Click on their biographies and find out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/
Thursday 22 December 2011
Wednesday 21 December 2011
Which of the Republican candidates is pro-war?
I watched the Republican debate on Fox News last week (on sky here in England). I favour Ron Paul. Not only because he is a traditional liberal. He is the only one who is anti-war and who doesn't think more military action will solve the USA's problems.
Also, I agree with him about sound money and the federal reserve. America is massively in debt and tries to be the world's policeman. All the other candidates are pro-war. Especially Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. I saw Romney being interviewed by Bill O Reilly last week and even he is very pro-war. Why are American men so immature?
I like the idea of this site. Vote for the pro-peace candidate, no matter what your political persuation is : http://republican4aday.com/
Also, I agree with him about sound money and the federal reserve. America is massively in debt and tries to be the world's policeman. All the other candidates are pro-war. Especially Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. I saw Romney being interviewed by Bill O Reilly last week and even he is very pro-war. Why are American men so immature?
I like the idea of this site. Vote for the pro-peace candidate, no matter what your political persuation is : http://republican4aday.com/
Tuesday 13 December 2011
Lynne Featherstone and proposed new domestic violence legislation
Bullying husbands could face court for 'emotional abuse' as domestic violence laws are tightened, Daily Mail, 12th December 2011
If you scroll down, then press view all comments, you will see that this proposed effort is not supported by the majority of intelligent people.
Does an individual decide to vote for a party because it is making efforts to tackle domestic violence? Of course not; most men aren't violent towards women that they love so they would be put off by a party trying to interfere in their private lives; they would prefer it if each couple's problems were sorted out by themselves. A woman is not going to stay in a relationship if she is unhappy. Are women vulnerable in these relationships? Without power? Trapped? No. Why? Because it isn't in the man's interest to live with a woman who hates him. He is not going to get the things he wants and enjoys from a relationship if a woman hates him.
Those women who are blaming men for their unhappiness will obviously support these new proposals. To know that someone in authority is doing something especially for them obviously helps them feel more secure. But is it good for women in the long run to be reliant on the state for their emotional wellbeing? No, because the abstract state is not as good at providing support for women as an actual person that cares about the woman. So she could become used to feeling looked after by the state and not be willing to accept a man that comes into her life who is willing to look after her and provide emotional support to her. If the state keeps telling her that women need the support of the state to live with a man because they are in danger without state support, then she will be unwilling to accept anything good about men. There will always be this tension and anxiety in relationships which will paradoxically lead to more domestic violence, mental abuse and rape.
There should be no domestic violence legislation at all. Let women solve their own problems. The more state help you provide for the woman, the more you dis-empower her and trap her. Why? Because you make her feel like she needs the help of the state to improve her life. Women don't want to leave the partners that hit them and mentally abuse them in most cases; they just want them to stop doing it. These men are only going to stop doing it if you leave the women alone to stand up for themselves. They can only do that if there is not a social pressure created by all this legislation to reach out to someone else at the first sign of trouble. Yet in most cases, they don't want to talk to someone else. So they are basically trapped. That is why if you watch Jeremy Kyle the first question is always - why did you stay with him? 'Because I love him' comes back the response. If you really want to help women, abolish all domestic violence laws in relationships. What you will then find is women standing up for themselves and giving ultimatums. The men will know their boundaries and there will be more happy relationships. Most importantly women will be happier. Of course this will leave people like Lynne Featherstone feeling unneeded, which is why these feminist MP's are constantly trying to do something. Not for women, but for their own emotional wellbeing.
Why don't these MPs ask police officers; they know more than most. Here is what one said on the Daily Mail site in response to this:
If you scroll down, then press view all comments, you will see that this proposed effort is not supported by the majority of intelligent people.
Does an individual decide to vote for a party because it is making efforts to tackle domestic violence? Of course not; most men aren't violent towards women that they love so they would be put off by a party trying to interfere in their private lives; they would prefer it if each couple's problems were sorted out by themselves. A woman is not going to stay in a relationship if she is unhappy. Are women vulnerable in these relationships? Without power? Trapped? No. Why? Because it isn't in the man's interest to live with a woman who hates him. He is not going to get the things he wants and enjoys from a relationship if a woman hates him.
Those women who are blaming men for their unhappiness will obviously support these new proposals. To know that someone in authority is doing something especially for them obviously helps them feel more secure. But is it good for women in the long run to be reliant on the state for their emotional wellbeing? No, because the abstract state is not as good at providing support for women as an actual person that cares about the woman. So she could become used to feeling looked after by the state and not be willing to accept a man that comes into her life who is willing to look after her and provide emotional support to her. If the state keeps telling her that women need the support of the state to live with a man because they are in danger without state support, then she will be unwilling to accept anything good about men. There will always be this tension and anxiety in relationships which will paradoxically lead to more domestic violence, mental abuse and rape.
There should be no domestic violence legislation at all. Let women solve their own problems. The more state help you provide for the woman, the more you dis-empower her and trap her. Why? Because you make her feel like she needs the help of the state to improve her life. Women don't want to leave the partners that hit them and mentally abuse them in most cases; they just want them to stop doing it. These men are only going to stop doing it if you leave the women alone to stand up for themselves. They can only do that if there is not a social pressure created by all this legislation to reach out to someone else at the first sign of trouble. Yet in most cases, they don't want to talk to someone else. So they are basically trapped. That is why if you watch Jeremy Kyle the first question is always - why did you stay with him? 'Because I love him' comes back the response. If you really want to help women, abolish all domestic violence laws in relationships. What you will then find is women standing up for themselves and giving ultimatums. The men will know their boundaries and there will be more happy relationships. Most importantly women will be happier. Of course this will leave people like Lynne Featherstone feeling unneeded, which is why these feminist MP's are constantly trying to do something. Not for women, but for their own emotional wellbeing.
Why don't these MPs ask police officers; they know more than most. Here is what one said on the Daily Mail site in response to this:
I do not welcome state interference in my domestic affairs. And neither does my wife. And I especially don't want my personal relationships scrutinised by psychiatrists. But most of all, I don't want to live in this over-policed country any more.- Martin, Preston, 11/12/2011 13:08Martin, Im a copper and i couldnt agree more, we spend 70% of our time dealing with domestic arguments that the government have dictated require a full crime report even though no crime has been comitted and it not just partners, it ex's aunties uncles brothers sisters and anyone that you deem youve had an intimate relationship with. If this becomes law it will cripple the police overnight. Domestics are a nightmare as it is, no witnesses, both parties telling lies and he said she said. The state cannot be responsible for every facet of our lives.
