Respect!

So the bishops have capitulated. What little comfort was left for traditionalists in the Church of England opposed on theological grounds to the ordination of women has been watered down to one word: Respect. Archbishop Rowan says ‘Respect’ means taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think, who they are. It means trying to find a settlement that allows them to recognise in whatever emerges that their views have been taken seriously. Archbishop Rowan may very well think that but few have the capacity of His Grace for treating their opponents with the same respect. Across the border in the Church in Wales even their Archbishop has difficulty in showing respect for those he disagrees with and far from 'taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think', he obstinately refuses even to appoint a replacement Provincial Assistant Bishop preferring to tell traditionalists what they must accept while, tomorrow, making another bid to allow women to be ordained into the episcopate on his own terms in his vanishing church. 

Consider also the attitude already displayed in England by proponents of the ordination of women in the Church and in Parliament - "No promises were broken, says GRAS" and "Essentially everyone knew that when you had the ordination of women as priests that this would lead to the ordination of women bishops after a decent length of pause. Some would say it has now been an indecent length of pause" said Peter Bottomley. Where is there any evidence of respect? When the House of Bishops proposed an amendment to the legislation which would have "strengthened somewhat the provision for the minority, in the hope that this would allow people in the minority to feel that their position was respected, that they were allowed to flourish, and that they were welcome in the Church of England" Women and the Church (WATCH) found it "deeply offensive " claiming that the vision of women as bishops, and the dignity and security of the position of women when they were ordained as bishops would be undermined.

So what is in a word? Personally I find it offensive to be branded as one of those "whose consciences gave them difficulties with the idea of women as bishops, and would find it difficult to receive their ministry." I would have no difficulty with the concept of women bishops or of receiving their ministry if it were simply a matter of debate or if it were accepted throughout the Church Catholic but it cannot be for the simple reason that in conscience we remain faithful to Christ's example rather than synodical persuasion. Whatever arguments are advanced in support of the ordination of women they can only be opinions not supported by historical fact. They condemn Jesus as a failure for being a captive of His time in not appointing women Apostles but in an age when there were numerous priestesses, Christ showed us a new way which honoured men and women equally, different but complementary. What is difficult about that?



Women and the[ir] Church

 

 

 

Affirming themselves + campaigning for themselves + transforming the Church for themselves. Self + self + self.

 

The six bullet points used in an earlier blog entry on marriage may be equally applied to  WATCH feminist campaigners who demand parity for women in what they now see as their church:

• Exploit the “victim” status;
• Use the sympathetic media;
• Confuse and neutralize the churches;
• Slander and stereotype [traditionalist] Christians;
• Bait and switch (hide their true nature); and
• Intimidation.

Thinking Anglicans yesterday reproduced this press release: WATCH continues to call for complete withdrawal of Clause 5(1)c.

 "Amongst the key points in the[ir] thinking are:

• We do not agree with the reasons given by Archbishop Rowan for the need for further amendment. Opposition to the priestly of episcopal ministry of women is based foundationally upon theologies of gender.
• Those who support the ordained ministry of women have already made huge compromises in supporting the unamended Measure that already made provision for those opposed to have a male priest and a male bishop. Accepting the new Clause 8 represents a further compromise on our part.
• The unamended Measure received an overwhelming mandate from the dioceses. 42/44 have debated and approved this legislation. General Synod should be allowed to vote on legislation that is as close as possible to that which was approved by the dioceses.
• We are concerned that hasty amendment will again prove to be a hostage to fortune. Any new wording inserted at this stage will not have received adequate scrutiny given the timing of the consultation (25/7 to 24/8). It is likely that the full implications of any new wording will only be discovered later in the autumn influencing Synod voting in unforeseen ways.
• If further concessions are made, some Synod members will no longer be able to support the draft legislation and the loss of just a few votes from those who support the ordained ministry of women may be enough, in combination with those who would vote against it anyway, to bring the legislation down.
• With the full support of the bishops and archbishops, legislation with the new Clause 8 but without Clause 5(1)c would have a better chance of passing than any other option.

We conclude that withdrawing 5(1)c is the safest path to the successful passage of this Measure and the only way to keep faith with the diocesan consultation process."
 
