Mostly me ranting about various stuff
Diary: Month of January: TV, Clubbing, Interviews, etc
Start of a new year and we get a new Doctor in Doctor Who! :oP I have to admit that I wasn't too impressed by the the last Doctor Who Special (End of Time). There were lots of interesting things going on but not all of them seemed well executed and the pacing seemed very off in places, especially with the regeneration. I do have high hopes for the new Doctor though, very reassuring first scene. And, for a mild spoiler, the whole 'Master Race' seemed to work much more smoothly than I would have appreciated... a planet full of Masters and they all just accept their new roles? At first I wondered if there was some telepathic link making them work as one but that didn't seem to be the case... making it seem strange that the new race of Masters wouldn't start vying for control.
Also watched the two animated Doctor Whos ('The Infinite Quest' and 'Dreamland') which were okay but not a patch on the live-action stuff. Watched 'The Five Doctors', which was also okay if you can get past all the problems that tend to come with cheap shows of that era :o) After that I read through a fairly long comic called 'The Ten Doctors', wherein the author manages to throw in most things from the Dr. Who universe :oP It was okay, although I was hoping for a revelation about the Time War that the author seemed to decide not to go for (or at least not make explicit) and the ending dragged on a little (not worse than the last Christmas Special though...) :oP
A couple of days after the New Year was the first Dungeon of the year (and decade), with both ThePussyKat and Ophelia_Machina in attendance, which was very good. Only problem is that LittleCyberAlex's games 'night' started earlier than normal the next day and I hadn't quite recovered. I still made it there, dragging Tony in tow, in time to have one large six-player game of Settlers of Catan before everyone left and then we had a couple of smaller games after most people disappeared, I even won one :oD
Finished reading a fantasy novel called 'Master of Whitestorm' by Janny Wurts, which my father had recommended to me and seemed to have good reviews on Amazon. I thought it was okay. I read through the first half in one evening but the rest dragged as it just didn't seem to go anywhere. The stories themselves are basically a series of short stories held together by a fairly simple metaplot that itself isn't that interesting. The individual stories can be quite interesting but somehow always seem more built up than they manage to live up to (all the quests the main character go on end up having mostly banal solutions despite how legendary they're made out to be). Unfortunately, the characters aren't particularly deep so they don't lend much either (the main character almost seems made to be two-dimensional and uninteresting; a tragic backstory does not instantly make an interesting character!). Ahh well, was okay to keep my occupied anyway :oP
Did also have an attempt to play more Risk with my brother and his girlfriend on the Friday but wanted to do something a bit different, so played Godstorm. Unfortunately they felt it was too random and confusing so I'll have to find other people to play who will spend more time with the rulebook first :oP Played various games of 'Buzz' afterwards (a trivia game on the computer that I now know I'm rubbish at).
I ended up not going to Dungeon during the week due to the ice; made it tricky to get there and I wasn't sure if anyone else would bother for similar reasons. Ophelia_Machina was down on the Saturday though, as was LittleCyberAlex and Bert, so was worth making the effort then. I'd originally planned to get a taxi back with Bert but he disappeared almost as soon as I was through the door at Edge so I ended up staying with Ophelia_Machina at FraggleonSpeed's, which was very cold. Fortunately I had a big coat and gloves and ThePussyKat and LittleCyberAlex's place is just around the corner, so I made it in time to play and win my first ever game of Carcassonne and then Ophelia_Machina arrived to beat us all at her first ever game. I stayed over at LittleCyberAlex's to realise that beginners luck had deserted me and I could no longer win :o/
Lacuna_Raze came to visit on the Tuesday, which was nice. We watched Ricky Gervais' 'The Invention of Lying' during the week. The premise (explained on outset) is that it's a world where no one lies nor knows that it means to tell a falsehood and Ricky Gervais' character learns to lie (and thus everyone believes everything he says). I was a bit worried how much it would turn into a 'male fantasy' film based on trailer, with him misusing his new ability from the outset. Fortunately, it avoids the gross excesses that would have been off-putting if explored. Instead, it attempts to be quite thoughtful and explore the ways in which we can use lies to bring people comfort, create the foundations of friendship and console others about the future. If that sounds cynical then that's quite fair, Gervais' imagining of a world without lies is basically ours but with people being brutally rude to each other all the time; there no radical gain in this world. I guess I have to forgive the fact that it's not a rigorously believable account of the potentially radical ways in which our world might be different without lying given that it's a comedy film and not a philosophical enquiry but the cynicism of what Gervais' paints people as 'being really like' is a bit sad even if things do pull back a bit more as the film goes on.
During the week I caught up with Dollhouse, which I'm really starting to be quite keen on. Does occasionally feel like the flash-forward of last season doesn't sit entirely comfortable with the continued plot lines of this season but is still good stuff. I like how they've managed to be critical of the Dollhouse without resorting to a black-and-white picture and I really like how the characters are being fleshed out.
Went down Dungeon on the Saturday, which was fun as plenty of people made it out. Got a lift back with _phoenixrising so saved myself some cab fare :oD Made an effort to try to get up early the next day for gaming on Sunday and failed but turned out that the time had reverted back to the evening anyway, so was all good. Lost a game of Risk: Godstorm (which LittleCyberAlex seems to quite like, although perhaps only because he won), lost a game of Battle of the Bands (which I must get around to finding a copy of to buy) and lost a game of Carcosonne. Oh well! :oP
Me, Lacuna_Raze, LittleCyberAlex, Thepussykat, Bert, _phoenixrising, nematri and heartsick_666 all went to see Rocky Horror at the Mayflower on Monday, which was lots of fun. I shied away from dressing particularly in theme (I was under the impression no one else I was going with) although I did make a more-than-usual attempt at dressing up to look good anyway. They'd changed a bit more than usual this time, with some of the lines I would have predicted never coming but it worked well. The bed scenes were a lot more explicit and daring than usual I think. The actor for Rocky was very good (I think LittleCyberAlex was particularly impressed in a different way). Normally the character fits the look but doesn't do much to show it but they'd gotten in someone who not only looked the part but was also was managing to do somersaults and flips whilst still managing to perform vocally, was quite impressive.
I had an Interview on Friday morning for the University of Southampton but I don't think it was my best. I'm not giving myself a hard time over it though, I've found that my confidence after leaving an Interview varies a lot, even if it always feels a little awkward and uncomfortable (which I think is natural). Also, how people feel about interviews doesn't seem to have any necessary relation to how well they did, so probably best not to think about too much :oP Still didn't get the job though!
I was hoping to make it up to Possession in Bournemouth later that day but didn't manage to organise transport quickly enough. Next time I might consider going by train. I did go to Industrial Fallout the next day though.
It was the first Industrial Fallout of the year was proceeded by the same dismal advertising as before only with added reason for offence. Last time we we're treated to a 'PROLAPSE HOUR!' and a tagline that read 'DANCE UNTIL YOU PISS BLOOD, POUR IT INTO A PINT GLASS AND DRINK IT' and this time we get '3 WEEKS TO GO UNTIL THE CYBERNETIC HOLOCAUST'S 1ST ANNIVERSARY!!!', because nonsensical comparisons between your event and the slaughter of millions of Jews makes it look cool! :o/ The fact that all the advertisements for the event are completely written in capitals makes it look stupid enough without that sort of rubbish. Then again, this is the same DJ who advertised his last event with a myspace page full of porn.
Still the event was okay. It was a bit crowded inside, which made it a little hard to move around and very hard to hear people and actually socialise but that's mostly the fault of the cold weather making standing outside not much of a viable option. Shame, it will probably get nicer when it gets warmer again. Still a lot nicer than the advertising suggests anyway.