Saturday 10 December 2011
Why didn't Misha win X Factor?
Was Misha Bryan too black to win The X Factor? Kathryn Knight, Daily Mail, 10th December 2011
I would say that being from Manchester had more to do with it.
People are used to us being unhappy, glum, and therefore inferior on Coronation Street, The Royle Family, Shameless, and various other misery dramas featuring people with accents from Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire. People love that great feeling of superiority when watching Corrie.
They don't like people from inner city Manchester like Misha getting above her station by having effortless talent.
Also, Misha knows this is what people are thinking, so she stops herself from being too expressive, which leads to her not connecting with the audience.
If you contrast her personality with someone like Alexandra Burke, who we saw filling in as a judge for Kelly Rowland one time, you will see they are miles apart. Alexandra is confident, ebullient, articulate and expressive (Judging,Youtube)- the total opposite of Misha who is shy, inexpressive and overly polite (HolyMoly interview, Youtube). Alexandra won the 5th series of the show in 2008.
Misha reminds me of 90's girlband Cleopatra. They are from the same area, Moss Side, and are of the same colour. They also experienced a bit of backlash and a fair amount of ridicule. Basically attempts to knock them back into their place. If they were from Birmingham or anywhere not presented in a negative way on TV, a hostile reception would be less likely. Imagine an all white girl group group from Moss side speaking in the same accent as Brooke Vincent, the actress who plays Rosie Webster in Coronation Street ( Brooke Vincent interview, This Morning. Youtube. ). Can you imagine them being ridiculed or treated in a less hostile way? I can't. Girls like this wouldn't even try because they would know that there would be a hostile reaction. So instead we have middle class girls like Ellie Goulding.
I am reminded of a Jonathan Ross interview in 2004 with Amy Whinehouse where Ross, half way through the interview, decides to put Amy back in her place by calling her common (at 3:29) (Amy whinehouse interview, Youtube.) She puts a brave face on it and smiles, but I bet after the interview she would have thought about that comment and it may have plagued her. For someone who was obviously looking for appreciation and acceptance, that comment must have really stung. You can also see how the audience spontaneously bursts into laughter as if it was something everyone was already thinking.
This snobbishness stems from having a monarchy. The monarchy creates a class system and social hierarchy where you are supposed to accept your station in life. If you don't, you are made fun of as a way of putting you back in your place. Our desire to look down on certain sections of society is illustrated by the massive success of Coronation Street and Eastenders: 4-5 episodes a week, each gaining 8-10 million viewers. The characters are presented as unhappy and perturbed so we can look down on them and feel better about ourselves. Now Corrie is on a commercial channel. Why on earth is the BBC, a public service channel, allowed to screen a programme which negatively affects the self esteem of real life Eastenders? To add insult to injury, these real life London folk are paying to be put down via a licence fee. It also has the effect of depressing the nation and making out that our country is more broken than it is.
I would say that being from Manchester had more to do with it.
People are used to us being unhappy, glum, and therefore inferior on Coronation Street, The Royle Family, Shameless, and various other misery dramas featuring people with accents from Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire. People love that great feeling of superiority when watching Corrie.
They don't like people from inner city Manchester like Misha getting above her station by having effortless talent.
Also, Misha knows this is what people are thinking, so she stops herself from being too expressive, which leads to her not connecting with the audience.
If you contrast her personality with someone like Alexandra Burke, who we saw filling in as a judge for Kelly Rowland one time, you will see they are miles apart. Alexandra is confident, ebullient, articulate and expressive (Judging,Youtube)- the total opposite of Misha who is shy, inexpressive and overly polite (HolyMoly interview, Youtube). Alexandra won the 5th series of the show in 2008.
Misha reminds me of 90's girlband Cleopatra. They are from the same area, Moss Side, and are of the same colour. They also experienced a bit of backlash and a fair amount of ridicule. Basically attempts to knock them back into their place. If they were from Birmingham or anywhere not presented in a negative way on TV, a hostile reception would be less likely. Imagine an all white girl group group from Moss side speaking in the same accent as Brooke Vincent, the actress who plays Rosie Webster in Coronation Street ( Brooke Vincent interview, This Morning. Youtube. ). Can you imagine them being ridiculed or treated in a less hostile way? I can't. Girls like this wouldn't even try because they would know that there would be a hostile reaction. So instead we have middle class girls like Ellie Goulding.
I am reminded of a Jonathan Ross interview in 2004 with Amy Whinehouse where Ross, half way through the interview, decides to put Amy back in her place by calling her common (at 3:29) (Amy whinehouse interview, Youtube.) She puts a brave face on it and smiles, but I bet after the interview she would have thought about that comment and it may have plagued her. For someone who was obviously looking for appreciation and acceptance, that comment must have really stung. You can also see how the audience spontaneously bursts into laughter as if it was something everyone was already thinking.
This snobbishness stems from having a monarchy. The monarchy creates a class system and social hierarchy where you are supposed to accept your station in life. If you don't, you are made fun of as a way of putting you back in your place. Our desire to look down on certain sections of society is illustrated by the massive success of Coronation Street and Eastenders: 4-5 episodes a week, each gaining 8-10 million viewers. The characters are presented as unhappy and perturbed so we can look down on them and feel better about ourselves. Now Corrie is on a commercial channel. Why on earth is the BBC, a public service channel, allowed to screen a programme which negatively affects the self esteem of real life Eastenders? To add insult to injury, these real life London folk are paying to be put down via a licence fee. It also has the effect of depressing the nation and making out that our country is more broken than it is.
Sunday 20 November 2011
Focus should be on home quality as well as quantity
Policy Exchange's Alex Morton rejects claims that building on green belt will lead to undesirable effects such as urban sprawl
Cameron seems to care about happiness, so he should look at the quality of the homes being built rather than just the quality. The type of home you live in - whether it is big enough for a family, whether it has a garden, whether it has green space nearby, whether it is close to a good school, whether it has many social problems - affects happiness more than anything else.