The first point of their 'thinking' boldly states: "We do not agree with the reasons given by Archbishop Rowan for the need for further amendment. Opposition to the priestly of episcopal ministry of women is based foundationally upon theologies of gender." I have written previously here and here that Archbishop Rowan has done everything possible to empower women in the church but unlike the women he has supported, he remains mindful that there are still many Anglicans who adhere to the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and have deep theological objections to the Anglican Communion deviating from the Universal Church, thus hindering the cherished ambition of Christian Unity. The 'huge compromises' supporters of the ordained ministry of women say they have already made are meaningful only to themselves. As the Church of England struggles to find a compromise fair to all, that one small crumb is more than they can bear because it is for others, not self.

The first comment  listed in response to the Thinking Anglicans article makes a fair point:
   "Rachel Weir and members of WATCH have conveniently forgotten that a significant minority of the 44 Dioceses also passed following motions expressing a desire for a proper form of provision for traditionalists. What kind of a church are we developing into, I wonder, where majority rule becomes the order of the day, and there is no place for conscience or space for those with whom we disagree. The Church of England has never been of that ilk, and I suspect that Ms Weir will actually (hopefully) discover that the Bishops will remain mindful of their pastoral imperative to care for ALL in their respective dioceses. If the current unyielding and unbending position of WATCH is any guide to the future with women Bishops, I fear not only for traditionalists but for the Church as a whole. It is definitely not the sort of pastoral care I or others in our local church would wish to receive. Many in the congregation (of both genders) are becoming increasingly irritated at the stance of WATCH. Irritation will lead to refutation and refusal, so WATCH members need to be careful what they wish for. Conscience will never be overriden in these matters. - Posted by: Benedict"

Back in June WATCH asked the question: "What do ordinary people think about the House of Bishops' amendment to Clause 5?" The truth is that 'ordinary people'  haven't a clue what the House of Bishop's amendment to Clause 5 is all about and care even less. In fact, most 'ordinary people' gave up going to Anglican churches long ago, fed up with an institution that has become obsessed with gender politics, preferring to look elsewhere for spiritual fulfilment. When our churches are completely empty we will know who to blame.

For what shall it profit a woman, if she shall gain the whole world, and lose her own soul?

 

Anglican bullyboy and girls thump Archbishop Rowan

Photograph: John Giles/PA

Not for the first time the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Douglas Williams, the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury has been humiliated by those he has sought to help gain power and prestige in a changing church. Why? Because he dared to act with a Christian conscience.  In the eyes of the bullygirls' club, WATCH, the now infamous Clause 5 (1) c, the minimum thought necessary to honour a commitment to embrace all Anglicans in the church of England regardless of theological convictions is a step too far. The bullygirls are having none of it. They sense outright victory in a fight between ruthless women and weak men who clearly do not understand women. They have succeeded in gaining more time in which to badger the bishops into submission and have the clause dropped leaving acceptable provision only for themselves, the victors. (The Ugely Vicar has initiated a petition to retain Clause 5 (1) c - please read about it and vote here).  

In what appears to be a humiliating climb down, "Defending their motivations, Rowan Williams said the bishops had only been trying to help when they tinkered with the draft legislation in May. He said he remained unconvinced they had got it wrong. But he said they should question why they failed to anticipate the outpouring of anger from senior female clergy and campaigners for female bishops.

"It is quite clear that the reaction cannot be ignored," he said. "When there is a reaction of real hurt and offence in the church at large, Christians, and Christian pastors particularly, cannot afford to ignore it, because it means that should the measure go through … it's not easily something that can be celebrated by the church as a whole.

"The bishops will be aware that they underrated the depth of that sense of hurt and offence and if other bishops feel as I do they will need to examine themselves and feel appropriate penitence that they did not recognise just how difficult that was going to be." "

I can assure Archbishop Rowan and the bishops that the 'sense of real hurt and offence' is not peculiar to 'senior female clergy and campaigners for female bishops'. Many women and men of faith have been devastated by the way they have been treated. Deemed by WATCH as not worthy so much as to gather up a crumb under the Table of New Anglicanism, these are the people who have been betrayed. Archbishop Rowan says he 'remained unconvinced they had got it wrong'. The bishops must stand firm and not succumb to unscrupulous pressure. They have no need for 'penitence', unlike those who harass them. If contrition were needed it should come from WATCH and their supporters. They show no remorse for the agonies they have inflicted on others. - 'Christians, and Christian pastors particularly, cannot afford to ignore the hurt'! 