Spent the next day in with Lacuna_Raze watching Doctor Who. Baked her a cake for her birthday on the Monday and went to visit her on the Tuesday at hers where we lazed about all day in bed. Was good :o)
Quite a bit of an empty week after that though, ended up watching through the entirity of the Daria series. I didn't think I'd caught that much of it as a teenager but I'd seen more than I thought, enough to be a little nostalgic about it anyway :o)
I registered with a new agency on Friday morning. They gave me a data input test that involved being given five minutes to type data into a form from a rather intimidating pile of sheets; I barely made a dent in the amount of work they gave me! :oP I finished the test feeling like I must have not done well but I was told that I'd been the quickest of this year afterwards (would mean more if we weren't just finishing our first month but still). They seemed to like my work experience, etc, so they've got me on their list to call as soon as more admin work pops up. :o) The woman interviewing me also gave me some advice on my CV too, which was great :o)
I watched the last episode of Dollhouse on Saturday morning. Really worked out well and a third season would have been brilliant. Once again, I'm left with the feeling that there was more that Whedon wanted to write but got cut off to early (Firefly all over again). Quite annoying. I read that the ratings were very low though, which is a fair enough reason to cancel the show from a corporate standpoint. It seems a shame that commercial merit inevitably trumps artistic merit.
Lacuna_Raze was down London on Saturday to go to Magic Theatre but I'm conserving some of my funds until I get my next job so I was just down Dungeon. Was a shame that a lot of people didn't make it but was okay anyway. Enjoyed Sunday over LittleCyberAlex's playing Settlers of Catan with Bert, Sarah and _phoenixrising although I didn't win :oP I did play through Portal on LittleCyberAlex's computer though :oD
Thoughts: Physical Vs Verbal Abuse
I'm probably retreading a topic I've already written on but I saw a post that reminded me of it.
In it was a poll that asked if 'physical' or 'verbal/mental' abuse is worse. The phrasing alone indicated to me that this person has likely never experienced any sustained physical abuse. I've had this discussion before about school bullying, only that time it was between 'physical abuse' or 'emotional/verbal abuse', which contains the same error.
Framed that way, it sounds like verbal abuse is worse because it has an emotional affect and I do agree that mental scares can be worse than physical ones. However, that entirely ignores the fact that physical abuse can be emotionally traumatic as well. To dismiss physical abuse as just some pain and a few bruises is like dismissing verbal abuse as 'just words'.
When I was at school, I experienced both. Being insulted and ridiculed constantly can be very disheartening and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Still. the upshot for me is that I managed to overcome it and develop a thick skin so that insults mean very little to me now. If someone is verbally abusive to me then it's usually easy for me to dismiss them as an idiot and not care. Getting under my skin has to be more subtle than that now.
Of course, that doesn't help with physical abuse. Someone shouts an insult at me I can just think 'idiot' and dismiss them. Someone throws a punch at me then that's not something I can avoid just by ignoring it.
And let's not be mistaken that being punched is just about the physical act any more than being insulted is about the sound of the word. It's not.
Being physically beaten up is about power and control; it's about them trying to demonstrate that they have the power over you to do what they want and you can't do anything about it. It's about a group of friends deciding to make themselves feel good and have fun by using you for entertainment. It's about them all laughing the next day because you have visible bruises or a black eye. It's about the sense of embarrassment that stays with you that you let other people treat you that way.
It's not about the physical pain so much as it is about feeling helpless. It needn't even involve pain; someone grabbing you, pushing and pulling you or holding you down until submit may not inflict a great deal of pain and may not leave a single bruise but it's still not an emotionally pleasant thing to go through.
I went to an all-boys school and what bullying was about was really hierarchy. Most actual fights happen in the first year, whilst people were still having to 'prove their place' and make people scared of them. Of course, it wouldn't jump straight to fights; they'd start with verbal bullying to see whether that would be enough and if that wasn't enough to break you then that's when the physical stuff comes in.
I once managed to anger another kid at school because he was looking around at people in the room and he looked at me and I looked back rather than dropping my eyes. That's what physical bullying is really about, not the bruises but the attempt to make you live in fear.
For me, it meant learning to walk the line between having pride and avoiding being beaten. There's been a lot of situations where I knew that submitting and giving into fear would probably have been the easiest way to avoid physical pain but where pride had not let me make it that easy because I wasn't prepared to let them win.
I had to think very carefully about whether I wanted to post this. I prefer talking about things in the abstract and this implies more about my personal experience than I'm normally comfortable with. It's not even that I regard myself as having gone through an especially large amount of physical abuse in my life; I'd certainly say that my experiences are mild compared to what some people have had to live through. That being said, the sometimes blase attitude towards physical abuse I sometimes see was enough for me to want to write something at least.
Thoughts: Body Image: Genitalia
I doubt there are many people who read my journal who don't think that western society has some very unhealthy issues with body image. Whilst I suspect some level of awkwardness and insecurity may be natural to anyone young who isn't completely over-filled with ego, I think we can all agree that the way our culture, especially the media, takes advantage of this causes many problems, some of which are life-long (indeed, some of which are fatal).
I was in a discussion on facebook recently about body image issues and how messed up our culture can be sometimes.
The topic varied from body size and shape, through tanning booths and to skin bleaching. We came to the fairly obvious conclusion (that I doubt many people would disagree with) that society would be better off if it was widely acknowledged and accepted that (a) there are multiple ways of being attractive rather than one ideal to live up to and (b) that attraction is personal and subjective, hence there is no perfect form that is attractive to everyone anyway, so variation is a good thing and not something to be ashamed of.
In a later discussion I touched on a different body image issue, that of penis size. The topic was penis size jokes aimed at depictions of ancient Greek male gods. The ancient Greeks didn't have the same ideas about the ideal penis length as we do in contemporary western society; in actual fact, they found the sorts of uncommonly large penis sizes seen commonly in porn today as being a bit comical and a bit too bestial (Pan being one of the few Gods to be depicted this way). This meant that their idea of a flattering depiction of male genitalia looks small by modern standards.
In a similar way, ancient Greek society doesn't have the same body size standards that we've devoloped fairly recently in western culture, hence their depictions of Goddesses are also large compared to what we'd expect in an image of a woman designed to be flattering today. This essentially means that mocking a statue of a Greek God for having a small penis commits the same error as mocking a statue of a Greek Goddess for 'being a bit of a porker'. Both are applying modern 'body fascim' to a culture that had a different set of beauty values.
There are still some differences between beauty norms as they apply to body size and as they apply to penis size however, one issue is that it's not on display like a lot of the other issues. This means that people with penises smaller than the culturally approved standard can't be singled out for personal abuse but also means that it's even easier for unrealistic standards to arise. In a wider sense, this clearly does not apply only to boys, as shown in increasing use of vaginoplasty by women to achieve a 'nicer looking vagina'.
I remember having some interesting discussions on VF a long time ago about penis length. It's not surprising that the self-reporting of males on those forums were so far above average as to be ridiculous but less extreme but still skewed and unrealistic reports came from women talking about their partners. In all cases, the average was significantly above the 6" that seems to be commonly taken as 'a cultural standard'. According to studies, it seems that the average is actually below 6" linky (these studies will likely underestimate the average if anything)
I suspect the reasons why even women overestimate the size of their partners penis is because of a mix of (a) women with partners with a small penis being less likely to post about it and (b) most of them never really having been in a position to get an accurate idea of the size. I guess that if you assume the average is 6" then guesses as to size will likely be relative to that. I also suspect that small differences from the norm are often exaggerated when described in terms of cm.
All of this can presumably only be having a negative effect on young boys (or grown men for that matter) who are insecure about this issue. I also found an interesting article discussing how the idea is actually quite patriarchal as well: linky; basically, the idea that a penis is needed at all, let alone a particularly large one, would seem obviously faulty if we recognise that lesbian sex can be worthwhile and fulfilling.
Yet it's one that feels odd to challenge all the same.
