen. Blown air, or blown anything, meets a vaccuum. Only that which is right next to the blowing gets touched. On the Moon, air will quickly dissipate into space.

For more lighthearted stuff, the Clangers are always willing to help.

29) For Moon observers, the best time to look at details is not at full moon, but when it's a crescent so there are lots of shadows. (This is only something I've been told. I'm a rubbish observer; I've used my telescope twice and then broken it!) Shadows show detail. Thank you Graham Bowes for this amazing image:

30) We've known for many centuries that there can't be air on the Moon, because its edges are sharp. Look at the Earth's own horizon, and it'll be misty, blue, and blurred. That's air getting in the way. You don't see that on the Moon. William Herschel, however, speculated that there might just be air in the craters - at the lowest points on the Moon's surface - and that aliens might live in these. He pointed out that at craters are on average 50% lit and may be lit from any angle, so alien buildings capturing the warmth of the Sun would probably be circular. Incidentally, Herschel has craters named after him on our Moon and on Saturn's moon Mimas.

31) Very occasionally, we see abrupt changes on the Moon, such as a spot turning brighter or darker or changing colour. These are transient lunar phenomena, thought to be caused by impacts, outgassing etc. You can hear a lot about the first ever recorded instance, in 1178, in Carl Sagan's "Cosmos". Some monks at a monastery in Canterbury saw "a splitting" of the very new crescent moon, and reported fire, smoke, darkening, and that the Moon "writhed" and "throbbed", "like a wounded snake". This was probably a large impact, and has been suggested to be the formation of the Giordano Bruno crater. Other odd phenomena include that static, UV-light-blasted moon dust, from number 9: the Apollo astronauts saw "twilight rays" towards the horizon, which was probably dust in a continually rising-and-falling state from the surface.

32) Going to the Moon made us much more aware of our own Earth. If you've ever spent a long time in a country other than your own, you'll know that you learn a huge amount about your own country, too. The first ever complete photograph of the Earth from space, "The Blue Marble", taken from Apollo 17 in 1972, and "Earthrise", taken by Bill Anders as Apollo 8 orbited the Moon in 1968, had a great effect on people's environmental awareness.

33) We're now pretty sure the Moon was formed by a giant impact on Earth, probably by an object the size of Mars. We can tell this from the fact that the Moon is made of fairly similar materials to the crust of the Earth, but not the core (it's less dense). Other theories of formation, historically, have included that it was captured, that the Earth and Moon formed together, or that the Earth was spinning so fast a piece of it bulged out and broke off!

It would take extreme luck to capture a passing body that was going at precisely the right speed to start orbiting the Earth, rather than colliding or simply escaping. If they had formed together, the Moon's iron core would probably be larger. This is also the case with the spinning theory. The giant impact hypothesis is supported by the fact that the Moon's composition is fairly similar to the Earth's crust. A more recent hypothesis is that there was a three-body collision, out of which the Earth and Moon formed together.

34) The temperature variation on the Moon is huge. At "night" - and a night lasts 2 weeks, since the Moon rotates at the same rate as it orbits the Earth - the temperature falls to -173 ºC, while by daytime at the equator, it rises to 127ºC.

35) There is a place near the Moon's south pole which is the coldest known place in the Solar System! There are very deep craters where sunlight never reaches the bottom. These have been measured to be -240ºC, 33ºC above "absolute zero" and 10ºC colder than Pluto. Of course, there might be similar permanently shadowed and even colder places in the Solar System just waiting for us to find them . . .

36) The Apollo astronauts brought back 2,415 separate samples of lunar rock, weighing a total of 380kg. You can go and see a piece of it at the Science Museum in London.

37) Nobody owns any land on the Moon. This has been decided in a treaty which specifically prohibits any country's sovereignity or its use for military purposes. So if someone tries to sell you a plot of land on the Moon (or to name a star after your loved one, or what have you), they are defrauding you - no matter how fancy the certificate you receive.

38) You can help explore the far side of the Moon and classify its craters with citizen science. Go to www.moonzoo.org.uk.

Thank you Graham Bowes for this ghostly galleon too.

