“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment...."

Philip Lee I may not share his politics 

but I respect his integrity. A nan who stood up
today for what he thought was right -
despite the consequences.

From the day that David Cameron announced that there would be a referendum on whether the UK remained in the EU those who advocated leaving used as one of their main rallying calls that Parliament should “take back control” from the European Union. Once the referendum had occurred and the decision for Brexit became a reality this call for Parliament to “take back control”  then morphed into Parliament “carrying out the will of the people” – i.e. ensuring that the vote on June 16 2016 to leave the EU is carried out;  no ifs no buts. In recent months as the Brexit momentum has stumbled and stuttered we have seen huge pressure being exerted upon the government to force Theresa May to be ruthless in forcing Brexit through – almost no matter what the cost. The “will of the people must be obeyed”  is the call to arms; living in 2018 England feels much as it must have felt in 1790’s Paris when the “will of the people”  had to be obeyed and Madame la Guillotine ensured that all who disagreed with that maxim met a bloody end as the blade fell on their necks and Paris streets ran with blood in the French Revolution’s “reign of terror”.

More words and newspaper and blog and column inches have been devoted to this in the two years since the Brexit vote – much of it by me! – that further debate  and rehearsal of the arguments for and against Brexit seem pretty superfluous; minds are made up, positions taken for good or ill.

However, in this week when Theresa May is facing a number or serious votes about Brexit there is a worrying and associated issue has come to the fore this morning. (Tuesday June 12^th 2018). It is one that encapsulates the very delicate and potentially frightening point that democracy and the political process has reached in 2018 Britain and is something that goes to the very heart of the debate about “Parliament taking back control” – the rallying cry so beloved by those favouring Brexit. This morning the tabloid press in the form of the Daily Express and the Sun carried stark and worrying headlines aimed at Members of Parliament – and intended to bully, intimidate and threaten those whom we elect to Westminster to make decisions on our behalf. And following hard on the heels of the tabloid threats a relatively junior government minister, Philip Lee, resigned his position as a justice minister in protest at what he says is “how Brexit is being delivered”. He  says that he is “incredibly sad to announce his resignation as a minister.......so that I can better speak up for my constituents and country....” . Lee is not a trouble maker by nature – in his parliamentary career he has voted with the government and for his party on virtually all issues. In his long statement  Lee emphasises a number of Brexit related points but at the heart is his concern that he wants to do “the right thing” as he sees it:

“......Resigning as a minister from the Government is a very difficult decision because it goes against every grain in my soul. The very word resign conveys a sense of giving up, but that is the last thing I will do. I take public service seriously and responsibly. That is the spirit that has always guided me as a doctor and continues to guide me as a politician.

For me, resigning is a last resort – not something that I want to do but something I feel I must do because, for me, such a serious principle is being breached that I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass. I come to this decision after a great deal of personal reflection and discussion with family, friends and trusted colleagues.......If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s exit from the EU looks set to be delivered........”.

Edmund Burke - one of the undoubted "fathers" of

democracy - a man who knew all about "doing the right thing".
Whatever one's politics the ideas of Burke are fundamental

Whatever one’s views on Brexit or indeed on any issue that is part of the democratic process Lee’s words  are at this crucial point in the UK's parliamentary history incredibly important; they go to the heart of that process and of how parliamentary democracy works in the UK – and indeed elsewhere in the world. The Brexit decisions that Parliament is currently making are, without doubt, the most important for generations and will effect the nation's well being for generations to come; whatever one's views or whatever the eventual outcome of the Brexit debate it is critical that they are undertaken both correctly and democratically. In this context Philp Lee's words and thoughts hearken back to the famous and compelling words and ideas about the relationship between parliament and the electorate formulated in the mid-seventeenth century by the great Anglo-Irish parliamentarian, statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke.

Burke is regarded as one of the great “minds” underpinning all political philosophy. He was, amongst other things, an MP and is usually thought of as the philosophical founder of modern conservatism (both with a small “c” and a capital “C”). Whatever one’s political or philosophical beliefs Burke is a figure that can’t be avoided, his ideas have become very much part of our thinking in this country and abroad too; they are at the core of how our Parliament works.