I quite often hear 'fat-shaming' comments and jokes. My exact reaction varies depending on context and my mood, so it generally varies from me being generally unamused to voicing some kind of criticism. I imagine the latter to be very important in challenging fat-phobic attitudes. One advantage of addressing this issue is that whether I fall in the mocked group is evident just by looking at me: I either fall into someone's idea of 'fat' or I don't. If I am outside their notion then I can approach it in a non-personal manner, which is easiest, if not then at least there's no ambiguity.
A man's penis size, however, is likely to be private with only people very close to him being aware of it. Even if he's inclined to brag (which is not only a bit tasteless but also reinforces the problem) there's no way of proving it outside of an intimate situation. This creates the interesting situation of not really ever knowing who in a group that a penis size joke might be insulting. Indeed, especially with younger males, individual males in the group may not be entirely sure whether the joke applies to them or not. The stigma around this issue obviously means that few men are willing to be open about such an issue and I'm sure many might laugh along to preserve face whilst inwardly being hurt and/or worried by such a joke. I can imagine some deliberately telling such jokes as a smokescreen (in a similar manner to closeted gays being homophobic).
The result of such stigma and shame is presumably that most men with small penises feel unable to express offence for fear of revealing something embarrassing. Even people with average or greater than average sized penises who simply find the jokes offensive on more general grounds of principle risk being thought to be part of the shamed group and mocked anyway, which for some may be decentive enough. All of that on top of the normal 'not wanting to cause a fuss' type impulses.
Personally, the idea of staying quiet to avoid potentially being mocked via a prejudice that I don't agree with isn't enough motivation but then I'm a fairly contrary sort anyway; the notion of not putting on make-up or cross-dressing for fear of being mocked has never stopped me either, yet there's clearly a lot of closeted transvestites out there. I wonder how many men are out there who find such jokes hurtful and/or offensive but don't feel comfortable voicing that opinion.
I have, however, experienced that it's hard to argue this case without the assumption being that I'm doing so because I'm insecure about my own genitalia rather than because I genuinely believe it to be a valid argument. Presumably this is similar to how larger people making fat-positive arguments might be assumed to be doing so out of shame rather than genuine conviction. Of course, my penis size is as irrelevant to my argument here as my sexual orientation is when I discuss gay rights. The fact that I criticise homophobic jokes clearly doesn't mean that I am not straight yet that's the assumption. Similarly, it's not always an assumption I feel comfortable challenging. If I preface every discussion of the topic with 'I'm not gay myself but...' it ends up feeling like I'm overly concerned about the supposedly scary potential of being thought to be gay, which would seem to reinforce the problem in the same way as 'I don't have a small penis but...' would. By supplying the information, it also seems to suggest that the validity of my arguments is different depending on whether they apply to me personally; as if being 'fat' makes fat-positive arguments less persuasive or being a woman makes feminist arguments less persuasive.
Presumably, the fact that a person might raise or at least think such a thing just establishes this as being the significant issue I think it is; there's an assumed shame to having a small penis and so much as not denying the possibility is enough to encourage derision.
I wrote about this on facebook as well for anyone who wants to take a look: linky
Thoughts: Prejudice; perpetuating the problem
It's an unfortunate reality that most of the people who fight a particular prejudice are victims of it. The problem is obvious; those who are victims of it are most aware of it and most motivated to do something about it.
For us non-victims, there are a few hurdles that have to be overcome in order to do anything meaningful to help.
First, we have to care.
I'd like to think that wasn't that much of a problem but I guess I'm just too much of a cynic. We've all probably known people who are okay with requesting help for their own problems but not willing to make the effort when it's someone else's. Of course, this is very unfortunate given that it's our own prejudices, rather than other people, that we have the most control over. If we spend all our time challenging other people's prejudices without taking the time to honestly examine our own prejudices then we're simply not putting in the effort that we're calling other people to perform.
Secondly, we have to be aware there is a problem.
Sometimes we become aware by direct observation but more often that's about being prepared to listen. A lot of prejudice happens without our knowledge because we're not part of a victimised group. Even when we hear about it, we can still forget because we're not constantly reminded. A lot of men don't seem to appreciate the sheer amount of harassment women go through in western society for example, and of course they don't, they're not subjected to it. I suspect I'm harassed at least if not more than most men yet when I've been in the situation of directly observing these things then I tend to be very surprised; the desire is to dismiss them as 'one-offs' is strong even when that's clearly not the case.
Then we need to acknowledge our part in the problem.
For people who like to think of themselves as 'good people' this can be hard; we don't want to admit, to others or ourselves, that we are part of the problem. Many of us have been raised to think of prejudice as bad and thus prejudiced people as bad, so we'll go to lengths to disassociate ourselves with the problem. This is probably why 'You're being over-sensitive' or 'You're looking for something to be angry about' are such common responses to people calling out prejudice. No one wants to admit to being part of the problem so it's easier to tell ourselves that it's not us who is wrong, it's those supposed victims.
And it is hard but I think it's necessary. You don't have to proclaim yourself a completely prejudiced person, just acknowledge the effect of living in a prejudiced society and the ways you might contribute to it. I wrote about this more in a previous entry: linky. I'm not comfortable calling myself 'a sexist' for example, but I do think it's important that I'm honest with myself about the ways in which I've internalised sexist culture despite my best intentions.
Ideally, we need to then work to change ourselves, which often will involve trying to not only acknowledge the problem but understand it too. In doing so, we might even unearth other problems we're a part of and get to examining them before going through the awkward process of being called out about them. A lot of this is still not relying on yourself to work out what those problems are but listening to others talk about prejudice and think seriously about how it applies to you. I don't mean to be mindless and accept everything someone complains about in all regards but to listen carefully, always try to be respectful and struggle to be honest with yourself and be open to admitting that they are write and you are the problem, not the people who have complaints.
All this means being open to being called out. It's not always easy, I doubt I've always reacted the best way myself, but it can be done. There have been plenty of times when I've had to fight impulses of either 'that's not true, that's complaining about nothing' or 'I'm not prejudiced, I'm a good person' but it is a necessary struggle if we want to be those good people we claim to be.
Some of my earliest interests in prejudice were regarding the ways in which they affect me; I've been particularly interested in the way gender norms restrict male gender expression for instance because that affects me personally. I've been very interested in class prejudice against working class people, mostly people of my own class status specifically.
And there's nothing wrong with that but if I want my concerns to be taken seriously then I have to take other people's concerns seriously too. It's no good me taking sexism that affects me seriously yet ignoring the multitude of variable ways it affects women. It's no good me complaining about beauty norms not valuing feminine men if I'm not going to take seriously the way that beauty norms affect a wide range of people outside their scope, whether that be me not caring about larger people because I'm about average sized or the way society disparages small-breasted women or below average penis sizes just because I'm comfortable with the way I'm shaped. There's no point me complaining about classism as it affects me without sparing a thought to the way I might be classist against people of a yet lower class status than my own or the ways in which it intersects with racism. Even when a prejudice has no obvious connect with my own, such as disablism, it still seems fair that I should spare a thought for that problem if I expect others to spare a thought for my own.
I don't mean we have to all become super-enlightened beings before it's okay for us to complain or call out prejudice, I'm just saying that if we're going to complain and call out prejudice then we have to offer the same time and respect we want for our complaints to the people who are calling us out for prejudice. Fair is fair.
Thoughts: Are we giving too much money to Haiti?
Someone put a status message remarking that the UK has spent £50 million on relief to Haiti and that this is a very large amount of money for a nation that has it's own problems.
That got me intrigued because it sounds like it may be a case of 'that sounds a very big number so it's an important amount' type thinking that fails to remember that we're talking about spending on a national scale. After all, I've also read that we've spent at least £4.5 -billion- on the Iraq War. Wikipedia tells me we spend about £100 billion on the NHS for England alone, which means we spend 2000 times as much providing free health care for English citizens per year then we've given in this one-off gift to Haiti.