International Women's Day 2013

On International Women's Day, there are numerous events, and there are continuities. Many people wish each other a happy International Women's Day, while others whine that there is no International Men's Day (here it is) or claim that in today's "honour", they have "put the washing machine on".

It's important to remember - as many women point out when we begin posts about feminism - just how far we've come in not very many years. Rape and violence including within marriage are no longer acceptable in many societies. Women can now be politicians, when a century ago we didn't even have the vote. In theory, at least, we're supposed to have equal pay, though this certainly doesn't happen in practice (two recent figures are 9.6% and 14%). And - by the way, this often makes me incredibly happy - most men I know are all for equality. Most treat me with as much respect as they treat men. Some, who are initially dismissive of feminism, change their minds when they learn more. Many comment on how the patriarchy damages men too - Puffles, for instance. And I hope most understand that when I mention sexism, I am not bashing men in general, or any specific man unless I say so - just a sheer cultural force of habit.

Recently some of the most moving pieces I've read involve horrific behaviour going unchallenged and the permanent fear in which this leaves women (note: this last site has posts for over-18s only - not including that one). Yesterday there was a hilarious NewsBiscuit take on how differently males and females were represented in the media, which prompted the #thingspeopledontsayaboutmen hashtag ("He's a bit hormonal today"; "Can career men have it all?"; etc.). It may sound trivial to those who have not experienced such things, but this entry on Everyday Sexism pretty much sums it up (click to enlarge):

In other words, just the fact that we are openly talking about sexism is a major stepping stone to victory. Projects such as Everyday Sexism are vital to this sort of thing. The method of a bully is to make the victim feel powerless and alone. This bully might be a schoolkid who tells their victim nobody likes them, a (male or female) domestic abuser, or a dictatorship that makes all its citizens terrified their neighbours will report them, or anyone big or small - and as any woman who's called out sexist remarks can probably attest, she will be accused of overreacting, being a bitch, ugly, frigid, paranoid, a man-hater, etc etc, which has just this isolating effect. But it's a lot harder to say this when 20,000 people tell similar stories!

So, what am I doing for International Women's Day, other than ranting? Probably not much, as I'm unwell - though I hope to go along and see the Daughters of Eve stall here. I should probably write my presentation for Wednesday: it'll be the March Galactic Orchids talk, "Many Mysterious Moons".

Our own Moon has some decidedly odd characteristics. Some of them are intrinsically odd; some are perfectly unremarkable but make you stop and think. For instance, its gravity is only one-sixth of Earth's. But its mass is 1/80th. How can that be? That is because, when we stand on the Moon, we are comparatively nearer its centre, so more strongly affected - you need Newton's laws for that. And then there's the fact that our Moon is much, much bigger than every other planet's moon in comparison to the size of its planet. And then there are other moons: some destined to crash into their home planet one day, some that make gaps in the planet's rings, others that actually create the rings, a few that are hopeful candidates in the search for extraterrestrial life . . . I'll write more about these when I've done my talk. I hope you'll be able to come! 7pm this Wednesday, Newington Green Unitarian Church, 39A Newington Green, Stoke Newington, London N16 9PR - a talk followed by questions and answers, then tea, coffee, biscuits and quite possibly cake. The nearest train stations are Dalston Kingsland and Canonbury on the Overground line.

Galactic Orchids hasn't exactly been my life's smashing success: 13 has been my largest audience so far. I advertise on Twitter and Facebook, contact local news outlets etc - though the latter seems to draw nobody in. (Oddly, when I lived in Wales and travelled to give talks at other places, I'd often have audiences of 50 or more. Now I'm in London, it's very rare for people to come to my talks. Perhaps everything's just higher quality here? Or perhaps I'm really just not very good at advertising.) Recently, suffering from depression and low confidence, I've ended up rushing my presentations a little - and then of course feeling disheartened that they're just not as good as I wanted them to be.