Amongst his many pronouncements are:

      ·         The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

·         Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.

·         Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.

·         We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature.

·         When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

·         The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.

But perhaps his most famous and compelling in terms of parliamentary democracy is:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.

This is at the heart of what Philip Lee is saying; he says  “...I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass. I come to this decision after a great deal of personal reflection and discussion with family, friends and trusted colleagues.......If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s exit from the EU looks set to be delivered........”.  As I read Lee’s resignation letter the 16^th century words of Martin Luther the German priest and founder of the Protestant Reformation flashed across my mind: “I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God.”  Quite – Philip Lee’s integrity is in good company. It’s easy to do what the mob want and hard to stand up for one’s principles.

My own MP Ken Clarke.  I've never voted for him but

deep down know that like Philip Lee & Edmund Burke

he will use his wisdom,  expertise and conscience  to act in
my best interests. He won't just follow the mob. I might not
like what he does or says but I know it is done with integrity
and for the overall good.

Lee’s resignation comments  are Burke in a nutshell; that an elected representative is required, indeed bound, to act in the best interests of others – no matter what. He is not a slave to his constituents doing just what they demand but a representative of them – working for them but, more importantly, using his judgement, his expertise, his deeper knowledge of the issues to  ensure his constituents best interests.

What Burke is saying and what is implicit in Lee’s statement is that those who we elect as our representatives are not only there to mindlessly do what we want or expect, or to just do what we say. We have chosen or elected them as our representative over someone else because, we believe, that they are best suited to represent us and as such we expect them to use their wisdom, views or knowledge to their best effect on our behalf. Clearly, no one in their right mind would choose or elect someone who they believed was unable or incapable or unqualified of representing them; nor would they elect someone who they thought was incapable of exercising their judgement and using their wisdom or information to best effect. For example, if I hire a lawyer to represent me in court or I visit the doctor because I am concerned about my health I not only expect him or her to do what I say, but I expect them to use their wisdom and judgement to advise me what is best to do – even when this might go against what I first thought or perhaps really want.

In the case of Brexit, for example, if an MP was elected from, say, a strongly Brexit area of the country (i.e. where  everyone wanted to get out of the EU) but when that MP looked at all the information about Brexit, listened to all the debates etc. he judged that Brexit was a bad idea and not in the interests of those who elected him then, Burke would argue, he must use that wisdom and knowledge to best effect by using his judgement to advise his constituents and, if necessary, vote appropriately. As Burke says in his quote, “he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.  In other words, if he still votes for Brexit, despite knowing that Brexit is a bad idea and not in the interests of his constituents – whatever their views and because that is what they desire - then he is betraying them and his own position. Put simply he is not being honest with them and his integrity has to be questioned.

Marin Luther -  a man who suffered for his beliefs but in doing 

so changed the world: "...To go against conscience is neither 

right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other…"

Now one might disagree with this, it is certainly contentious, but it is one of the pillars on which our representative democracy is built. It is the argument that my own MP Ken Clarke used some months ago in his passionate  speech about Brexit in the Commons. As Conservatives  Ken Clarke’s politics like Philip Lee’s are not mine but I can have nothing but  huge respect for them as MPs  because of what I consider are their sound political philosophy. Too often today – and especially in the case of Brexit – politicians (indeed whole parties) have become tied, in thrall, to the views of the electorate and do not use their qualifications or wisdom or privileged information to make the best decisions on behalf of their constituents. The result is that we are seeing the rise of populism across the world. I suspect Edmund Burke if he were alive today would have absolutely no doubts in saying, for example, that the rise of Donald Trump in America or Brexit in the UK has only been made possible because the elected representatives have not exercised their wisdom, information  and judgement properly to ensure the best outcomes for their electors; they have simply done what they were told by the electorate rather than thinking for themselves and acting on that thought and wisdom.

The Brexit debate in the UK has divided the country as no other in living memory. We have the situation now where many of our MPs of despite the fact that they admit to knowing  that Brexit is a bad idea – indeed even our Prime Minister before the Referendum was in favour of remaining in Europe - are going along with it to save their jobs and cling to power. To its eternal shame the Labour Party is offering no alternative reality to the Brexit argument – terrified that should it suggest that Brexit would be reversed or would not happen under them that they would be howled down by mob. This is the reality of where we are at – and we sit and watch, the living embodiment of Burke’s comment: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Two of today's intimidating headlines.