So I thought I'd try doing a bit of maths to work out how much would be the equivalent amount to give to charity on an individual level to match what we've given on a national level. I guessed that it would be equivalent to giving a pound to a homeless person.
Wikipedia suggests that the government takes in about £600 billion a year in tax money, so that's what we've got to spend. £50 million is 0.01 percent of that amount, or one hundredth of one percent of the total amount of tax money the government has to spend.
If we now take an average income of about £20,000 pounds annually, to spend an equivalent amount on charity that person would have to spend £2 on charitable causes.
So I was off slightly. It's not the equivalent of giving a pound to a homeless person... it's giving two pounds...
I double-checked my maths so hopefully that's right... it's a small amount anyway :P In fairness, the numbers I'm using are probably a little off but it shouldn't make a significant difference I think.
Anyone better at this stuff than me want to check whether that's correct or whether I'm just talking nonsense? :oP
Thoughts: Summary of my political positions -
Just a round-up of my political views, turned out longer than I expected
Despite being ethically utilitarian (I believe 'happiness' is the central moral value), I'm politically 'liberal' in that I think 'liberty' is a better founding value for the state. Amongst other reasons, I don't trust the state to decide what is best for our 'happiness' (i.e. 'nanny state' politics). I very strongly believe that the state should not be connected with religious values or values based on people's personal moral systems (including my own).
I'm not 'economically liberal'/libertarian. I think that the state exists to allow us to live, as much as possible, the lives we want to live and that necessarily involves us all giving up the right to abuse whatever power we have access to, whether that be physical power (e.g. bludgeoning someone) or economic power (e.g. abusing the economic pressures on the less fortunate). I believe both a regulated economy and a welfare state can help to increase personal liberty.
I do not consider immigration to be a particularly significant economic problem, if it is one at all. I suspect that the media's attention on immigration, along with welfare cheats etc, is more based in prejudice and scape-goating than any genuine interest in economics.
I do believe in global warming and I think that the state needs to pay attention to the environmental impact of industry. However, I'm generally disappointed by Green parties due to the general anti-science sentiments common in their manifestos. I think any decent solution will likely require the use of advanced science rather than any return to old methods. I suspect that GM crops may be necessary to address world food shortages and nuclear energy may be necessary to avoid the oil crisis.
I'm pro civil rights and think it's important to have a set of fundamental freedoms available to all even if under specific instances it might seem better (in the short-term) to make an exception. I basically don't trust the state to decide when such 'exceptions' should happen. I believe that people should have the right to die and that Euthanasia should be legal. I believe that everyone ought to have the same marital rights, including the right to marry either sex, and I would find it preferable if all legal marriage was referred to as 'civil union' and individuals were allowed to decide what the term 'marriage' meant to them personally.
I am okay with devolution where the local populace prefer it and am in favour of the right to opt for mutually agreed arbitration courts instead of going through the standard courts (all criminal matters must be processed through standard courts as well). I have no objection to arbitration courts that are based around religious principles (such as Islamic Sharia Law Courts or Jewish Beth Din Courts). Obviously I would not approve of such courts becoming non-optional for anyone; no one should be forced to attend such a court against their will.
I believe the state should be bound by law and what powers it has and when it can use them carefully regulated, although I'm less concerned with the states ability to find out things about us (e.g. CCTV cameras and phone tapping) and more concerned about it's ability to control us (e.g. routinely armed police, stop-and-search rights, censorship, etc). On balance, I'm against the death penalty.
I'm not anti-war in principle; I think there are times when war may be justified. I am not convinced that our 'wars on terrorism' are entirely justified, although I think they have had some positive effects (as well as some negative ones). I do not approve at all of the falsehoods and spin that were used to try to justify this war or that it began without wide support from the British public.
I'm a democrat and I believe the UK could do with further democratic reform; I suspect the best step forward would be for the House of Lords to become elected by Proportional Representation and the House of Commons to be elected by Single Transferable Vote (or similar). I'm sympathetic to republican arguments in principle but in practice I am unsure of how much benifet there is to removing the monarchy. I'm vaguely pro-Europe in principle although I acknowledge that there are complexities that I am not intimately familiar with.
I personally have no ethical objection to abortion and think it can be the best and proper choice in certain situations. However, I recognise that other people have different beliefs (typically spiritual) that may lead them to other conclusions. For this reason, I think that the state should defer the decision to pregnant people themselves rather than make that decision for them (no prohibiting abortion, no forcing it).
I'm pro-feminist in that I believe that we (British/Western peoples) live under a culture of sexism that is both outdated and that can be harmful to both sexes, although more so to women. I believe there are both legal and cultural changes that need to happen in order to address this.
I'm personally 'gender-queer' and think that the vast majority, if not all, of what we call 'Gender' (as opposed to 'sex' in the biological sense) is culturally fabricated. Whilst I think it's okay for people to have a gender identity, I don't think people should feel obliged to internalise and live up to the various norms, values and roles that go with particular gender identities.
I'm more sympathetic with pro-sex feminism than anti-porn feminism. I recognise that a lot of the British/Western/global sex trade is extremely troubling and can be very exploitive and I think that needs to change but I do not think it is necessarily or universally true. I think that legalisation and careful regulation of the sex trade is the first step forward in improving conditions for sex workers.
I believe that consent should be essential for legal sexual activity and that severe intoxication removes a person's ability to consent. Anyone proven to be taking advantage of a severely drunk person should be charged with rape. I do not believe that people should touch others without invitation (verbal or non-verbal) and, if done in a sexual manner, I believe this should be prosecuted as sexual assault.
I'm 'politically correct' in that I prefer to try to avoid using offensive language when polite alternatives are available. For instance, I don't use the term 'gay' as an insult, I don't use racial slurs (e.g. N*gger and similar), I don't use sex-negative terms (e.g. slut), I don't like to use gendered insults (bitch and similar) etc. I also do not feel entirely comfortable with disablist insults like 'lame' or 'moronic' but am not so good at avoiding them. Whilst I think it's possible to joke about prejudice, I do not like jokes that are themselves prejudiced or reinforce prejudiced ideas. Two other issues that concern me are transphobia, classism and sizism/'body fascism'.
I believe that western media has had a very unhealthy affect on promoting the idea that there is one ideal form of beauty that everyone must attain. I think it's healthier for people to adopt the view that there are multiple ways to appear beautiful that may be very different from one another. I also think it's best if people recognise that attraction is personal and subjective and that's it's not possible or important to be beautiful to everyone. I don't like it when people that insult or mock people for their appearance, especially about aspects they can't change.
Link: Ariel Burdett on X-Factor
Quite a few people have probably watched Ariel Burdett (real name Amy) on X Factor - linky.
Of course she comes off as extremely obnoxious. I remember cringing when I saw it because it was so awful as well as how bad an impression is probably made about 'alt' peeps to those not familiar with them.
Of course, the question is the same with X-Factor as with all 'reality television' is how real really is it.
So I found her myspace page and it appears that it was indeed entirely fake - linky (listen to the BBC Radio Leeds Interview at the top).
There's also this one that seems to be of a later date after she's more aware of the reaction to her appearance: linky
One of the more interesting things in general is how they select people for the show.
It's tempting to have no sympathy for people because they're so bad and deluded that it feels like someone telling them that they're not good is actually doing them a service.
Of course, the reality is more like a ton of people turn up and all the average ones are turned away with the ones that are either especially good or embarrassingly bad are told that they're through to the judges; basically, they're given false hope before being torn down.
Which, when you look at auditions like this or this, it all seems rather cruel.