On the other hand, people tell me earnestly that they learn a lot and enjoy the evenings, and I have a small but lovely "hard core" who keep coming back, which is the best possible sign. A couple of especially wonderful people can be relied on to help with the setting up and then clearing up after we've drunk our tea, and some have brought space-themed food! We've had some great chatty evenings as a result. We've been able to donate over £100 each to Daughters of Eve and the Orchid Project, plus some minor expenses for me and a donation to New Unity, which gives me their venue for free. A friend kindly lent me a projector, then said I could keep it! One of my aims with Galactic Orchids is not so much to make people experts in female genital mutilation - the more I learn about that, as with astronomy, the less I feel I know; even campaigners don't agree on everything - but simply to make it, like sexism, more acceptable to talk about. I mean, it's not exactly easy to trample into the subject of private parts permanently injured in a cultural practice believed (incorrectly) to be required by religion, is it?

The resulting ignorance about female genital mutilation is heartbreaking. Take this story of an 11-year-old two years ago, whose 12-year-old sister was cut in Africa without even her parents' knowledge. They only found out when she cried watching a television program about it back in the UK. The 11-year-old was terrified that the same would happen to her when they next visited extended family, and sought help from a teacher. The teacher did not know to contact police, or even a specialised charity.

Things are progressing, though. A journalist recently took on the subject in Liberia which broke a major taboo - putting herself and a lady she interviewed in danger, but both say it was worth it. After Nimko Ali from Daughters of Eve got into the Evening Standard (for which she received death threats, accusations of "hating being a Somali" and so on), £35 million was pledged to battle the problem! It's not going to be an easy task, but at least it's now an open, acknowledged problem. And it's a problem that is part of a wider culture of violence and subjugation of women, which affects us all, men and women, of every country. My tiny part to play is raising a small amount of money and what little awareness I can for people who can help much better than I can alone, I guess. There are events and there are tiny, inching steps.

Incidentally, there's a long but fascinating podcast about female genital mutilation here.

And, Therefore . . . Part II: Proofs that women shouldn't mention sexism!

A couple of years ago, after the Ten23 overdose, I read more comments on newspaper and social networking sites than usual and became rather overly well versed in pro-homeopathy logic. The result was startling - it ended up on various Spanish websites, a German one, and even as part of a university course.

Since my rant about sexual harassment, the wonderful website EverydaySexism launched, and one or two instances of misogyny coming up among the (depressingly fragmented this year) skeptical movement*, the same has started to happen with feminism. The more I read of feminist issues, the more people I see trying to cover them up, and the more annoyed I'm getting!

To be clear, most men I know are nice, fair, un-sexist, and upset when they see sexism occurring. And I have come across some who have genuinely been astonished and distressed to discover a behaviour they thought normal (groping, for example) is damaging and horrible, and changed their perception. So this probably rather unpleasant rant is only directed at** a small - but vocal - minority, which is highly offended at sexism's ever being pointed out or discussed. In the spirit of my homeopathy proofs, I thought it was time to make a note of their logic . . .

*For "movement", if you wish, please read "community" or "unherded cats" or whatever takes your fancy. That is seriously not something I can be bothered to have an argument about.

** For "directed at", please read "actually, not directed at them at all. Rather, directed at those who have attempted to engage with them, and need a laugh as an alternative to banging their head against a brick wall!"