When politicians merely reflect public opinion then there is a very great danger of totalitarian states developing. Mindlessly doing the bidding of the electorate, pandering to its every whim, or following the lead of an extremist media becomes self fulfilling. It is why we have representative democracy rather than mob rule;  we expect that our MPs will make wise and good decisions on our behalf because, we believe, they have that knowledge and wisdom that we ordinary folk may not have. We do not expect them to not merely reflect the latest rallying cry or the loudest voice in the mob.

When MPs and others who hold positions of power do not exercise sound judgement and merely follow like sheep they are just the pawns of public opinion and in that case some of Burke’s other comments become equally valid:

·         Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.

·         When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

·        The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.

Philip Lee may be right or wrong about Brexit. I’m pretty sure that I would disagree with him on many political issues and on many of his political views. But he is right on this. He is exercising his judgement, wisdom and experience, striving to do the best for those he represents, standing up for what he believes is right rather than doing nothing, and taking a principled stand in the face of what I think Edmund Burke would see as the Brexit extremist’s dangerous abuse of parliamentary democracy. In the end democracy only works if people act with integrity – if they do the right thing – and that is what Philip Lee has done today.  It might, as Burke says, be “only a little” in the face of the clamour and extremist views coming out of Brexit fuelled Westminster – but it is important and necessary that “good men”  are seen not to “do nothing”  to prevent “the triumph of evil”.  When MPs such as Lee bow to the pressure of the mob and the threatening headlines of the tabloid press then we are in real danger as a society.

You can't be what you can't see

Simone de Beauvoir - the high priestess

of feminism - one of the very few people

who changed the  world in her own lifetime

Some weeks ago I came home from an afternoon spent with the philosophy group that I lead at our local U3A (University of the Third Age) feeling a little at odds with the world. For several sessions we had been trying to get to grips with existentialist philosophy.  As a group we had found this challenging to say the least and a lot of passionately held views had been voiced. On the afternoon in question, however, we had been looking at the ideas of one of the great existentialist thinkers, Simone de Beauvoir. This blog is not the place to delve into existentialist philosophy sufficient to say that Simone de Beauvoir’s views, expressed in the middle years of the 20^th century, really have changed the face of the world. There are few, if any, philosophers who could claim to have had such an impact so quickly on the way that society thinks. Briefly, her views form the back bone of much of today's feminist thought and although this great French activisit and intellectual was a prolific writer it is for her works The Second Sex and The Ethics of Ambiguity in particular that she gained world fame, acclaim and a lasting place in philosophical, social, and above all feminist history. De Beauvoir’s relationship with the existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, their avant-garde life style in mid-20th century Paris and the power and authority with which she wrote and spoke all combined to make her a powerful advocate of and for women. The central premise of her thought turns the existentialist mantra that "Existence precedes essence" into a feminist one: “One is not born but becomes a woman”. With this famous phrase, Beauvoir articulated the idea that (and I paraphrase here!) women are “made” by the world into which they grow and their “role” is largely dictated by social constructs and because of their relationship with men.

I am very well aware that in writing the last sentence I run the risk of falling foul of many justifiable criticisms by women in general and feminists in particular – indeed that was why I returned from the philosophy meeting feeling rather at odds with the world: I felt as if I had been “mugged” by several feminist members of the group who took exception to what they perceived as my “oversimplification” and “stereotypical” male comments and prejudices. If there was any solace for me it was the fact that I was not alone – indeed, some of the women members of the group were also similarly chastised for expressing views such as “Well, I enjoy being as woman and don’t feel dictated to by men at all”. Don’t get me wrong – the group as a whole and each of us as individuals were in total agreement with de Beauvour’s analysis – it was just that some very passionate views came to the fore and suddenly, from my perspective, rational and thoughtful inquiry was sidelined in favour of emotive comment and sometimes angry personalised criticism.