WATCH watchers will not be in the least surprised by the ruthless tactics of these domineering, self-promoting women who see service in the church as something to be received while they constantly push the secular values of the general public to justify their cause. But perhaps more alarming is the intervention of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, who not only 'issued a stinging rebuke' to the Church’s General Synod but appeared to use blackmail concerning the position of bishops in the Lords. 

Mother Church, what have you done to deserve this, is there no honour left?


Postscript

Now read this. 


Having accused those who are apparently regarded as 'appeased conservatives' of being responsible for the "rape, sexual abuse, violence against women and women's political and economic subjugation", the Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes has suggested a different amendment [to Clause 5 (1) c] that would,  "Not just to try and tweak the wording, ... but maybe put something in that's a lot more open and gracious and, frankly, a lot more Christian."!

Her suggestion is that female bishops from countries whose Anglican churches already allow them into the episcopate – such as the US or Australia – advise the Church of England bishops "as equals". She cannot be serious.  

Does she have any idea of the mess that has been created in the Anglican church in the US and Australia? Just a couple of examples here and here. Dr Threlfall-Holmes should have the courage of her convictions and resign.

Is this to be the fate of the Church of England?

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock...But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.  Matthew 7:24-26

    
From the American Anglican Council:
 "The leadership of the Episcopal Church is considering disciplinary action against 9 bishops. These nine bishops are: Bishops Edward Salmon, Peter Beckwith, Bruce MacPherson, Maurice Benitez, John Howe, Paul Lambert, James Stanton, Daniel Martins, and William Love. 

Essentially, The Episcopal Church is investigating them for providing testimony in lawsuits that supported the rights of dioceses to disaffiliate from the church. Find out more about this sad story here. Canon Phil Ashey analyzes the events in the video report here."   

[Apologies for the unexplained disappearance of the video which appeared here, now accessed via the above link - Ed]

    The uncompromising attitude of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is already in evidence in the Church of England where women demanding so called equality show no quarter to those who simply want to keep the faith. Complaining that concessions to traditionalists would make senior female clergy second class citizens they have threatened to vote against the measure to ordain women bishops - but purely as a temporary strategy of course. In their latest move, WATCH seek to intimidate those whom they regard as weak-kneed bishops with a petition signed by more than 4,000 'people' calling for the withdrawal of Clause 5(1)(c). It would be interesting to know the theological position of the 4,000+ signatories, many of whom I suspect take a purely secular position while some of the signatories already have their names in the frame to be the first woman bishop in the Church of England which could be seen as an exercise in self advancement. As recent figures show, female clergy now have considerable muscle and are not afraid to use it threatening strike action if their demands are not met. Let's hope the bishops of our church have more resolve than Adam!

A further worrying sign is the appointment of the Presiding Bishop's disciple Dr Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, to the Crown Nominations Commission tasked with finding a replacement Archbishop of Canterbury following the departure of Archbishop Rowan Williams. Whereas ++Rowan has worked tirelessly to find a workable solution to our troubles, Dr Morgan is resolutely opposed to any concessions to traditionalists, so much so that he lost the vote to appoint women bishops in Wales because of his intransigence. He is now seeking a second bite of the apple to achieve his cherished ambition of appointing the first woman bishop in the land, ignoring 'the work of the Holy Spirit' which is claimed only if a favourable vote is achieved. He may yet succeed. I hear of persistent rumours rife in Wales following the retirement of his Dean suggesting that a sideways move could be made to clear the way for the appointment of the first woman assistant bishop if the Governing Body of the Church in Wales can be persuaded to give him the vote on the second time of asking. He has already taken over as Dean pro tem, apparently much to the chagrin of the Cathedral Chapter suggesting some truth in the rumour!