THE AESTHETICS ARGUMENT
1) Feminists are always ugly.
2) Aren't they?
3) Look around. Yeah, everyone's laughing in agreement with me. So that's all right then! Shut your face, you frigid bitch, and go and iron my shirt.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM CALMNESS
1) You're overreacting.
2) You're also doing women who are real victims of sexism a disservice by getting so hysterical. They won't get taken seriously next time they're assaulted, all because of you whining so much that nobody believes women any more.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE PERSONAL PREFERENCE OF WORDS ARGUMENT
1) Somebody used the word "misogyny" incorrectly.
2) A LOT of people do that; that is proof that their understanding is incorrect.
3) Obviously my own interpretation of the word is correct. There is no argument about that.
4) Therefore, nobody should use that word in any context other than that which has my signed approval.
5) Therefore, that covers the entire issue.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE REVERSE SEXISM ARGUMENT
1) But women can be sexist towards men too!
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE REVERSE SEXISM ARGUMENT (2)
1) Why are you only talking about sexism towards women in this particular instance? That's really sexist of you! You're the ones at fault here!
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE NO TRUE (SCOTS)MAN ARGUMENT
1) I've never catcalled a woman in the street.
2) Therefore, why are you moaning where I can see it? That's not fair on me.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE HUMOROUS ARGUMENT
1) We didn't mean it seriously about how this woman needs a good rape and that one should be in the kitchen making sandwiches. We're really confused about why you should criticise such comments.
2) Therefore, you're too serious.
3) And also too emotional to have a rational discussion with.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM SMALL HOLES
1) You made a statement which I consider to be incorrect or misrepresentative, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the subject in question.
2) Therefore, the rest of your argument is also invalid.
3) Also, you're doing a great disservice to the people you misrepresented.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE CAUSATION ARGUMENT
1) I am not blaming women. I am just trying to analyse the causes of sexism.
2) That you have not covered every single one of my ideas and excuses in your blogpost or article is evidence that you do not care about the causes, you only want to blame men.
3) Like all feminists.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM MY POINT
1) This feminist has missed my point.
2) They always do that.
3) Yes, my point is much more important than all the opinions and experiences of all women in the world put together.
4) No, there is definitely no chance that she did understand your point, but disagreed with it.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE COMPLI(E?)MENTARY ARGUMENT
1) But isn't it a compliment to be catcalled or groped?
2) You should be grateful men notice you. Fat or old or ugly women don't get this attention.
3) Yes, of course you live entirely to gain men's attention. Come on, you're a woman!
4) But it's not anyone's intention to scare, disgust, threaten, corner, embarrass or belittle you.
5) My interpretation is also valid while yours is not.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE COUNTER ARGUMENT
1) It is also possible for men to be sexually assaulted by women.
2) This by definition negates the entire issue of sexual assault of women by men.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE RAPE = THEFT ARGUMENT
1) Of course it's not right to say that a woman should dress modestly in order to avoid rape, there is no excuse for rape.
2) However, would you leave your house door unlocked?
3) That rape is violent assault on a living, moving being, whilst theft is of inanimate objects for a totally different purpose, is utterly irrelevant here.
4) Therefore, women should dress modestly in order to avoid rape. This is only common sense.
5) And it's illogical to complain about it.
6) And it is not insulting to men, because if it was, that would mean everyone thinks I'm a thief.
7) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism (or victim blaming, or rape).

ARGUMENT FROM BIOLOGY
1) We poor men just can't help it.
2) God/evolution/whatever made our eyes to be receptive to visual signals.
3) Therefore, it's your job to be modest.
4) We're only trying to help you here.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
1) I'm not racist.
2) Therefore, I can't be sexist either.
3) Therefore, I shouldn't have to put up with this being discussed around me.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE LACK OF OFFENCE ARGUMENT
1) What's your problem? I'm not offended by what s/he did/said.
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT
1) You young things these days don't know how lucky you are!
2) When I was young, my mother was expected to do all the cooking and ironing. She didn't complain!
3) You young girls need to stop messing about on the career ladder and find yourselves a nice man!
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD
1) She's just playing the victim card.
2) Therefore, she can't be being honest.
3) Therefore, we don't welcome her opinion of sexism.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD (2)
1) But this woman was really horrible to me once.
2) Therefore, all women are horrible.
3) Therefore, any accusations of sexism are just part of their dishonesty and nastiness.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD (3)
1) Men only catcall and harass women to impress other men.
2) They are insecure. They need to look big in front of their mates.
3) Therefore, their perpetuation of a toxic culture and the effect it has on the victims and bystanders is irrelevant.
4) Also, you should be blaming society for feeding men sexist images like Page 3.
5) NB the above is valid whether you have suggested a cause or not. If you mention sexism, you're attacking men and avoiding analysis.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM THE VICTIM CARD (4)
1) A woman once mentioned me in her blogpost about sexism.
2) That was horrible of her and you are stupid to agree with anything else she's ever said.
3) Therefore, everything you and she say is wrong.
4) And this is all about me.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE SOPHISTICATED ARGUMENT
1) Will you stop pretending things are as black and white as that!
2) It's not as simple as you make out!
3) For example, what if a man has already started shagging a woman by the time she says no? Is it rape then?
4) Therefore, everything is complicated.
5) Therefore, it is better not discussed.
6) Also, you're dumb.
7) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNETTIQUETTE
1) Don't feed the trolls.
2) If you mention sexism, you're only going to be feeding the trolls.
3) That is unpleasant for other people.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE
1) It's not misogyny to use misogynistic language in an ad hominem attack on a woman.
2) It's merely that I disagree with her views.
3) The fact that I attacked her in this manner, rather than state why I disagree with those views, is evidence of your obsession and paranoia.
4) Therefore, you can't tell the difference between misogyny and the good argument I made.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE GOOD OLD DAYS ARGUMENT
1) Well I was brought up to be a gentleman, me.
2) I was taught to offer my seat to ladies and to hold doors open for other people.
3) These young girls go around wearing less* clothes than I go to bed wearing!
4) And then they blame other people when they notice that!
5) What do they expect? No sense of responsibility, these young things today.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
*The appropriate word here is "fewer". Yes, I am a pain in the arse.