The Royal Institute of British Architects in its excellent 50 page report Case for Space: The size of England's homes. RIBA. Sep 2011 says that we have the smallest, most expensive houses in Europe. A lot of people aren't satisfied.
Housing, in my opinion, was Labour's biggest failure. What needs to be done? Unaffordable housing by Policy Exchange has some great recommendations: Unaffordable Housing: Fables and Myths. Policy Exchange. Hartwich and Evans. 2005.
Also see: Making Housing Affordable: A new vision for housing policy. Policy Exchange. Alex Morton. August 2010.
In regards to flats and attached houses - we must improve sound proofing. Ideally people want detached homes with gardens. We should make sure these are the homes that are being built. If you must build flats and attached homes then they should be built to the highest standards possible - not just high standards but the highest standards possible. My specific concern is with noisy neighbours. The current building standards and regulations aren't strict enough. Andrew Stunell MP doesn't mention anything about sound proofing in flats and attached houses in his December 2010 statement here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/planningandbuilding/buildingregschanges
Is it illiberal to impose the strictest standards possible? No - not if we are looking at it from the point of view of the ordinary individual; the ordinary working class family. If all or most the houses or flats they look at are built to a low standard, they do not have a choice. If we like liberalism because it gives us choice to choose the option for us that will make us most happy, then the strictest standards in sound proofing and in other areas such as insulation are a good thing.
If many generations are going to spend the whole of their lives in the same building, you may as well do it to as high a standard as possible.
Noisy neighbours cause a lot of damage to society. See: http://www.noisyneighboursolutions.co.uk/ -Soundproofing Walls - Guaranteed to Work! Guaranteed for Life! and Noisyneighbours.net Forum
Noise nuisance results in a lot of stress and lead to costs in terms of mental health for the NHS; it also costs the economy because it leads to people not going into work because of stress. This stress can also lead to domestic violence, rape, and unhappy children, which then costs police and the NHS money. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health reports on one legal case: http://www.cieh.org/ehp/ehp3.aspx?id=698
The President of CIEH, Stephen Battersby, also remarks how weak housing regulations are detrimental to health: Better housing would ease the strain on the NHS. Stephen Battersby. Guardian
What about the government's recently announced plans? They want to devote government-owned land towards housebuilding.
Cameron plan to boost housebuilding. Financial Times. Nov 18 2011.
Housing plans include up to 450,000 new homes by 2015. Guardian. 18 Nov, 2011. Patrick Wintour.
Who will build them? Inside Housing. 18th Nov 2011.
As long as it isn't a case of packing as many houses in as possible. That is exactly what we don't want. Remember - actual people have to live there. We should use the recommendations in RIBA's report. There should be some rules as to what type of houses are going to be built.
One thing that would make sorting the housing problem out easier for Mr Cameron, as the Guardian article suggests, is to get a complete register of who owns what land in Britain. Kevin Cahill, author of Who Owns Britain, pointed this out in a recent new Statesman article: The great property swindle. Kevin Cahill. New Statesman.11 March 2011. If you could have a top down view map of the UK that graphically illustrated the housing situation and who owns what, it would be easier for the government to make sure everything is OK.
He should also look to see how you can get more self-builds. This is bound to improve standards of housing as people are going to live there and so will put more care into it. Housing companies are just in it for profit. Communities.gov.uk: Grant Shapps: Government backs self-builders. 3 May 2011.
Making owners of second homes pay full council tax is right. Maybe he should go further. Doubling it for second and multiple homes would make the property market less competitive and discourage people from using houses as an investment; this would bring property prices down to affordable levels so that young people could afford them. Which is surely the aim.
I would use the extra money to pay off the national debt rather than frittering away a few hundred million here and there; his long term aim should be to increase the income tax threshold.
Also - what about a land tax? Just as people pay council tax ever year, why don't huge land owners have to pay? They see their land going up in value every year and they haven't done anything to deserve that windfall. How is it fair that due to our feudal history certain families get all this land and ordinary citizens in 2011 do not? They should have to contribute. A transaction tax won't do it because they won't sell. It must be a yearly thing like council tax. What about farmers? Maybe you could make an exception for farmers.
It seems to me Cameron is moving away from discussing building on green field land. This is a bad thing. See: Is the Green belt sacred? Oliver Marc Hartwich.com, 2008 and Housing sense in short supply, 21 Sep 2011. Oliver Marc Hartwich.com
Cameron seems to care about happiness, so he should look at the quality of the homes being built rather than just the quality. The type of home you live in - whether it is big enough for a family, whether it has a garden, whether it has green space nearby, whether it is close to a good school, whether it has many social problems - affects happiness more than anything else.
The Royal Institute of British Architects in its excellent 50 page report Case for Space: The size of England's homes. RIBA. Sep 2011 says that we have the smallest, most expensive houses in Europe. A lot of people aren't satisfied.
Housing, in my opinion, was Labour's biggest failure. What needs to be done? Unaffordable housing by Policy Exchange has some great recommendations: Unaffordable Housing: Fables and Myths. Policy Exchange. Hartwich and Evans. 2005.
Also see: Making Housing Affordable: A new vision for housing policy. Policy Exchange. Alex Morton. August 2010.
In regards to flats and attached houses - we must improve sound proofing. Ideally people want detached homes with gardens. We should make sure these are the homes that are being built. If you must build flats and attached homes then they should be built to the highest standards possible - not just high standards but the highest standards possible. My specific concern is with noisy neighbours. The current building standards and regulations aren't strict enough. Andrew Stunell MP doesn't mention anything about sound proofing in flats and attached houses in his December 2010 statement here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/planningandbuilding/buildingregschanges
Is it illiberal to impose the strictest standards possible? No - not if we are looking at it from the point of view of the ordinary individual; the ordinary working class family. If all or most the houses or flats they look at are built to a low standard, they do not have a choice. If we like liberalism because it gives us choice to choose the option for us that will make us most happy, then the strictest standards in sound proofing and in other areas such as insulation are a good thing.
If many generations are going to spend the whole of their lives in the same building, you may as well do it to as high a standard as possible.