So the signs are plain to see. Manipulation, scheming, deception, anything and everything is offered to the false god of so-called 'equality' no matter what the cost. Is that what the church is? In response to my previous entry one of Dr Morgan's few admirers (but perhaps not for long!) took me to task with the comment: "Your phrase 'immature schoolgirls' is at best a tautology, at worst an example of the very misogyny you deny in the previous paragraph. Don't write off schoolgirls so cavalierly; after all, the mother of our Lord was one!" Ignoring the 'schoolgirl' suggestion Mary is quite rightly used as an example. She was humble and accepted the will of God. Some  of the women (and men) who strive for supposed 'equality' in the church as though it does not exist might well say that they too are "doing God's will" but Mary went about her work for God in a very quiet way. No shouting, no bullying, no self advancement, just simply and bravely doing what God asked of her. She let our Lord shine out, never wanting to be recognised as anything other than being His mother, even watching Him die on the cross. That is true service. Not shouting, manipulating, blaming others, wanting everything at any cost, disregarding the needs of others. The true sign of Mary which the Church has recognised for two millennia. Why the pressure to change?

In praise of Rowan

Photograph: Tim Ireland/PA

   Rowan Williams, said Colin Thubron, introducing him at a Royal Society of Literature event on Wednesday, is not only perhaps "the most distinguished occupant of his seat since St Anselm", but a scholar, a historian, a theologian, a linguist fluent in "ancient and modern Greek, and even Syriac, and a poet and a translator. "God gave you all these gifts," Thubron went on turning to him and paraphrasing the words of Richard Harries, "and as a punishment made you archbishop".

   This wry tribute set the tone for an evening (with a theme of religious and poetic language) in which the society's members welcomed the archbishop of Canterbury sympathetically as a fellow author.

   Interviewed by Fiona Sampson, Williams linked poetry to liturgy as twin modes of "exploring", driven by a need to to go beyond mere naming - "the impulse to say more than is there , more than you have to". What drives the poet is "wanting to feed into a conversation. Poetry that sets out to have an improving effect on society is doomed. When Auden said, 'poetry makes nothing happen' he was exaggerating, but you know what he means. It's not propaganda, it's an invitation, an offer."

   On liturgy, the archbishop was at his boldest, extolling the Book of Common Prayer and scornfully dismissing modernised liturgies where "the aim is to make things clear". Instead, Williams favoured using "rather wild phraseology and pushing the boundaries, as that way we might discover something unexpected. Pile on the ritual."

   Urged by a questioner to "say something about joy", as he'd provided an overly grim account of poetry, the archbishop complied, talking of joyful moments in Eliot and the need to "give full weight to exhilaration too". But the lover of Geoffrey Hill and Dostoevsky conceded that "I will always go on about struggle", possibly due to "ancestral Celtic gloom". - John Dugdale, The Week in Books, Review, Saturday Guardian 23.06.12.

Those privileged to know Rowan understand why he is often referred to simply as Rowan, rather than by his formal title. An unusual distinction for an archbishop but this sums up the man, the man who has been described as perhaps "the most distinguished occupant of his seat since St Anselm". No pretensions, no desire to humiliate, a man of great learning presenting things as he sees them. It has been said that if he has a fault it his inability to say no. Some of the less scrupulous have played on this getting him into hot water and leaving him open to criticism but often from a different perspective. A summary based on Rowan's valedictory book Faith in the Public Square can be read here.

Lifebelt

Picture: DAVE PERRY 

Church of England general synod debates female bishops - day three live @17.58. Riazat Butt thanks God she is a Muslim. Here is what she had to say:

"Wow. OK. Well, in true Anglican fashion we are almost back to square one. General synod has voted to allow the House of Bishops to tinker with the legislation but not make substantial changes to it. As one person in the chamber said, it's as if the debate never happened. The traditionalists have this to say:

"We welcome the fact the general synod is open to the possibility of the House of Bishops amending the draft measure, and call upon the house to do so in a way that will provide properly for those unable in conscience to accept the oversight of women bishops. The archbishops' amendment is a long way from our original proposals for provision; what we are saying is that we are willing to work with it, or something like it, for the sake of the unity of the church. We are hugely grateful to Archdeacon Cherry Vann for moving the Manchester motion; she has shown great understanding, courage, conviction and love – love for God and for God's people. We give thanks to God for Archdeacon Cherry, and assure the House of Bishops of our prayers as they discern the right way forward for the Church of England."