Link: Sarah Haskins' commentary on adverts targeted at women - linky
Link: How male gaze silences women - linky
Link: A women's lib view of politics - linky
Link: 'The only moral abortion is my abortion' - linky
Start of a new year and we get a new Doctor in Doctor Who! :oP I have to admit that I wasn't too impressed by the the last Doctor Who Special (End of Time). There were lots of interesting things going on but not all of them seemed well executed and the pacing seemed very off in places, especially with the regeneration. I do have high hopes for the new Doctor though, very reassuring first scene. And, for a mild spoiler, the whole 'Master Race' seemed to work much more smoothly than I would have appreciated... a planet full of Masters and they all just accept their new roles? At first I wondered if there was some telepathic link making them work as one but that didn't seem to be the case... making it seem strange that the new race of Masters wouldn't start vying for control.
Also watched the two animated Doctor Whos ('The Infinite Quest' and 'Dreamland') which were okay but not a patch on the live-action stuff. Watched 'The Five Doctors', which was also okay if you can get past all the problems that tend to come with cheap shows of that era :o) After that I read through a fairly long comic called 'The Ten Doctors', wherein the author manages to throw in most things from the Dr. Who universe :oP It was okay, although I was hoping for a revelation about the Time War that the author seemed to decide not to go for (or at least not make explicit) and the ending dragged on a little (not worse than the last Christmas Special though...) :oP
A couple of days after the New Year was the first Dungeon of the year (and decade), with both ThePussyKat and Ophelia_Machina in attendance, which was very good. Only problem is that LittleCyberAlex's games 'night' started earlier than normal the next day and I hadn't quite recovered. I still made it there, dragging Tony in tow, in time to have one large six-player game of Settlers of Catan before everyone left and then we had a couple of smaller games after most people disappeared, I even won one :oD
Finished reading a fantasy novel called 'Master of Whitestorm' by Janny Wurts, which my father had recommended to me and seemed to have good reviews on Amazon. I thought it was okay. I read through the first half in one evening but the rest dragged as it just didn't seem to go anywhere. The stories themselves are basically a series of short stories held together by a fairly simple metaplot that itself isn't that interesting. The individual stories can be quite interesting but somehow always seem more built up than they manage to live up to (all the quests the main character go on end up having mostly banal solutions despite how legendary they're made out to be). Unfortunately, the characters aren't particularly deep so they don't lend much either (the main character almost seems made to be two-dimensional and uninteresting; a tragic backstory does not instantly make an interesting character!). Ahh well, was okay to keep my occupied anyway :oP
Did also have an attempt to play more Risk with my brother and his girlfriend on the Friday but wanted to do something a bit different, so played Godstorm. Unfortunately they felt it was too random and confusing so I'll have to find other people to play who will spend more time with the rulebook first :oP Played various games of 'Buzz' afterwards (a trivia game on the computer that I now know I'm rubbish at).
I ended up not going to Dungeon during the week due to the ice; made it tricky to get there and I wasn't sure if anyone else would bother for similar reasons. Ophelia_Machina was down on the Saturday though, as was LittleCyberAlex and Bert, so was worth making the effort then. I'd originally planned to get a taxi back with Bert but he disappeared almost as soon as I was through the door at Edge so I ended up staying with Ophelia_Machina at FraggleonSpeed's, which was very cold. Fortunately I had a big coat and gloves and ThePussyKat and LittleCyberAlex's place is just around the corner, so I made it in time to play and win my first ever game of Carcassonne and then Ophelia_Machina arrived to beat us all at her first ever game. I stayed over at LittleCyberAlex's to realise that beginners luck had deserted me and I could no longer win :o/
Lacuna_Raze came to visit on the Tuesday, which was nice. We watched Ricky Gervais' 'The Invention of Lying' during the week. The premise (explained on outset) is that it's a world where no one lies nor knows that it means to tell a falsehood and Ricky Gervais' character learns to lie (and thus everyone believes everything he says). I was a bit worried how much it would turn into a 'male fantasy' film based on trailer, with him misusing his new ability from the outset. Fortunately, it avoids the gross excesses that would have been off-putting if explored. Instead, it attempts to be quite thoughtful and explore the ways in which we can use lies to bring people comfort, create the foundations of friendship and console others about the future. If that sounds cynical then that's quite fair, Gervais' imagining of a world without lies is basically ours but with people being brutally rude to each other all the time; there no radical gain in this world. I guess I have to forgive the fact that it's not a rigorously believable account of the potentially radical ways in which our world might be different without lying given that it's a comedy film and not a philosophical enquiry but the cynicism of what Gervais' paints people as 'being really like' is a bit sad even if things do pull back a bit more as the film goes on.
During the week I caught up with Dollhouse, which I'm really starting to be quite keen on. Does occasionally feel like the flash-forward of last season doesn't sit entirely comfortable with the continued plot lines of this season but is still good stuff. I like how they've managed to be critical of the Dollhouse without resorting to a black-and-white picture and I really like how the characters are being fleshed out.
Went down Dungeon on the Saturday, which was fun as plenty of people made it out. Got a lift back with _phoenixrising so saved myself some cab fare :oD Made an effort to try to get up early the next day for gaming on Sunday and failed but turned out that the time had reverted back to the evening anyway, so was all good. Lost a game of Risk: Godstorm (which LittleCyberAlex seems to quite like, although perhaps only because he won), lost a game of Battle of the Bands (which I must get around to finding a copy of to buy) and lost a game of Carcosonne. Oh well! :oP
Me, Lacuna_Raze, LittleCyberAlex, Thepussykat, Bert, _phoenixrising, nematri and heartsick_666 all went to see Rocky Horror at the Mayflower on Monday, which was lots of fun. I shied away from dressing particularly in theme (I was under the impression no one else I was going with) although I did make a more-than-usual attempt at dressing up to look good anyway. They'd changed a bit more than usual this time, with some of the lines I would have predicted never coming but it worked well. The bed scenes were a lot more explicit and daring than usual I think. The actor for Rocky was very good (I think LittleCyberAlex was particularly impressed in a different way). Normally the character fits the look but doesn't do much to show it but they'd gotten in someone who not only looked the part but was also was managing to do somersaults and flips whilst still managing to perform vocally, was quite impressive.
I had an Interview on Friday morning for the University of Southampton but I don't think it was my best. I'm not giving myself a hard time over it though, I've found that my confidence after leaving an Interview varies a lot, even if it always feels a little awkward and uncomfortable (which I think is natural). Also, how people feel about interviews doesn't seem to have any necessary relation to how well they did, so probably best not to think about too much :oP Still didn't get the job though!
I was hoping to make it up to Possession in Bournemouth later that day but didn't manage to organise transport quickly enough. Next time I might consider going by train. I did go to Industrial Fallout the next day though.
It was the first Industrial Fallout of the year was proceeded by the same dismal advertising as before only with added reason for offence. Last time we we're treated to a 'PROLAPSE HOUR!' and a tagline that read 'DANCE UNTIL YOU PISS BLOOD, POUR IT INTO A PINT GLASS AND DRINK IT' and this time we get '3 WEEKS TO GO UNTIL THE CYBERNETIC HOLOCAUST'S 1ST ANNIVERSARY!!!', because nonsensical comparisons between your event and the slaughter of millions of Jews makes it look cool! :o/ The fact that all the advertisements for the event are completely written in capitals makes it look stupid enough without that sort of rubbish. Then again, this is the same DJ who advertised his last event with a myspace page full of porn.
Still the event was okay. It was a bit crowded inside, which made it a little hard to move around and very hard to hear people and actually socialise but that's mostly the fault of the cold weather making standing outside not much of a viable option. Shame, it will probably get nicer when it gets warmer again. Still a lot nicer than the advertising suggests anyway.