Noisy neighbours cause a lot of damage to society. See: http://www.noisyneighboursolutions.co.uk/ -Soundproofing Walls - Guaranteed to Work! Guaranteed for Life! and Noisyneighbours.net Forum
Noise nuisance results in a lot of stress and lead to costs in terms of mental health for the NHS; it also costs the economy because it leads to people not going into work because of stress. This stress can also lead to domestic violence, rape, and unhappy children, which then costs police and the NHS money. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health reports on one legal case: http://www.cieh.org/ehp/ehp3.aspx?id=698
The President of CIEH, Stephen Battersby, also remarks how weak housing regulations are detrimental to health: Better housing would ease the strain on the NHS. Stephen Battersby. Guardian
What about the government's recently announced plans? They want to devote government-owned land towards housebuilding.
Cameron plan to boost housebuilding. Financial Times. Nov 18 2011.
Housing plans include up to 450,000 new homes by 2015. Guardian. 18 Nov, 2011. Patrick Wintour.
Who will build them? Inside Housing. 18th Nov 2011.
As long as it isn't a case of packing as many houses in as possible. That is exactly what we don't want. Remember - actual people have to live there. We should use the recommendations in RIBA's report. There should be some rules as to what type of houses are going to be built.
One thing that would make sorting the housing problem out easier for Mr Cameron, as the Guardian article suggests, is to get a complete register of who owns what land in Britain. Kevin Cahill, author of Who Owns Britain, pointed this out in a recent new Statesman article: The great property swindle. Kevin Cahill. New Statesman.11 March 2011. If you could have a top down view map of the UK that graphically illustrated the housing situation and who owns what, it would be easier for the government to make sure everything is OK.
He should also look to see how you can get more self-builds. This is bound to improve standards of housing as people are going to live there and so will put more care into it. Housing companies are just in it for profit. Communities.gov.uk: Grant Shapps: Government backs self-builders. 3 May 2011.
Making owners of second homes pay full council tax is right. Maybe he should go further. Doubling it for second and multiple homes would make the property market less competitive and discourage people from using houses as an investment; this would bring property prices down to affordable levels so that young people could afford them. Which is surely the aim.
I would use the extra money to pay off the national debt rather than frittering away a few hundred million here and there; his long term aim should be to increase the income tax threshold.
Also - what about a land tax? Just as people pay council tax ever year, why don't huge land owners have to pay? They see their land going up in value every year and they haven't done anything to deserve that windfall. How is it fair that due to our feudal history certain families get all this land and ordinary citizens in 2011 do not? They should have to contribute. A transaction tax won't do it because they won't sell. It must be a yearly thing like council tax. What about farmers? Maybe you could make an exception for farmers.
It seems to me Cameron is moving away from discussing building on green field land. This is a bad thing. See: Is the Green belt sacred? Oliver Marc Hartwich.com, 2008 and Housing sense in short supply, 21 Sep 2011. Oliver Marc Hartwich.com
"A total of 90.1 per cent of the English surface area is classified as green space or water. Of the remaining tenth of England, the largest chunk (4.3 per cent) is neither buildings nor roads – but domestic gardens."Building on brownfield land is going to make the place where people live more congested and less pleasant. I would rather brownfield land (previously developed sites) be converted into green space. He should ignore the National Trust and Daily Telegraph. They are not going to vote anyone other than Tory at the next election. Also as a Prime Minister, you should care more about what is right for the country than what is popular. Often the two don't go hand in hand. Often you need to stand up to these people and make your case if you think what you are doing is right. At least they will respect you then and may even come round to your way of thinking. Ignoring them or caving in to them bit by bit is pathetic.
Saturday 19 November 2011
Should we ban smoking in cars?
The ban that was guaranteed to have people fuming. Catherine Bennett. Guardian, 20th November
I actually support this measure.
We need to understand what it is about an authority telling us what to do that makes us unhappy.
There are already restrictions that come to mind about car use, such as having laws against not wearing a seatbelt and driving while eating or on a mobile phone, speed limits, etc.
If we are already in a child like mindset where we do not take responsibility for ourselves, to not ban smoking in cars would perversely have the effect of encouraging people to smoke in the car. It would send an implicit message that the authority figure we tend to look to to tell us what to do actually thinks it is ok.
This is the problem that is created when the government assumes responsibility for individuals.
If we are not to go ahead with banning smoking in cars, we should repeal the ban on wearing a seat belt. It doesn't endanger others and it just encourages people to look to the government instead of taking personal responsibility. By doing that you may create a different mindset in people - one where you don't look to the government to tell you what to do, but think for yourself. This mindset is more likely to be one that concludes that smoking in my car is not good for my children.
If they still choose to smoke, then at least they haven't broken the law and the rest of us don't feel like we have to do something about it. On the other hand it may mean that people feel it is more their responsibility to confront the parent who smokes in the car with children in it, rather than thinking it is the police's responsibility. If this were to be the case then this social pressure would be more effective than having a law which cannot be policed or enforced adequately due to lack of police resources.
I actually support this measure.
We need to understand what it is about an authority telling us what to do that makes us unhappy.
There are already restrictions that come to mind about car use, such as having laws against not wearing a seatbelt and driving while eating or on a mobile phone, speed limits, etc.
If we are already in a child like mindset where we do not take responsibility for ourselves, to not ban smoking in cars would perversely have the effect of encouraging people to smoke in the car. It would send an implicit message that the authority figure we tend to look to to tell us what to do actually thinks it is ok.
This is the problem that is created when the government assumes responsibility for individuals.
If we are not to go ahead with banning smoking in cars, we should repeal the ban on wearing a seat belt. It doesn't endanger others and it just encourages people to look to the government instead of taking personal responsibility. By doing that you may create a different mindset in people - one where you don't look to the government to tell you what to do, but think for yourself. This mindset is more likely to be one that concludes that smoking in my car is not good for my children.
If they still choose to smoke, then at least they haven't broken the law and the rest of us don't feel like we have to do something about it. On the other hand it may mean that people feel it is more their responsibility to confront the parent who smokes in the car with children in it, rather than thinking it is the police's responsibility. If this were to be the case then this social pressure would be more effective than having a law which cannot be policed or enforced adequately due to lack of police resources.
Thursday 10 November 2011
Motivation for feminist blogs and why abusive comments are not a problem
Sady Doyle - abusive comments
There has been a recent effort to highlight the fact that feminists bloggers occasionally get called names and receive threats from commenters on their blogs or articles.
My argument is that deep down these women want the abuse or at the very least don't mind it.