Initial reaction from the pro-women lobby is that they are happy because they know the bishops can't dramatically change the draft law. They're not going to see a different law, that's over and that's what they wanted to avoid. It's all baffling. Thank God I'm a Muslim."

So not dead yet! Despite the eagerness of supporters of women's ordination to move directly to a vote without amendment amid the usual claims of discrimination, two-tier ministries and second class-bishops, the more charitable struggle on to find a compromise that is in some way acceptable to people who don't interpret 'generous' in the same way as those who advocate a 'take it or leave it' approach. On my hearing there may have been a hint of sarcasm in the suggestion that the Rev Prebendary David Houlding had been thrown a lifebelt but nevertheless that imagery is captured superbly in the picture above. As they consider the next stage, those on both sides of the divide would do well to read the narrative that goes with it here and recall Archbishop Rowan's words in an earlier passionate debate on Recent violence in Nigeria when he referred to the desperate feeling of isolation experienced by persecuted Christians in Nigeria. They are not alone.

The Three Wise Persons

After a brief interlude, back to the story of the Three Wise Persons travelling from the East to the land of His Darkness to find a re-birth solution to the mess created in the Church in Wales now that religion has given way to gender politics and relitivism. First, apologies to the last member of the panel appointed, Professor Patricia Peattie, former Chair of the Episcopal Church in Scotland’s Standing Committee. Try as I may I can't find a picture of her - unlike the Chairman, the Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford of whom, unsurprisingly, there are numerous pictures. What the other panel member, Professor Charles Handy, former professor at the London Business School, will make of the overblown management of the now tiny Church in Wales is anyone's guess but as they set out on their journey, "Bazzer" is sure to have let it be known that he doesn't like to hear anything unkind said about him, ie, views opposed to his own. Given "Bazzer's" feminist outlook and need for parity it is strange that female representation is in a minority unless that is something he wishes to emphasise.


Had I not been delayed in putting together this post by Archbishop Rowan Williams' briefing on 'humanising of the ordained ministry' I would have missed an interesting point. Yesterday the Blog Let Nothing You Dismay carried an item about the conversion to Roman Catholicism three years ago (in 2008) of an Anglican priest, Una Kroll. Other ancients who have suffered the whole painful crusade of the Movement for the Ordination of Women (MOW) may remember her cry ‘we asked you for bread and you gave us a stone’. Looking through the Church in Wales web site there is a link where people can find out more about the Anglican Communion Covenant. Among the contributions is this intriguing entry:

 "Una Kroll - 07/04/2011
I am a priest in the Church of Wales. Ordained in 1997. I do not want to see the Covenant come into force as it is not Anglican to punish peopple for holding to their conscience. The Instruments of Communion already in existence offer us all a chance of freely accepting Communion with those who dissent from our own preferential opinions and is a profound expression of Anglicanism. Una Krol."


Unless the Catholic Herald story referred to on LNYD is a complete hoax how can this be explained? Only last year an article appeared in the Guardian in which Kroll referred to "the Act of Synod [which] introduced structural discrimination against women", the same distorted cry we hear from her feminist friends in WATCH and GRAS. 


In open meetings in each diocese the Panel will be asking five questions, the first of which is, "What aspect of your diocese and the Church in Wales, do you feel most positive about?" For many in Wales, particularly those not finding favour with their Archbishop the answer has to be 'nothing'. I would be interested to know if Una Kroll turns up to offer them anything from her wide experience but if they are really wise, the Panel will make an excuse and leave by another route.

Sorry Your Grace

My next Blog entry was to have been a tale of the 'Three Wise Persons' travelling from the East to the land of His Darkness to sort out the troubles that Ab Rowan's sidekick has created there but that will have to wait, although in reality the stories are not unrelated. It's all about women in the Anglican church today or, as my wife prefers, 'some' women.

Ab Rowan ruined my dinner this evening. My wife seethed throughout after reading the Telegraph article 'Women bishops would humanise priesthood'. As Pope Benedict remarked recently there are good fish and bad fish but it hadn't occurred to either of us that the priesthood was 'inhuman'. Such talk encourages false accusations of misogyny when in fact many women are against women's ordination. 