Simone de Beauvoir’s ideas gave the intellectual underpinning and undoubted “weight” to the feminist movement dating from the 1960s and is today perhaps even more relevant than ever in this ever changing world. At their base, these ideas identify how women can understand themselves, their relationships, their place in society, and the wider social construction of gender. Further, de Beauvoir suggested three strategies to aid and guide women in their quest, namely: women must go to work, women must pursue and participate in intellectual activity (leading to change for women) and, finally, women must strive to transform society into a society – de Beauvoir says a socialist society – which seeks economic justice as the key factor in women’s liberation. Looking from our 21^st century perspective I would think that few in modern western societies would have reason to disagree with those goals but at the time that de Beauvoir made her views public this was revolutionary talk.

Chelsea Clinton - an astute young woman. 

Born with many advantages but who has,

I think, made her own mark.

In these early years of the 21^st century hardly day or a week goes by without some report of the shifting nature of our modern world. Our increasingly diverse societies, changed expectations of individuals and groups, the decline in the old order – the Church, the class system, the "establishment" – mass migration, globalisation, the step change in the economic life of nations which mean that old family certainties are breaking down as women wish to have, or need to have, earning capacity and careers outside the home, the impact of social media and the internet mean that society is changing at an ever increasing pace. Suddenly, it often seems to me, and as someone in their eighth decade, that the old certainties are no longer there; as Bob Dylan reminded us “The Times They Are a Changin’ – how much more true is that today than when he penned those immortal words over half a century ago! Now, we have great quasi-politico/social movements often finding their voice through the internet and social media: the #metoo movement, the Occupy, the Black Lives Matter campaign, various forms of the LGBT  movements, BME  ideas.......and a thousand other campaigns, movements, ideologies, and political belief systems that would have been quite unthinkable only  a few years ago. They all demand their rightful place in the sun where their needs and rights are established and sustained and the feminist movement in general and Simone de Beauvoir in particular are at the heart of this.

It is exactly a hundred years since the suffragette movement won their first big victory by forcing the political establishment of the UK to allow some women of property to vote in an election and as a result the first woman, Constance Markievicz, was elected an MP. She didn’t take her seat, however, since she was elected as a  Sinn Féin politician. Like her fellow Irish Republicans she did not go to Westminster  but was also the first woman in the world to hold a cabinet position (Minister for Labour of the Irish Republic, 1919–1922). We have come a very long way since then but for women and for many other underrepresented, disenfranchised or minority groups, I would suggest, not nearly far enough. It came as a surprise – a shock even - to me a week or two ago when I read, as I did some preparatory reading for my philosophy group, to learn that it was only in my life time when women were allowed for the first time to sit in our House of Lords.  In this context the story of Margaret Haig Mackworth – known as Lady Rhondda - is illuminating. After her father's death, Lady Rhondda inherited his title and  tried to take his seat in the House of Lords, citing the Sex Disqualification  Act 1919 which allowed women to exercise "any public office". The Committee of Privileges, however, voted strongly against her plea. Lady Rhondda had earned a reputation as a suffragette and had become notorious in her south Wales home area for blowing up post office boxes to highlight the suffragette cause. She was supported for many years by Lord Astor, whose wife Nancy had been the first woman to actually take her seat in the House of Commons, but Lady Rhondda never entered the Lords. She was, however, nothing if not a fighter; despite failing to take her seat in the Lords, in 1926 she was elected as the Institute of Directors' first female president in and in 2015, the annual Mackworth Lecture was launched by the Institute of Directors in her honour. It was 1958, less than a month after Lady Rhondda died aged 75 that women were at last allowed to take their seat in the Lords and an unbelievable 1963 (I was by then in my late teens, so this is not ancient history!) before hereditary peeresses were also allowed to enter the Lords. To mark her role and long campaign for this simple and just recognition of what now we might call basic "human rights" her portrait now hangs in the Members’ Dining Room of the House of Lords. But to me it is a just, if sad, recognition of something that should never have happened in the first place. For, me just to think about it makes me cringe, at how society can so easily posture and hold beliefs that are so obviously contrary to basic humanity and justice. And the worrying thing is that we cannot assume that in our modern world our contemporary society would never act so - of course we could and do. Just like our forefathers we make assumptions about people, we dislike change and fairness and justice quickly go out of the window when privilege, greed and power raise their heads. Society doesn't like its cage to be rattled - especially if that means sharing what we have with someone else! Everyone is "for" minorities or the disadvantaged until it means that we have to give something up; to give one example, we all want affordable housing for our children, our key workers, the disadvantaged and the like.............but please can it be built somewhere other than at the end of my garden!