If a female blogger writes a post and nobody responds, would she prefer that to a load of responses along the lines of 'stop whining bitch'?
Think about it.
What usually happens after a blogpost or article on feminism receives abusive comments? Seeing the comments, the feminist blogger lets her feminists buddies know about the horrible abuse she is getting or people see the blogpost themselves. They all come in and support her saying things like 'typical - this is why we need more legislation', 'Ignore the trolls- i loved your post'. This obviously makes the woman feel good as she is sharing the experience of abuse and gaining emotional support from other women. Rather than a specific problem peculiar to that individual woman, the problem now becomes that she is simply a woman. All these other women are now in the same boat as her sharing the problem of being a woman - she is not alone.
She would prefer the abuse to no response at all. Why? Because it legitimises her thesis that men are the cause of her unhappiness.
Do not discount the case that the 'verbal abusers' and 'trolls' can tell that this is an unhappy woman blaming her unhappiness on men and that they are actually verbally abusing her to make her happy. These 'abusers' are probably capable of posting a reasonable response, comprehensively dismantling her argument, but they know that if they did that she would no longer be able to blame men for her unhappiness. Which would make her unhappy. Consequently the sisterhood would break down and she would be alone again faced with a problem peculiar to her and not all women. Given that most men are kind-hearted and do not like women to be unhappy, they do not do this; instead they post ad hominem attacks.
There has been a recent effort to highlight the fact that feminists bloggers occasionally get called names and receive threats from commenters on their blogs or articles.
My argument is that deep down these women want the abuse or at the very least don't mind it.
If a female blogger writes a post and nobody responds, would she prefer that to a load of responses along the lines of 'stop whining bitch'?
Think about it.
What usually happens after a blogpost or article on feminism receives abusive comments? Seeing the comments, the feminist blogger lets her feminists buddies know about the horrible abuse she is getting or people see the blogpost themselves. They all come in and support her saying things like 'typical - this is why we need more legislation', 'Ignore the trolls- i loved your post'. This obviously makes the woman feel good as she is sharing the experience of abuse and gaining emotional support from other women. Rather than a specific problem peculiar to that individual woman, the problem now becomes that she is simply a woman. All these other women are now in the same boat as her sharing the problem of being a woman - she is not alone.
She would prefer the abuse to no response at all. Why? Because it legitimises her thesis that men are the cause of her unhappiness.
Do not discount the case that the 'verbal abusers' and 'trolls' can tell that this is an unhappy woman blaming her unhappiness on men and that they are actually verbally abusing her to make her happy. These 'abusers' are probably capable of posting a reasonable response, comprehensively dismantling her argument, but they know that if they did that she would no longer be able to blame men for her unhappiness. Which would make her unhappy. Consequently the sisterhood would break down and she would be alone again faced with a problem peculiar to her and not all women. Given that most men are kind-hearted and do not like women to be unhappy, they do not do this; instead they post ad hominem attacks.
Friday 4 November 2011
Feminist Bloggers, New Statesman
Helen Lewis Hattersley has wrote an article in the New Statesman about how feminist bloggers get angry responses. Here is my response:
You have discounted the notion that some people like being abused.
If you are an unhappy person and you write an article complaining about something, you are bound to get an angry response because most people think - why are you burdening me with your problem?
Before calling for legislation to regulate the internet, as Cath Elliott suggests, it might be worth asking would there be any negative consequences to this?
For a start, some people like being called names; maybe like is the wrong word - but they at least find it preferable to no response at all -some find a hate-filled response preferable to a positive response; indeed one blogger above found a nasty response amusing.
The point is you cannot regulate how poeple respond to your public appearances or writings. To do so would be to live in a police state.
These people haven't stopped you so far.
Indeed if you are a feminst blogger who enjoys blogging about feminism, have you ever considered that these verbal-attackers are posting nasty responses out of kindness because they think that is what you want? It certainly legitimises a lot of feminist writings. If there hadn't been these verbal attacks, you wouldn't have enjoyed making this blogpost would you Helen?
So, carry on your complaining feminists if it makes you feel better, but please stop before you go about stifling free speech via legislation.
A better step would be to stop worrying about other women , stop depressing people and concentrate on your own life.
Helen Lewis Hattersley has wrote an article in the New Statesman about how feminist bloggers get angry responses. Here is my response:
You have discounted the notion that some people like being abused.
If you are an unhappy person and you write an article complaining about something, you are bound to get an angry response because most people think - why are you burdening me with your problem?
Before calling for legislation to regulate the internet, as Cath Elliott suggests, it might be worth asking would there be any negative consequences to this?
For a start, some people like being called names; maybe like is the wrong word - but they at least find it preferable to no response at all -some find a hate-filled response preferable to a positive response; indeed one blogger above found a nasty response amusing.
The point is you cannot regulate how poeple respond to your public appearances or writings. To do so would be to live in a police state.
These people haven't stopped you so far.
Indeed if you are a feminst blogger who enjoys blogging about feminism, have you ever considered that these verbal-attackers are posting nasty responses out of kindness because they think that is what you want? It certainly legitimises a lot of feminist writings. If there hadn't been these verbal attacks, you wouldn't have enjoyed making this blogpost would you Helen?
So, carry on your complaining feminists if it makes you feel better, but please stop before you go about stifling free speech via legislation.
A better step would be to stop worrying about other women , stop depressing people and concentrate on your own life.
Sunday 23 October 2011
There should be no laws on party funding
Cameron's fury at plan to curb rich backers. Independent. Andrew Grice. Saturday 22 Oct 2011
The Committee on Standards in Public Life are currently holding an inquiry into public finance.
A number of public hearings have taken place across the UK at which the Committee heard from a wide range of witnesses. They can be seen here. I trust the Taxpayers alliance proposals (PDF) to ensure the best deal for the taxpayer.
We shouldn't assume that if we make it easier for progressive partys to get in power that it will result in more happiness for the average person. Often, as in the case of Labour, in means taking more of our liberties away and more tax and spend. As Liberals we should realise that happiness is not dependent on what the government does to us or for us. We make our own happiness. It isn't really dependent on money. Often the impression that government can actually make us happy in itself leads to unhappiness. During Labour's 13 years in power, anti-depressant SSRI drug prescriptions rose to 23 million.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life are currently holding an inquiry into public finance.