A great admirer of Rowan's spirituality her final comment as I went to wash the dishes was, "Rowan has lost me. I have been unhappy for a while but this is the end; he should return to academia." A noted disciple of Dostoevsky, The Observer Review section carried this comment in Ab Rowan's review of Philip Pullman's The good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. "Alluding to Dostoevsky's point that 'Jesus was too radical for ordinary human consumption, and for his memory to survive at all, you have to lie about him". I am not suggesting that His Grace lies about Jesus but is he following the Jesus of 'ordinary humans'  or some academic person moulded to fit current fashion ?

Is Jesus Christ God incarnate or not?

Why are there so many religions?  Are they all the same? 

These questions were asked by an 'ex-biologist' after a discussion at Canterbury Cathedral on 16th September when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, met comedian, writer and broadcaster Frank Skinner for an "in-depth exchange of views on the state of Christianity today". Not being the greatest fan of Frank Skinner with his football fanaticism and laddish humour, when I was sent the broadcast link I was inclined to ignore it but fortunately I had much more respect for my correspondent and listened - in stages. I was in for a surprise. I found that I had far more in common with Mr Skinner than I ever could have imagined. He, a lapsed Catholic who had 'returned from the wilderness', reminded me of forgotten days in my youth when, as an Anglican, I lapsed and experienced the same sensation of returning from the wilderness. Some of our views were also remarkably similar although I winced at some of his 'Catholic' comments about Anglicans and Anglicanism. But that is not what inspired this blog entry, it was the answers given to the questions above, particularly the supplementary question, Are they [religions] all the same?

 

I wanted to hear an unequivocal 'No' but I was to be disappointed. Readers may have observed that I am a great admirer of Archbishop Rowan. He cares deeply, even for those with whom he disagrees as witnessed by his efforts to keep the Anglican Communion together against impossible odds but struggling to cause offence to no-one, there was no clear message that there is only one way to the Father and that is through Jesus Christ. Yes we can respect the beliefs of others but not in a way that could be taken by the listener to mean that it doesn't really matter what you believe. There are inherent dangers in blanket approval as evidenced by the respect demanded by Islam which will be seen by many as adding credence to their beliefs which, in Christian terms, have to be regarded as mistaken. In the widest sense provided we 'love our neighbour as ourselves' is fine but there are many who do not and failure adequately to proclaim the Gospel message of the Way the Truth and the Life perhaps as well as anything, may explain the state of Christianity today. 

Atrocities against Christians

As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, draws attention to atrocities against Christians in the Middle East, closer to home we have yet more cases of white girls being groomed for sex by predominately Asian gangs who display Islamic rather than Christian values.

Those who regard the perfect man as one who had sex with a nine-year old girl and encouraged the beheading of prisoners may see this as normal but to complain that they are victims of Islamophobia because civilised people do not approve of such barbaric behaviour would be laughable were it not so serious.

A new dawn

Just a small item listed among other 'News' items on Google but a momentous event despite the fact that the major interest in the Ordinariate would appear to be from abroad. Listed among the overseas commentators was the BBC although 'auntie' chose to highlight the opinion of Prebendary David Houlding who "belongs to the Catholic Group on the Church of England Synod, and regards the ordination with sadness and anger."

Whatever 'sadness and anger' there may be, nothing should detract from this momentous  occasion in which the Ordinariate brings together Catholics, Roman and Anglican, in the spirit Christ prayed for on the night of His betrayal, that we all may be one.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is clearly a man of vision. Full marks are also due to the Archbishop of Westminster who reflected Pope Benedict's vision in his homily at the ordination of three former Anglican bishops today and to Archbishop Rowan for his prayers and understanding.


Postscript
Less understanding (or deliberate misrepresentation in the  style of WATCH) is shown by Peter Stanford whose article now heads the Google news item. He writes "It is the Vatican's negative attitude to women's ministry that formed the backdrop to the whole affair. The three recruits oppose the Church of England's plans to appoint female bishops and regard the Catholic priesthood as a safe, female-free haven." His article in today's Observer (16 Jan 2011) is beautifully unpicked here.