Lady Rhondda - she never saw her dream realised

but has left an indelible mark on her country.

Today we might look back on Lady Rhondda’s story with unbelieving eyes that something so grossly unfair and unjust was once considered acceptable but it serves as a reminder, perhaps, that the things that we take for granted today might well be tomorrow’s unacceptable practices and beliefs. Sadly, it also underlines the fact that all societies, to some degree or other, display a tendency to be unwilling to share with others what those in power already have. And their inability to cope with proposed change consistently institutionalizes the static and rejects of progress. Finally, it underlines the fact that although much progress has been made – there is certainly a long way to go. Change is slow, and although we live in a rapidly changing world I suspect that the dreams and demands that women might have for (say) equality of pay with men or a removal of what is seen as the “glass ceiling” preventing women rising up the career ladder of their chosen profession will sadly not be easily won or quickly obtained. The ideas of Simone de Beauvoir set the ball rolling and fundamentally changed the mind set – but sadly, I am of the view that women still have an uphill fight and that there is still a very long way to go to achieve what they seek.

I thought back to that existentialist philosophy afternoon when I read this weekend a comment which, like the best, is both simple and perceptive pointing out in a few words what might take a philosopher several volumes to say.  The quote was used by Chelsea Clinton the daughter of two of the world’s great “shakers and movers” – ex-US President Bill Clinton and his wife the powerful US politician Hilary Clinton. I’ve often thought it that it must be very difficult for a child growing up as the offspring of famous and powerful people – after all if you succeed then people argue that you had all the advantages and if you don’t succeed then you might be condemned as someone who failed to make the best of the wonderful opportunities that you were born with. Chelsea Clinton, a bright young woman, I understand, has carved out her own career far removed from that of her parents and in her thoughtful article she referred to a quote from the late US physicist and astronaut Sally Ride who commented that “You can’t be what you can’t see” .

Sally Ride -  a trailblazer who opened the path

for others to follow

As I read this I was struck with what a simple but so profound comment it was. I don’t have the context in which Sally Ride said this but I don’t think that matters. I suspect she may have said it in relation to her role in the US space programme as a female physicist and astronaut – she became the first American woman in space in 1983. Maybe (I believe) she was saying that if girls and young women don’t have women scientists and astronauts like her to look up to – to “see”- then how can they themselves easily imagine or aspire themselves to be one. To have a goal you have to have something to aim for and if that goal is not obvious, visible, realistic then it is likely that your ambition or desire may remain just an unfulfilled day dream, a step too far, something unheard of in society as a whole. To return for a moment to de Beauvoir she argued that what girls and young women are presented with from their earliest times is a perception of woman via motherhood, homemaking, caring and so on and this largely defines their future goals and roles – in short, and as de Beauvoir said, “One is not born but becomes a woman” one learns it by the experiences that you have and the opportunities that you perceive.

I don’t believe that this is peculiar to women – it applies in much the same way with men or with any other member of society – we learn to be and become what we are – we “become what we see” to paraphrase Sally Ride’s comment. This lunch time and in today’s Guardian I learned that the University of Cambridge is under scrutiny and some criticism because, allegedly, it takes very few entrants from black minority backgrounds. Now, there might be many reasons for this – the University might argue that insufficient people from that background get the very high academic qualifications required for entry or it might be (as I think has been suggested by the University) that it depends on the courses one is considering. But, as my wife pointed out as we ate our lunchtime sandwich while watching the TV news it might also be a factor that if you are black and considering university you might not wish or feel confident enough to attend a university where everyone else appears to be white. So the whole thing becomes self perpetuating – and spawns the belief that black youngsters are not good enough for or “don’t do” Cambridge. I have no way of knowing if that is a valid point but just maybe it’s another perspective on “You can’t be what you can’t see”  ....... “Cambridge University isn’t for people like me” a young black student might say rather than “I want to be like him/her.....they are my black role model......they’ve done it and got to Cambridge so I can be part of that too.” Trailblazers in any walk of life are crucial – they are heroes and show new opportunities but, more importantly  perhaps, they mark the path for others to follow.