Spent the next day in with Lacuna_Raze watching Doctor Who. Baked her a cake for her birthday on the Monday and went to visit her on the Tuesday at hers where we lazed about all day in bed. Was good :o)
Quite a bit of an empty week after that though, ended up watching through the entirity of the Daria series. I didn't think I'd caught that much of it as a teenager but I'd seen more than I thought, enough to be a little nostalgic about it anyway :o)
I registered with a new agency on Friday morning. They gave me a data input test that involved being given five minutes to type data into a form from a rather intimidating pile of sheets; I barely made a dent in the amount of work they gave me! :oP I finished the test feeling like I must have not done well but I was told that I'd been the quickest of this year afterwards (would mean more if we weren't just finishing our first month but still). They seemed to like my work experience, etc, so they've got me on their list to call as soon as more admin work pops up. :o) The woman interviewing me also gave me some advice on my CV too, which was great :o)
I watched the last episode of Dollhouse on Saturday morning. Really worked out well and a third season would have been brilliant. Once again, I'm left with the feeling that there was more that Whedon wanted to write but got cut off to early (Firefly all over again). Quite annoying. I read that the ratings were very low though, which is a fair enough reason to cancel the show from a corporate standpoint. It seems a shame that commercial merit inevitably trumps artistic merit.
Lacuna_Raze was down London on Saturday to go to Magic Theatre but I'm conserving some of my funds until I get my next job so I was just down Dungeon. Was a shame that a lot of people didn't make it but was okay anyway. Enjoyed Sunday over LittleCyberAlex's playing Settlers of Catan with Bert, Sarah and _phoenixrising although I didn't win :oP I did play through Portal on LittleCyberAlex's computer though :oD
Thoughts: Physical Vs Verbal Abuse
I'm probably retreading a topic I've already written on but I saw a post that reminded me of it.
In it was a poll that asked if 'physical' or 'verbal/mental' abuse is worse. The phrasing alone indicated to me that this person has likely never experienced any sustained physical abuse. I've had this discussion before about school bullying, only that time it was between 'physical abuse' or 'emotional/verbal abuse', which contains the same error.
Framed that way, it sounds like verbal abuse is worse because it has an emotional affect and I do agree that mental scares can be worse than physical ones. However, that entirely ignores the fact that physical abuse can be emotionally traumatic as well. To dismiss physical abuse as just some pain and a few bruises is like dismissing verbal abuse as 'just words'.
When I was at school, I experienced both. Being insulted and ridiculed constantly can be very disheartening and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Still. the upshot for me is that I managed to overcome it and develop a thick skin so that insults mean very little to me now. If someone is verbally abusive to me then it's usually easy for me to dismiss them as an idiot and not care. Getting under my skin has to be more subtle than that now.
Of course, that doesn't help with physical abuse. Someone shouts an insult at me I can just think 'idiot' and dismiss them. Someone throws a punch at me then that's not something I can avoid just by ignoring it.
And let's not be mistaken that being punched is just about the physical act any more than being insulted is about the sound of the word. It's not.
Being physically beaten up is about power and control; it's about them trying to demonstrate that they have the power over you to do what they want and you can't do anything about it. It's about a group of friends deciding to make themselves feel good and have fun by using you for entertainment. It's about them all laughing the next day because you have visible bruises or a black eye. It's about the sense of embarrassment that stays with you that you let other people treat you that way.
It's not about the physical pain so much as it is about feeling helpless. It needn't even involve pain; someone grabbing you, pushing and pulling you or holding you down until submit may not inflict a great deal of pain and may not leave a single bruise but it's still not an emotionally pleasant thing to go through.
I went to an all-boys school and what bullying was about was really hierarchy. Most actual fights happen in the first year, whilst people were still having to 'prove their place' and make people scared of them. Of course, it wouldn't jump straight to fights; they'd start with verbal bullying to see whether that would be enough and if that wasn't enough to break you then that's when the physical stuff comes in.
I once managed to anger another kid at school because he was looking around at people in the room and he looked at me and I looked back rather than dropping my eyes. That's what physical bullying is really about, not the bruises but the attempt to make you live in fear.
For me, it meant learning to walk the line between having pride and avoiding being beaten. There's been a lot of situations where I knew that submitting and giving into fear would probably have been the easiest way to avoid physical pain but where pride had not let me make it that easy because I wasn't prepared to let them win.
I had to think very carefully about whether I wanted to post this. I prefer talking about things in the abstract and this implies more about my personal experience than I'm normally comfortable with. It's not even that I regard myself as having gone through an especially large amount of physical abuse in my life; I'd certainly say that my experiences are mild compared to what some people have had to live through. That being said, the sometimes blase attitude towards physical abuse I sometimes see was enough for me to want to write something at least.
Thoughts: Body Image: Genitalia
I doubt there are many people who read my journal who don't think that western society has some very unhealthy issues with body image. Whilst I suspect some level of awkwardness and insecurity may be natural to anyone young who isn't completely over-filled with ego, I think we can all agree that the way our culture, especially the media, takes advantage of this causes many problems, some of which are life-long (indeed, some of which are fatal).
I was in a discussion on facebook recently about body image issues and how messed up our culture can be sometimes.
The topic varied from body size and shape, through tanning booths and to skin bleaching. We came to the fairly obvious conclusion (that I doubt many people would disagree with) that society would be better off if it was widely acknowledged and accepted that (a) there are multiple ways of being attractive rather than one ideal to live up to and (b) that attraction is personal and subjective, hence there is no perfect form that is attractive to everyone anyway, so variation is a good thing and not something to be ashamed of.
In a later discussion I touched on a different body image issue, that of penis size. The topic was penis size jokes aimed at depictions of ancient Greek male gods. The ancient Greeks didn't have the same ideas about the ideal penis length as we do in contemporary western society; in actual fact, they found the sorts of uncommonly large penis sizes seen commonly in porn today as being a bit comical and a bit too bestial (Pan being one of the few Gods to be depicted this way). This meant that their idea of a flattering depiction of male genitalia looks small by modern standards.
In a similar way, ancient Greek society doesn't have the same body size standards that we've devoloped fairly recently in western culture, hence their depictions of Goddesses are also large compared to what we'd expect in an image of a woman designed to be flattering today. This essentially means that mocking a statue of a Greek God for having a small penis commits the same error as mocking a statue of a Greek Goddess for 'being a bit of a porker'. Both are applying modern 'body fascim' to a culture that had a different set of beauty values.
There are still some differences between beauty norms as they apply to body size and as they apply to penis size however, one issue is that it's not on display like a lot of the other issues. This means that people with penises smaller than the culturally approved standard can't be singled out for personal abuse but also means that it's even easier for unrealistic standards to arise. In a wider sense, this clearly does not apply only to boys, as shown in increasing use of vaginoplasty by women to achieve a 'nicer looking vagina'.
I remember having some interesting discussions on VF a long time ago about penis length. It's not surprising that the self-reporting of males on those forums were so far above average as to be ridiculous but less extreme but still skewed and unrealistic reports came from women talking about their partners. In all cases, the average was significantly above the 6" that seems to be commonly taken as 'a cultural standard'. According to studies, it seems that the average is actually below 6" linky (these studies will likely underestimate the average if anything)
I suspect the reasons why even women overestimate the size of their partners penis is because of a mix of (a) women with partners with a small penis being less likely to post about it and (b) most of them never really having been in a position to get an accurate idea of the size. I guess that if you assume the average is 6" then guesses as to size will likely be relative to that. I also suspect that small differences from the norm are often exaggerated when described in terms of cm.
All of this can presumably only be having a negative effect on young boys (or grown men for that matter) who are insecure about this issue. I also found an interesting article discussing how the idea is actually quite patriarchal as well: linky; basically, the idea that a penis is needed at all, let alone a particularly large one, would seem obviously faulty if we recognise that lesbian sex can be worthwhile and fulfilling.
Yet it's one that feels odd to challenge all the same.