ARGUMENT FROM A WELL-KNOWN CONCERN TROLL
1) She looks like junk.
2) Therefore, she can't be telling the truth about being sexually harassed.
3) Also, I agree with my friend that most people's views on this kind of thing are highly suspect.
4) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
(Can't provide the source, sorry - I've blocked her, so no longer have access!)

ARGUMENT FROM THE ECHO CHAMBER
1) You have been caught speaking to other feminists.
2) Therefore, you are just shouting to an echo chamber.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM DISTRACTION
1) But other nasty things happen too.
2) Therefore, you should be writing about those instead.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
(Source)

THE DAWKINS ARGUMENT
1) Women are better off in Britain/America/wherever the woman is than in some other countries, where oppression is worse.
2) It is not possible that sexism has varying degrees, and that a "mild" incidence of sexism could possibly be compared to a less mild one.
3) Also, mentioning one issue means, by default, that all other issues in the world must be being ignored.
4) Therefore, it is exceedingly damaging to women who are being oppressed worse if a woman mentions sexism.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE ELEVATORGATE ARGUMENT
1) Elevatorgate.
2) Well, you know.
3) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM GETTING ANNOYED WITH SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET
1) But this woman who was talking about this the other day really annoyed me.
2) She treats women like poor little flowers, all this "trigger warning" business.
3) She was only insulted, stalked, had her address published and threatened with rape because she was so annoying.
4) That's nothing to do with sexism.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

THE PROVOCATIVE ARGUMENT
1) If you're sexually harassed, it's your own fault for what you were wearing.
2) What has the fact that you weren't wearing anything provocative to do with my argument?
3) It's all evidence-based.
4) It's your own fault, you're just whinging and avoiding responsibility for your behaviour.
5) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

ARGUMENT FROM CONFUSION
1) Sexism is treating the opposite sex badly.
2) Assault is assault.
3) No, the two can never possibly be related.
4) This article "seeks to blur the lines between the two."
5) Therefore, this article is wrong.
6) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism (in relation to sexual assault).
(Source: some of the comments. I don't recommend a read!)

THE APATHY ARGUMENT
1) I don't see what the big deal is.
2) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.

Feel free to add your own.

Update, April 2013:
THE I DON'T LIKE LAURA BATES ARGUMENT
1) I never noticed this was a problem until Laura Bates pointed it out.
2) Therefore, it wasn't a problem before.
3) But now it is a problem.
4) That makes life worse for women.
5) That means Laura Bates is creating problems.
6) Or maybe I just don't like Everyday Sexism having a newspaper column.
7) Therefore, it shouldn't.
8) Everything would go so much better if you just stopped talking about these things!
9) Therefore, women shouldn't mention sexism.
(Has anyone else noticed this argument in the comments of a lot of Everyday Sexism columns? I have, and it's driving me nuts!)

Astronomy talks for the Orchid Project

I'm in the process of setting up a new project, which hopefully should have its own website soon, though I'm still looking for a name. I will soon be giving a series of astronomy talks, aimed at the general public, to fundraise for the Orchid Project which works with communities to bring an end to female genital mutilation.

I love giving astronomy talks, and have several left over from Tea with the Stars, plus ideas for many more. Hopefully, this autumn, I'll be starting talks at the Newington Green Unitarian Church, who with amazing kindness have offered me their building for free! (The talks will have absolutely no religious affiliation; they're open to anyone who likes astronomy.) You can find the place here; it's incredibly friendly. It looks like we'll be able to have tea, coffee, biscuits etc. too.