I have a personal view that an important element in all this is how opportunities and goals can be presented to young people – be they girls or boys. We live in a world where the media is all powerful – 24 hour news, global advertising, social media – an endless list of entities all striving to grab the attention and the mind set of people – especially the young and vulnerable. I never cease to be horrified at how advertising of all kind seeks to manipulate the minds of those that it is aimed at: the fashion industry striving to manipulate the minds (and often bodies) of women, the way that in the UK the betting industry seeks to promote itself and insert itself into the mindset of young men, the way, as Christmas approaches young children’s minds are considered fair game by toy manufacturers as they seek to sell the latest must have toy. The list is endless and the common factor is that all these companies and organisations know that it is very easy to influence the mind given the right opportunities; it’s an inversion of Sally Ride’s comment – it is “You can be what you can see” – buy this perfume, dress, car, toy, hairstyle, mobile phone...... – and you will be the successful, good looking , envy of all your friends, the person that you see in our advert! When the advertisers try to sell us an item they are in fact trying to sell us a life style, holding up a kind of perverse mirror image of what we can be if only we will buy into their product. And the worrying thing is that they know it works.

Constance Markievicz - the first

elected woman MP

So, given that I wonder why in our TV programmes, our adverts, our magazines, our Hollywood blockbusters and so on we are not further exposed to these life style “opportunities” – girls becoming spacewomen, black boys being seen as High Court Judges, maybe a Muslim Prime Minister in our Parliament. I know that we are already a long way along this path – we’ve had a black man as the President of the most powerful nation on earth, and goodness gracious me, I think many would like him back rather than the present incumbent – but it seems to me there is still a very long way to go. I do  not believe, however, that this is an option that we can consider and then reject. If we don’t grasp this idea and go along this path of what I will call the "positive promotion" (of, say women in previously unheard of professional  roles) then, not only are we denying people (young women) the opportunity to attain their dreams or fulfil their ambitions simply because the court of public opinion deems otherwise, but we are wasting so much talent and human resources that in these fast moving and shifting times we ill afford. In denying or restricting  the talents and dreams of a significant portion of the population – whoever they - we are also in the longer term likely to deny our own futures - economically, politically, socially and ethically society will stagnate and turn in on itself. A society that fails to change is a society doomed to die - it's as simple as that. And in our society the role of women is one of the important issues that demands addressing - it is not an "optional extra" - it is a moral imperative and essential for society's and every individual's economic, social, cultural, welfare and sake.

Nancy Astor - the first woman
elected and to take her seat in the
House of Commons

I want my two teenage granddaughters to grow up knowing that they have realistic options and goals to aim for, that they can see what they might want to be and know that anything and everything is possible, that in existentialist terms they have the freedom to choose, the ball is in their court. I want them to have a fair and just "crack of the whip". I don’t want them to get an easy ride just because they are girls but nor do I want them to feel that because they are girls this is not for them. I want them to earn society's praise and financial and social rewards fairly and equally with everyone else - and these not to hindered limited just because they happened to be born with certain physical characteristics. I don't want them to be judged worthy or unworthy because of those same physical characteristics or for society to make judgements as to their wider ability or worth with physical characteristics as a deciding factor.   They might not achieve their goals but I want them to feel that it is reasonable that they work towards them and not be put off by simple gender prejudice or societal constraints. I want them to be able to read great novels like Pride and Prejudice which through fiction and imagination give one view of womanhood and society but I also want them to read others that set out a different and other equally attainable and desirable paths to a different set of goals, values and outcomes. In short, I want them to know what the options are and not to feel, what I suspect many young women have felt over millennia, that they can’t be what they want to be because they can’t see, or even imagine someone like them achieving such a dream or ambition. As Sally Ride said "You can't be what you can't see".