I quite often hear 'fat-shaming' comments and jokes. My exact reaction varies depending on context and my mood, so it generally varies from me being generally unamused to voicing some kind of criticism. I imagine the latter to be very important in challenging fat-phobic attitudes. One advantage of addressing this issue is that whether I fall in the mocked group is evident just by looking at me: I either fall into someone's idea of 'fat' or I don't. If I am outside their notion then I can approach it in a non-personal manner, which is easiest, if not then at least there's no ambiguity.
A man's penis size, however, is likely to be private with only people very close to him being aware of it. Even if he's inclined to brag (which is not only a bit tasteless but also reinforces the problem) there's no way of proving it outside of an intimate situation. This creates the interesting situation of not really ever knowing who in a group that a penis size joke might be insulting. Indeed, especially with younger males, individual males in the group may not be entirely sure whether the joke applies to them or not. The stigma around this issue obviously means that few men are willing to be open about such an issue and I'm sure many might laugh along to preserve face whilst inwardly being hurt and/or worried by such a joke. I can imagine some deliberately telling such jokes as a smokescreen (in a similar manner to closeted gays being homophobic).
The result of such stigma and shame is presumably that most men with small penises feel unable to express offence for fear of revealing something embarrassing. Even people with average or greater than average sized penises who simply find the jokes offensive on more general grounds of principle risk being thought to be part of the shamed group and mocked anyway, which for some may be decentive enough. All of that on top of the normal 'not wanting to cause a fuss' type impulses.
Personally, the idea of staying quiet to avoid potentially being mocked via a prejudice that I don't agree with isn't enough motivation but then I'm a fairly contrary sort anyway; the notion of not putting on make-up or cross-dressing for fear of being mocked has never stopped me either, yet there's clearly a lot of closeted transvestites out there. I wonder how many men are out there who find such jokes hurtful and/or offensive but don't feel comfortable voicing that opinion.
I have, however, experienced that it's hard to argue this case without the assumption being that I'm doing so because I'm insecure about my own genitalia rather than because I genuinely believe it to be a valid argument. Presumably this is similar to how larger people making fat-positive arguments might be assumed to be doing so out of shame rather than genuine conviction. Of course, my penis size is as irrelevant to my argument here as my sexual orientation is when I discuss gay rights. The fact that I criticise homophobic jokes clearly doesn't mean that I am not straight yet that's the assumption. Similarly, it's not always an assumption I feel comfortable challenging. If I preface every discussion of the topic with 'I'm not gay myself but...' it ends up feeling like I'm overly concerned about the supposedly scary potential of being thought to be gay, which would seem to reinforce the problem in the same way as 'I don't have a small penis but...' would. By supplying the information, it also seems to suggest that the validity of my arguments is different depending on whether they apply to me personally; as if being 'fat' makes fat-positive arguments less persuasive or being a woman makes feminist arguments less persuasive.
Presumably, the fact that a person might raise or at least think such a thing just establishes this as being the significant issue I think it is; there's an assumed shame to having a small penis and so much as not denying the possibility is enough to encourage derision.
I wrote about this on facebook as well for anyone who wants to take a look: linky
Thoughts: Prejudice; perpetuating the problem
It's an unfortunate reality that most of the people who fight a particular prejudice are victims of it. The problem is obvious; those who are victims of it are most aware of it and most motivated to do something about it.
For us non-victims, there are a few hurdles that have to be overcome in order to do anything meaningful to help.
First, we have to care.
I'd like to think that wasn't that much of a problem but I guess I'm just too much of a cynic. We've all probably known people who are okay with requesting help for their own problems but not willing to make the effort when it's someone else's. Of course, this is very unfortunate given that it's our own prejudices, rather than other people, that we have the most control over. If we spend all our time challenging other people's prejudices without taking the time to honestly examine our own prejudices then we're simply not putting in the effort that we're calling other people to perform.
Secondly, we have to be aware there is a problem.
Sometimes we become aware by direct observation but more often that's about being prepared to listen. A lot of prejudice happens without our knowledge because we're not part of a victimised group. Even when we hear about it, we can still forget because we're not constantly reminded. A lot of men don't seem to appreciate the sheer amount of harassment women go through in western society for example, and of course they don't, they're not subjected to it. I suspect I'm harassed at least if not more than most men yet when I've been in the situation of directly observing these things then I tend to be very surprised; the desire is to dismiss them as 'one-offs' is strong even when that's clearly not the case.
Then we need to acknowledge our part in the problem.
For people who like to think of themselves as 'good people' this can be hard; we don't want to admit, to others or ourselves, that we are part of the problem. Many of us have been raised to think of prejudice as bad and thus prejudiced people as bad, so we'll go to lengths to disassociate ourselves with the problem. This is probably why 'You're being over-sensitive' or 'You're looking for something to be angry about' are such common responses to people calling out prejudice. No one wants to admit to being part of the problem so it's easier to tell ourselves that it's not us who is wrong, it's those supposed victims.
And it is hard but I think it's necessary. You don't have to proclaim yourself a completely prejudiced person, just acknowledge the effect of living in a prejudiced society and the ways you might contribute to it. I wrote about this more in a previous entry: linky. I'm not comfortable calling myself 'a sexist' for example, but I do think it's important that I'm honest with myself about the ways in which I've internalised sexist culture despite my best intentions.
Ideally, we need to then work to change ourselves, which often will involve trying to not only acknowledge the problem but understand it too. In doing so, we might even unearth other problems we're a part of and get to examining them before going through the awkward process of being called out about them. A lot of this is still not relying on yourself to work out what those problems are but listening to others talk about prejudice and think seriously about how it applies to you. I don't mean to be mindless and accept everything someone complains about in all regards but to listen carefully, always try to be respectful and struggle to be honest with yourself and be open to admitting that they are write and you are the problem, not the people who have complaints.
All this means being open to being called out. It's not always easy, I doubt I've always reacted the best way myself, but it can be done. There have been plenty of times when I've had to fight impulses of either 'that's not true, that's complaining about nothing' or 'I'm not prejudiced, I'm a good person' but it is a necessary struggle if we want to be those good people we claim to be.
Some of my earliest interests in prejudice were regarding the ways in which they affect me; I've been particularly interested in the way gender norms restrict male gender expression for instance because that affects me personally. I've been very interested in class prejudice against working class people, mostly people of my own class status specifically.
And there's nothing wrong with that but if I want my concerns to be taken seriously then I have to take other people's concerns seriously too. It's no good me taking sexism that affects me seriously yet ignoring the multitude of variable ways it affects women. It's no good me complaining about beauty norms not valuing feminine men if I'm not going to take seriously the way that beauty norms affect a wide range of people outside their scope, whether that be me not caring about larger people because I'm about average sized or the way society disparages small-breasted women or below average penis sizes just because I'm comfortable with the way I'm shaped. There's no point me complaining about classism as it affects me without sparing a thought to the way I might be classist against people of a yet lower class status than my own or the ways in which it intersects with racism. Even when a prejudice has no obvious connect with my own, such as disablism, it still seems fair that I should spare a thought for that problem if I expect others to spare a thought for my own.
I don't mean we have to all become super-enlightened beings before it's okay for us to complain or call out prejudice, I'm just saying that if we're going to complain and call out prejudice then we have to offer the same time and respect we want for our complaints to the people who are calling us out for prejudice. Fair is fair.
Thoughts: Are we giving too much money to Haiti?
Someone put a status message remarking that the UK has spent £50 million on relief to Haiti and that this is a very large amount of money for a nation that has it's own problems.
That got me intrigued because it sounds like it may be a case of 'that sounds a very big number so it's an important amount' type thinking that fails to remember that we're talking about spending on a national scale. After all, I've also read that we've spent at least £4.5 -billion- on the Iraq War. Wikipedia tells me we spend about £100 billion on the NHS for England alone, which means we spend 2000 times as much providing free health care for English citizens per year then we've given in this one-off gift to Haiti.