The talks look as if they are going to be once a month, probably on a Wednesday evening. A lot remains to be decided, such as the exact price and length. A few expenses will be involved, such as steward fees, but the rest will go to the Orchid Project. (I will of course provide spreadsheets of all the money that comes in and where it went, though I know nothing about accountancy.) There are so many human rights violations I want to help stop, and it's impossible to "pick one", but I choose to concentrate, for now, on female genital mutilation.

Female genital mutilation is the cutting off - often with scissors and unsterelized equipment, with no anaesthetic - a girl's external genitals. It is a very painful and dangerous practice. The Orchid Project explains in graphic language here. It may be part or all of her clitoris, clitoral hood or labia. At worst, the wounds left are sewn very tight shut, leaving only a tiny hole for menstrual blood and urine. She will then have to be cut open again for sexual intercourse and for labour, and may even be sewn up again - so she will have to be re-cut later - after birth.

This is not something unique to a few isolated African tribes, or insert stereotype of choice here. It happens in 28 countries across the world. And one of them is the United Kingdom. 

This was recently highlighted by programs such as Newsnight, and there was a spate of articles in the press. It was the beginning of summer - when girls as young as five may be taken to their parents' or grandparents' countries to be cut, or even to have it done right here in a British town. 

The Orchid Project have a success rate of over 70% of encouraging communities in Africa to give up FGM - and to publicly announce that they are doing so. In 2011, two thousand communities rejected the practice. This means not just passing laws, but informing all local people that you are doing so - to raise awareness of why, to point out that the practice is not required by any holy book, and to let your neighbours know that any girls they marry from your town will not be cut and why. 

Why, then, does it still happen in the UK? Orchid Project point out that when populations emigrate - become "diaspora" - they may try to retain their cultural identity even after their original countries have moved on. At the beginning of the 20th century, most women in China still had their feet bound. Within twenty years, the practice abruptly dried up. It was clung to for longer, however, in populations in California.

The other reason it happens in the UK is worry about intruding on other cultures. I have to tackle with my own private voice - "Who are you, an unaffected white girl, to tell people you don't know how to bring up their children?" The best answer I can give is that I believe religious rights end when human rights are violated. France and the UK made the same laws at the same time, but France enforces them while we do not. Despite an estimated over 20,000 girls being mutilated, here or abroad, the Crown Prosecution Service has not prosecuted a single person. People in France - and, most significantly, ladies from the ethnic minorities in question - ask why.

Makumi McCrum, a policy advisor to the Scottish government, remarks that FGM is "a violation so intrusive and personal that many people adopt a culture of silence as it is humiliating and embarrassing to talk about." More worryingly, Nick Cohen writes: "Anti-colonialism is no longer an opposition to foreign occupation but opposition to the ‘inappropriate’ imposition of ‘western’ values on the formerly colonised. Fear plays its part in the silence. I know doctors who worry they will be accused of racism if they protest about the mistreatment of girls. They suspect that their employers will not report protesting parents to the police but punish them instead."

A woman named Muna, who left Somalia and now lives in Glasgow, told the BBC: "They are so terrified and they are using cultural sensitivity as a barrier to stop them from really doing anything. What would you do if the girl had blue eyes and blonde hair? Would FGM still be carrying on in the UK?"

On a similar note, Iram Ramzan tells us, "It is not politically correct to continue to ignore the plight of ethnic minority women." As with "honour killings" (which rather than simply being called "murder", which it is, have their own special sensitive name), this is violence, and should be treated as such. This is not some delicate or essential religious practice. It is about the control and subjugation of women. There are no benefits, and there are terrible physical and psychological consequences. (If of course an adult woman wants it done, that's a different matter altogether.)

There's a place for cultural sensitivity, and that is not allowing children to be wounded and women to be put in agony and danger.

So what am I doing about it? At the moment, I'm not directly getting involved. I don't know how and I don't feel I know enough yet. Instead I'm doing something I love doing, and that can bring people a bit more knowledge and enjoyment. Hopefully, that will not only help Orchid Project and women in danger, but also raise awareness among people in London.