Reform Proposals
A £10,000 cap on donations to parties by individuals and organisations.
A range of options for increased taxpayer funding, which could be based on between £1 and £3 for every vote received.
One-off trade union donations subject to the cap, but affiliation fees paid by members treated differently.
Unions would have to make clear members have right to opt out of paying political levy and ensure those doing so pay a lower membership fee; unions could not "over-affiliate" by saying they have more members paying the levy than they do.
A number of public hearings have taken place across the UK at which the Committee heard from a wide range of witnesses. They can be seen here. I trust the Taxpayers alliance proposals (PDF) to ensure the best deal for the taxpayer.
We shouldn't assume that if we make it easier for progressive partys to get in power that it will result in more happiness for the average person. Often, as in the case of Labour, in means taking more of our liberties away and more tax and spend. As Liberals we should realise that happiness is not dependent on what the government does to us or for us. We make our own happiness. It isn't really dependent on money. Often the impression that government can actually make us happy in itself leads to unhappiness. During Labour's 13 years in power, anti-depressant SSRI drug prescriptions rose to 23 million.
Ricky gervais calls people mong
Seems we'll use any word today except a word of kindness. Indepedent. Janet Street-Porter, Sunday 23 Oct 2011
What to make of Ricky Gervais using the word mong in general conversation as an insult?
I think the problem arises when the government tries to legislate for this kind of thing. Once you do that, you almost feel like saying something discriminatory just out of frustration and a 'nobody tells me what to do, I'll show them' attitude. I suspect this is thew case with Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle.
If there were no legislation to rebel against, people wouldn't say the nasty things. They are trying to upset the authority figure telling them what to do, rather than upset Katie Price's son or people with Downs Sydnrome.
If you were to abolish legislation; there would be less people choosing to become offended rather than discussing the issue in a reasonable way. There would also be less fear and anxiety in general conversation. We shouldn't underestimate the damage this fear and anxiety of being punished or sued for saying the wrong thing has on our mental health.
What to make of Ricky Gervais using the word mong in general conversation as an insult?
I think the problem arises when the government tries to legislate for this kind of thing. Once you do that, you almost feel like saying something discriminatory just out of frustration and a 'nobody tells me what to do, I'll show them' attitude. I suspect this is thew case with Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle.
If there were no legislation to rebel against, people wouldn't say the nasty things. They are trying to upset the authority figure telling them what to do, rather than upset Katie Price's son or people with Downs Sydnrome.
If you were to abolish legislation; there would be less people choosing to become offended rather than discussing the issue in a reasonable way. There would also be less fear and anxiety in general conversation. We shouldn't underestimate the damage this fear and anxiety of being punished or sued for saying the wrong thing has on our mental health.
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Government drive to cut obesity
Department calls for action on obesity
Should government be doing anything about obesity? What should it do? In 2007, the Labour government produced Foresight Tackling Obesities: Future Choices Project report (PDF)
Andrew Landsley says:
To me, this seems like a lot of bureaucracy and meddling. It isn't that difficult. There are things I would do.
Make sure there are good houses. The right kind of houses. Detached houses with big gardens. And make sure there are green spaces within a walking distance of every house.
There should be space to grow your own vegetables - which is another reason why new homes need to have large gardens. Making space for allotments will also mean people are more likely to eat healthily.
Make sure the new planning system doesn't lead to building on areas used to exercise, like parks and playing fields.
More time allocated to exercise in schools
More intensive work outs in schools such as long distance running and exercise bikes. Often, a lot of kids just stand about during games and PE.
The knowledge that the government is taking responsibility for your health, is going to lead to unhealthiness. It would be better if the government would be seen to be doing nothing. That way people would take responsibility for their health.
So, abolish Change 4 life. Save the money and plow it into improving sports facilities in schools. Make sure every schools has a playing field next door. Make sure every school has a sports hall filled with exercise equipment so that kids have continuous exercise. You do not need a great design. Just have one design and apply it to all schools. So, a sports hall that has 2 stories. Downstairs, just a regular sports hall. Upstairs it would be filled with gym equipment and workout areas. Intensive prolonged exercise on exercise bikes or doing aerobics will have the weight falling off.
Tennis courts would also be a good addition.
Another thing you could do is to make sure there are more than just 1st and 2nd teams in football, rugby and cricket. Make sure all kids are involved in competitions against other schools by creating 3rd,4th and 5th teams.
I would also make sure every school has cookery on the curriculum. There should facilities in every school to teach cookery.
You may need to create space to accommodate these things. If this means compulsory purchase orders on houses to make way for new buildings I would do it. If these means changing the roads network around the school, I would do it. This may be expensive but if you get the foundations right you will save a lot of money in the future. A lot of schools just don't have good sports facilities nor devote enough time to exercise.
England has one of the highest rates of obesity in Europe, with more than 60% of adults and a third of 10 and 11 year olds overweight or obese. National Child measurement programme
Obesity, which is a major risk factor for diseases such as type 2 diabetes, cancer and heart disease, costs the NHS £5bn each year, and costs the wider economy billions more.
Should government be doing anything about obesity? What should it do? In 2007, the Labour government produced Foresight Tackling Obesities: Future Choices Project report (PDF)
Andrew Landsley says:
The Government is committed to giving a lead inLabour created 'Change for Life' (Change For Life Website ). The new Conservative/Lib Dem government has chosen to continue with this scheme. (Change For Life 3 year marketing strategy (PDF)
our efforts to prevent and reduce excess weight.
We look to the full range of partners at national
and local level to encourage and support
individuals to eat a healthy diet and become
more physically active. And we ask the public
to work with us by taking responsibility for their
own lifestyle choices. See: Healthy Lives, Healthy People. A call to action on obesity in England, 13 October 2011. (PDF)
To me, this seems like a lot of bureaucracy and meddling. It isn't that difficult. There are things I would do.
Make sure there are good houses. The right kind of houses. Detached houses with big gardens. And make sure there are green spaces within a walking distance of every house.
There should be space to grow your own vegetables - which is another reason why new homes need to have large gardens. Making space for allotments will also mean people are more likely to eat healthily.
Make sure the new planning system doesn't lead to building on areas used to exercise, like parks and playing fields.
More time allocated to exercise in schools
More intensive work outs in schools such as long distance running and exercise bikes. Often, a lot of kids just stand about during games and PE.