So I thought I'd try doing a bit of maths to work out how much would be the equivalent amount to give to charity on an individual level to match what we've given on a national level. I guessed that it would be equivalent to giving a pound to a homeless person.
Wikipedia suggests that the government takes in about £600 billion a year in tax money, so that's what we've got to spend. £50 million is 0.01 percent of that amount, or one hundredth of one percent of the total amount of tax money the government has to spend.
If we now take an average income of about £20,000 pounds annually, to spend an equivalent amount on charity that person would have to spend £2 on charitable causes.
So I was off slightly. It's not the equivalent of giving a pound to a homeless person... it's giving two pounds...
I double-checked my maths so hopefully that's right... it's a small amount anyway :P In fairness, the numbers I'm using are probably a little off but it shouldn't make a significant difference I think.
Anyone better at this stuff than me want to check whether that's correct or whether I'm just talking nonsense? :oP
Thoughts: Summary of my political positions -
Just a round-up of my political views, turned out longer than I expected
Despite being ethically utilitarian (I believe 'happiness' is the central moral value), I'm politically 'liberal' in that I think 'liberty' is a better founding value for the state. Amongst other reasons, I don't trust the state to decide what is best for our 'happiness' (i.e. 'nanny state' politics). I very strongly believe that the state should not be connected with religious values or values based on people's personal moral systems (including my own).
I'm not 'economically liberal'/libertarian. I think that the state exists to allow us to live, as much as possible, the lives we want to live and that necessarily involves us all giving up the right to abuse whatever power we have access to, whether that be physical power (e.g. bludgeoning someone) or economic power (e.g. abusing the economic pressures on the less fortunate). I believe both a regulated economy and a welfare state can help to increase personal liberty.
I do not consider immigration to be a particularly significant economic problem, if it is one at all. I suspect that the media's attention on immigration, along with welfare cheats etc, is more based in prejudice and scape-goating than any genuine interest in economics.
I do believe in global warming and I think that the state needs to pay attention to the environmental impact of industry. However, I'm generally disappointed by Green parties due to the general anti-science sentiments common in their manifestos. I think any decent solution will likely require the use of advanced science rather than any return to old methods. I suspect that GM crops may be necessary to address world food shortages and nuclear energy may be necessary to avoid the oil crisis.
I'm pro civil rights and think it's important to have a set of fundamental freedoms available to all even if under specific instances it might seem better (in the short-term) to make an exception. I basically don't trust the state to decide when such 'exceptions' should happen. I believe that people should have the right to die and that Euthanasia should be legal. I believe that everyone ought to have the same marital rights, including the right to marry either sex, and I would find it preferable if all legal marriage was referred to as 'civil union' and individuals were allowed to decide what the term 'marriage' meant to them personally.
I am okay with devolution where the local populace prefer it and am in favour of the right to opt for mutually agreed arbitration courts instead of going through the standard courts (all criminal matters must be processed through standard courts as well). I have no objection to arbitration courts that are based around religious principles (such as Islamic Sharia Law Courts or Jewish Beth Din Courts). Obviously I would not approve of such courts becoming non-optional for anyone; no one should be forced to attend such a court against their will.
I believe the state should be bound by law and what powers it has and when it can use them carefully regulated, although I'm less concerned with the states ability to find out things about us (e.g. CCTV cameras and phone tapping) and more concerned about it's ability to control us (e.g. routinely armed police, stop-and-search rights, censorship, etc). On balance, I'm against the death penalty.
I'm not anti-war in principle; I think there are times when war may be justified. I am not convinced that our 'wars on terrorism' are entirely justified, although I think they have had some positive effects (as well as some negative ones). I do not approve at all of the falsehoods and spin that were used to try to justify this war or that it began without wide support from the British public.
I'm a democrat and I believe the UK could do with further democratic reform; I suspect the best step forward would be for the House of Lords to become elected by Proportional Representation and the House of Commons to be elected by Single Transferable Vote (or similar). I'm sympathetic to republican arguments in principle but in practice I am unsure of how much benifet there is to removing the monarchy. I'm vaguely pro-Europe in principle although I acknowledge that there are complexities that I am not intimately familiar with.
I personally have no ethical objection to abortion and think it can be the best and proper choice in certain situations. However, I recognise that other people have different beliefs (typically spiritual) that may lead them to other conclusions. For this reason, I think that the state should defer the decision to pregnant people themselves rather than make that decision for them (no prohibiting abortion, no forcing it).
I'm pro-feminist in that I believe that we (British/Western peoples) live under a culture of sexism that is both outdated and that can be harmful to both sexes, although more so to women. I believe there are both legal and cultural changes that need to happen in order to address this.
I'm personally 'gender-queer' and think that the vast majority, if not all, of what we call 'Gender' (as opposed to 'sex' in the biological sense) is culturally fabricated. Whilst I think it's okay for people to have a gender identity, I don't think people should feel obliged to internalise and live up to the various norms, values and roles that go with particular gender identities.
I'm more sympathetic with pro-sex feminism than anti-porn feminism. I recognise that a lot of the British/Western/global sex trade is extremely troubling and can be very exploitive and I think that needs to change but I do not think it is necessarily or universally true. I think that legalisation and careful regulation of the sex trade is the first step forward in improving conditions for sex workers.
I believe that consent should be essential for legal sexual activity and that severe intoxication removes a person's ability to consent. Anyone proven to be taking advantage of a severely drunk person should be charged with rape. I do not believe that people should touch others without invitation (verbal or non-verbal) and, if done in a sexual manner, I believe this should be prosecuted as sexual assault.
I'm 'politically correct' in that I prefer to try to avoid using offensive language when polite alternatives are available. For instance, I don't use the term 'gay' as an insult, I don't use racial slurs (e.g. N*gger and similar), I don't use sex-negative terms (e.g. slut), I don't like to use gendered insults (bitch and similar) etc. I also do not feel entirely comfortable with disablist insults like 'lame' or 'moronic' but am not so good at avoiding them. Whilst I think it's possible to joke about prejudice, I do not like jokes that are themselves prejudiced or reinforce prejudiced ideas. Two other issues that concern me are transphobia, classism and sizism/'body fascism'.
I believe that western media has had a very unhealthy affect on promoting the idea that there is one ideal form of beauty that everyone must attain. I think it's healthier for people to adopt the view that there are multiple ways to appear beautiful that may be very different from one another. I also think it's best if people recognise that attraction is personal and subjective and that's it's not possible or important to be beautiful to everyone. I don't like it when people that insult or mock people for their appearance, especially about aspects they can't change.
Link: Ariel Burdett on X-Factor
Quite a few people have probably watched Ariel Burdett (real name Amy) on X Factor - linky.
Of course she comes off as extremely obnoxious. I remember cringing when I saw it because it was so awful as well as how bad an impression is probably made about 'alt' peeps to those not familiar with them.
Of course, the question is the same with X-Factor as with all 'reality television' is how real really is it.
So I found her myspace page and it appears that it was indeed entirely fake - linky (listen to the BBC Radio Leeds Interview at the top).
There's also this one that seems to be of a later date after she's more aware of the reaction to her appearance: linky
One of the more interesting things in general is how they select people for the show.
It's tempting to have no sympathy for people because they're so bad and deluded that it feels like someone telling them that they're not good is actually doing them a service.
Of course, the reality is more like a ton of people turn up and all the average ones are turned away with the ones that are either especially good or embarrassingly bad are told that they're through to the judges; basically, they're given false hope before being torn down.
Which, when you look at auditions like this or this, it all seems rather cruel.
Link: Sarah Haskins' commentary on adverts targeted at women - linky
Link: How male gaze silences women - linky
Link: A women's lib view of politics - linky
Link: 'The only moral abortion is my abortion' - linky