I expect the talks will aim to last 40 minutes or so, and be followed with question and answer sessions. Subjects will probably include: Galaxy Zoo; the Cassini mission; relativity and black holes; the life of a star; astrochemistry; spectra; various aspects of astronomical history and women in science. And probably more as I think them up. What I can't do is practical astronomy. The only thing I can do with telescopes is break them. Of course, if anyone wants to bring a telescope along . . . Hopefully someone from the Orchid Project will come along to at least one of them, too. And if any other charities or organisations fighting FGM would also like to come and spread the word, or even just post me along some leaflets to hand out, please do.

You can also sign the petition to allocate more funds to enforce the law banning FGM. (Not make more laws. We already have them.)

Nothing's finalised yet. But I've been in enough communication with the Orchid Project and with NGUC that it's time to announce what I'm up to! If you have any ideas, or would like to come along, please let me know. And most importantly . . . 

I need a name for this project. It's likely to run for a few months and I want it to be special. I want it to include something to do with women, stars and/or astronomy, and perhaps even orchids. But I'm open to other suggestions! Please do leave a comment or tweet me with yours. 

A galaxy we call "The Rose" at Galaxy Zoo; from SDSS.

Maybe I'll see you there.

Leave us alone: a P.S.

It's five weeks since I wrote that ranty post about being sexually harassed in public. That post generated a lot of excellent comments, a great many tweets, conversations, recommendations, e-mails, and someone I didn't think I even knew coming to sit next to me at a science event to tell me what a good post it was. It also drew the disapproval of a man who tweeted "Another day, another feminist who is missing my point", and the scorn of a woman who tweeted a friend of hers that the post was "very suspect" because I "look like junk". But something else I didn't expect has happened.

In those five weeks, I have not been sexually harassed once.

I haven't been shouted at, leered at, called anything, spoken to inappropriately . . . absolutely nothing. When I used to get it at least a couple of times a week.

There could be many reasons for this. The entire male population of Ilford and South Wales could have read it and mended their ways, for example. Or someone powerful, maybe even a God, might have forbidden them. Or they're too busy with the hot weather. Or I get harassed more when I'm covered up from the rain than when I'm in sleeveless tops or dresses. Or it's all just complete coincidence.

I think the likeliest thing is that the relief of setting it all out in public, and of the absolutely enormous and overwhelming support I got, privately and publicly, must have given me a new confidence that shows. Perhaps I stand taller. Perhaps I give off a different air. I don't consciously feel anything - other than a new-found enjoyment of my local area, a new feeling of freedom to wander through it as I please, rather than to get the hell home as soon as I can. And a new liking for my fellow folks of Ilford, many of whom are very nice, just like everywhere else.

Perhaps it's worth us girls doing an experiment - that anyone who has a blog, or is in the mood to start one, should write a similar rant! I'm not sure that would be very scientific (it would be a lot of fun, though).

Actually, there's something like that already going on at London IHollaback. (Note there's a national one and local ones.) There's a nice section about what you can do if you are a victim or a bystander. Remind me to write to them and share this story, please.

Men sometimes ask, "So what can we say, then?" I answered as best I could here (feel free to comment and disagree). But let's be honest, a gender neutral discussion is by far the most civilised in most cases. Have a read of this great imaginary conversation by Lauren Bravo.

And don't treat it as not a serious problem - the little woman being hysterical, etc. "Schrodinger's Rapist" explains why not. Yes, it is unfair on most well-intentioned men. Martin Robbins remarks in this great discussion with Laurie Penny about how to talk to men about sexism: "It’s not pleasant knowing that women feel vulnerable because of the behaviour of a – substantial – minority of my gender . . . I’m six foot two, big build, I will literally change my route to avoid, for example, following a woman up an alley."

Finally, if you need some cheering up, here are some great street harassment comebacks!

Thank you all so very much for being my readers and for making this happen. I hope it happens for all men and women - let me know where I can be of help!


Update: But, but - I didn't think anyone would seriously do the experiment . . .
Julie Gould: Leave Us Alone - the experiment
I recommend a read, she explores a slightly different side; a very moving post. Thank you so much Julie!