The knowledge that the government is taking responsibility for your health, is going to lead to unhealthiness. It would be better if the government would be seen to be doing nothing. That way people would take responsibility for their health.
So, abolish Change 4 life. Save the money and plow it into improving sports facilities in schools. Make sure every schools has a playing field next door. Make sure every school has a sports hall filled with exercise equipment so that kids have continuous exercise. You do not need a great design. Just have one design and apply it to all schools. So, a sports hall that has 2 stories. Downstairs, just a regular sports hall. Upstairs it would be filled with gym equipment and workout areas. Intensive prolonged exercise on exercise bikes or doing aerobics will have the weight falling off.
Tennis courts would also be a good addition.
Another thing you could do is to make sure there are more than just 1st and 2nd teams in football, rugby and cricket. Make sure all kids are involved in competitions against other schools by creating 3rd,4th and 5th teams.
I would also make sure every school has cookery on the curriculum. There should facilities in every school to teach cookery.
You may need to create space to accommodate these things. If this means compulsory purchase orders on houses to make way for new buildings I would do it. If these means changing the roads network around the school, I would do it. This may be expensive but if you get the foundations right you will save a lot of money in the future. A lot of schools just don't have good sports facilities nor devote enough time to exercise.
Monday 10 October 2011
The BBC, before Christ, and political correctness
Dr Giles Fraser, a Canon Chancellor at St Pauls Cathedral asks:
When did respect turn into political correctness? Giles Fraser,Guardian,28 Sept 2011
This is in regards to the BBC's decision to replace BC (as in Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domino) with BCE (before common era) and CE (common era).
Giles Fraser seems to like established institutions. He supported the royal wedding in a previous article and now here he has interpreted the outrage at the BBC's decision as an attack on the BBC, not an attack on political correctness. So he seems to be a fan of the BBC.
His most recent article is on liberalism. But how can you be a liberal (meaning "freedom" not "toleration") if you support established institutions like the BBC and the monarchy?
The monarchy takes away our freedom to choose our representative. It creates a social hierarchy based on accent and background that we cannot change. If you are working class you stay working class. It restricts our ability to express emotion particularly, positive emotion, due to social pressure not to get above your station.
As for the BBC; we have to pay the government, whether we like it or not, to watch TV. Very illiberal.
I don't know if Giles is claiming to be a liberal (in the British sense, not the American sense); I just assumed he was since he wrote an article on the subject. But because the monarchy and the BBC has such a profound negative impact on British society, I don't think he can champion liberalism as a concept while being pro-monarchy and pro-BBC.
When did respect turn into political correctness? Giles Fraser,Guardian,28 Sept 2011
This is in regards to the BBC's decision to replace BC (as in Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domino) with BCE (before common era) and CE (common era).
Giles Fraser seems to like established institutions. He supported the royal wedding in a previous article and now here he has interpreted the outrage at the BBC's decision as an attack on the BBC, not an attack on political correctness. So he seems to be a fan of the BBC.
His most recent article is on liberalism. But how can you be a liberal (meaning "freedom" not "toleration") if you support established institutions like the BBC and the monarchy?
The monarchy takes away our freedom to choose our representative. It creates a social hierarchy based on accent and background that we cannot change. If you are working class you stay working class. It restricts our ability to express emotion particularly, positive emotion, due to social pressure not to get above your station.
As for the BBC; we have to pay the government, whether we like it or not, to watch TV. Very illiberal.
I don't know if Giles is claiming to be a liberal (in the British sense, not the American sense); I just assumed he was since he wrote an article on the subject. But because the monarchy and the BBC has such a profound negative impact on British society, I don't think he can champion liberalism as a concept while being pro-monarchy and pro-BBC.
Friday 7 October 2011
Response to Cath Elliott regarding health and safety laws
Cath Eliott disagrees with David Cameron about abolishing Health and safety laws:
Cath Elliott Blog
This is my response to her:
Cath is wrong. Cameron is right. Why do we have to feel like we have to consult the government to know if something is OK? Does that not make people anxious that if they do something wrong then the government will take them away and punish them? Who wants to live under that strain? You want people to live in fear do you? Why do we all have to conform to what a group of (often not very intelligent) people say is right? What happened to personal responsibility? It is far better to live in a society where we forgive people if we think they have done wrong, rather than jumping to punish them.
Cath Elliott Blog
This is my response to her:
Cath is wrong. Cameron is right. Why do we have to feel like we have to consult the government to know if something is OK? Does that not make people anxious that if they do something wrong then the government will take them away and punish them? Who wants to live under that strain? You want people to live in fear do you? Why do we all have to conform to what a group of (often not very intelligent) people say is right? What happened to personal responsibility? It is far better to live in a society where we forgive people if we think they have done wrong, rather than jumping to punish them.
Thursday 6 October 2011
Rape and Johnny Depp
Fox News
Johnny Depp has compared being photographed to being raped, saying “Well, you just feel like you’re being raped somehow. Raped ... It feels like a kind of weird – just weird,”
This has caused an outcry in the USA:
Johnny Depp has compared being photographed to being raped, saying “Well, you just feel like you’re being raped somehow. Raped ... It feels like a kind of weird – just weird,”
This has caused an outcry in the USA:
According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization, Depp ought to know there is a marked distinction between posing for a photographer and being raped.
"While photos may feel at times intrusive, being photographed in no way compares to rape — a violent crime which affects another American every two minutes,” the organization’s spokesperson Katherine Hull told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column on Tuesday. "RAINN welcomes the opportunity to speak with Mr. Depp and educate him about the real life experiences faced by survivors every day, and ways that he can work with RAINN to help."
Wednesday 5 October 2011
Not clear women dislike coalition
Apparently, according to The Guardian, women dislike the coalition more than men. This had led to a consultation of feminist groups who surprise, surprise are complaining that they are being treated badly by the government.
First off, I look at the graph and it isn't obvious that the female vote is falling comparatively worse to males.
Feminist women are looking for special treatment. They want to feel like someone is looking after them. This may make the individual feminist or female Labour politician (or Lynn Featherstone) feel better that they are having their wishes fulfilled, but what is the psychological effect on society? Remember that it is our taxes that are being used for politicians to spend as they wish. It is our freedom to say and do what we want, and social norms, that are being affected by this kind of feminist legislation. They do not have a right to do this in my opinion.
By government taking action in the name of women, it makes men feel like there is a problem and that they are being forced to work harder to cope with this 'women problem'. This causes anxiety and makes them feel they have lost control. It is also at odds with their experience, because they are quite capable of making the women in their lives happier. Women's happiness isn't dependent on money. It is to a large degree dependent on how their man (or significant other) treats them. Women live with men. Women want the men in their lives to be happy too - otherwise women become anxious and unhappy.. Men naturally take care of women. They prefer to be the ones to make the women in their lives feel better, and enjoy doing so. But instead of this happening, we are told from above that 'we have a problem'. But men cannot solve this problem; the government has to solve it. So you are making men feel bad, but are saying there is nothing we can do to solve it. Men just want women to be happy.
Why make men feel like they have a burden on their shoulders? That is not fair.
Also, it isn't ordinary working class women who are calling for special treatment, it is middle class women MP's and women in feminist societies, a lot of whom it seems have a psychological need for emotional support, that are calling for things to be done 'for women' (and not men). Obviously, this feels good for the individual feminist MP to have so much power and to feel like someone is looking out for them and fulfilling their every request, but real working class women aren't benefiting from this. In other words, the feminist MP's and societies are calling for women to become a burden on men. This makes men unhappy. Living with these unhappy men makes ordinary women unhappy. So it may be a surprise to the individual middle class feminist MP, but most working class women don't want you to do anything specifically for them (and not men). Unlike the emotionally needy feminists, most women are naturally quite happy. They have the potential to be happy and independent, or happy and in a relationship.
For most working class men, they prefer seeing a happy woman to an unhappy one. They would go out of their way to make an unhappy woman happy. But of course, because of the feminist legislation, it is socially unacceptable for men to seem nice and do nice things for women. By doing nice things for women you challenge the consensus , laid down by the government, that all men want to rape and beat up women. Which individual man is going to challenge that consensus? It would seem odd. It would cause anxiety that you were going against what society expects of a man. Far easier for men o go along with what the government's low expectations of them. Hence the rise in rape and domestic violence since the introduction of feminist legislation regarding sexual harassment, equality, rape in marriage, and domestic violence.
So, I am against devising policy on the basis of gender.
First off, I look at the graph and it isn't obvious that the female vote is falling comparatively worse to males.
Feminist women are looking for special treatment. They want to feel like someone is looking after them. This may make the individual feminist or female Labour politician (or Lynn Featherstone) feel better that they are having their wishes fulfilled, but what is the psychological effect on society? Remember that it is our taxes that are being used for politicians to spend as they wish. It is our freedom to say and do what we want, and social norms, that are being affected by this kind of feminist legislation. They do not have a right to do this in my opinion.
By government taking action in the name of women, it makes men feel like there is a problem and that they are being forced to work harder to cope with this 'women problem'. This causes anxiety and makes them feel they have lost control. It is also at odds with their experience, because they are quite capable of making the women in their lives happier. Women's happiness isn't dependent on money. It is to a large degree dependent on how their man (or significant other) treats them. Women live with men. Women want the men in their lives to be happy too - otherwise women become anxious and unhappy.. Men naturally take care of women. They prefer to be the ones to make the women in their lives feel better, and enjoy doing so. But instead of this happening, we are told from above that 'we have a problem'. But men cannot solve this problem; the government has to solve it. So you are making men feel bad, but are saying there is nothing we can do to solve it. Men just want women to be happy.
Why make men feel like they have a burden on their shoulders? That is not fair.
Also, it isn't ordinary working class women who are calling for special treatment, it is middle class women MP's and women in feminist societies, a lot of whom it seems have a psychological need for emotional support, that are calling for things to be done 'for women' (and not men). Obviously, this feels good for the individual feminist MP to have so much power and to feel like someone is looking out for them and fulfilling their every request, but real working class women aren't benefiting from this. In other words, the feminist MP's and societies are calling for women to become a burden on men. This makes men unhappy. Living with these unhappy men makes ordinary women unhappy. So it may be a surprise to the individual middle class feminist MP, but most working class women don't want you to do anything specifically for them (and not men). Unlike the emotionally needy feminists, most women are naturally quite happy. They have the potential to be happy and independent, or happy and in a relationship.
For most working class men, they prefer seeing a happy woman to an unhappy one. They would go out of their way to make an unhappy woman happy. But of course, because of the feminist legislation, it is socially unacceptable for men to seem nice and do nice things for women. By doing nice things for women you challenge the consensus , laid down by the government, that all men want to rape and beat up women. Which individual man is going to challenge that consensus? It would seem odd. It would cause anxiety that you were going against what society expects of a man. Far easier for men o go along with what the government's low expectations of them. Hence the rise in rape and domestic violence since the introduction of feminist legislation regarding sexual harassment, equality, rape in marriage, and domestic violence.
So, I am against devising policy on the basis of gender.
Thursday 22 September 2011
Rape Laws, domestic violence laws
Are they a good thing?
Domestic violence laws,rape laws and women's refuges may actually encourage the very thing they are ostensibly guarding against.
Victims campaigners actually encourage victims to be created.
These laws make a woman feel that she cannot help herself but must let the police and other government workers solve her problems. Nearly all women are quite capable of getting their own way with a man.
These laws make women feel like the the government almost wants her to be a victim of men so that government ministers can get the feeling that they are helping women.
If one person in the relationship isn't happy then the other person isn't happy. Very few men would be happy being in a relationship with a woman who hates him.
If you understand the ambiguous word 'Liberal' to mean freedom then surely the Liberal democrat party should be not going down the same route as Harriett Harman and the Labour party.
Domestic violence laws,rape laws and women's refuges may actually encourage the very thing they are ostensibly guarding against.
Victims campaigners actually encourage victims to be created.
These laws make a woman feel that she cannot help herself but must let the police and other government workers solve her problems. Nearly all women are quite capable of getting their own way with a man.
These laws make women feel like the the government almost wants her to be a victim of men so that government ministers can get the feeling that they are helping women.
If one person in the relationship isn't happy then the other person isn't happy. Very few men would be happy being in a relationship with a woman who hates him.
If you understand the ambiguous word 'Liberal' to mean freedom then surely the Liberal democrat party should be not going down the same route as Harriett Harman and the Labour party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)