Check out Ric for posts on Slut-Shaming, Trumplandia, Badass Millennials, Love & Romance, the Hook-Up Culture, Naked Sexting, David Bowie, Nigella Lawson, the Poverty Crisis, Fairy Tale Marriage, Tinder, Fifty Shades of Grey, Greek Feasts & more
Image Flickr Beth Punches
|
Image Flickr Chris Tse
|
Image Flickr Kecko
|
Image Flickr Oliver Teicke
|
 Image Flickr PurpleKiss024
|
Image Flickr Michael Larson
|
We live in challenging times. After the twin shocks of Brexit & Trump are you feeling calm and optimistic about the future or are you worried that this may be just the start of a long and difficult journey?
Western society is facing a future of unprecedented change over a wide range of complex social issues including marriage, relationships, sexuality and gender. A new wave of feminism is making its presence felt and the Millennial generation is bringing new ideas and values. Facebook, Google, Tinder and Twitter are adding to the mix, radically altering the world we thought we knew.
The social revolution that began with the Hippie generation of the 1960s has now entered a new phase that will affect everyone on the planet. RicTheWriter posts on these trending issues that impact you personally and the people around you.
Western society is facing a future of unprecedented change over a wide range of complex social issues including marriage, relationships, sexuality and gender. A new wave of feminism is making its presence felt and the Millennial generation is bringing new ideas and values. Facebook, Google, Tinder and Twitter are adding to the mix, radically altering the world we thought we knew.
The social revolution that began with the Hippie generation of the 1960s has now entered a new phase that will affect everyone on the planet. RicTheWriter posts on these trending issues that impact you personally and the people around you.
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
Onscreen Violence - Dangerous Influence Or Harmless Entertainment?
Read more Image Flickr Maki Maki |
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
Last Fuckable Day
Sexism In Hollywood Read the review and watch the video Image Flickr Maegan Tintari |
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
Love, Romance & The
Wedding March - Do You Have What It Takes ? Read more Image Flickr Muhammed Khan |
Vertical Divider
|
Lisbeth Salander & Star Wars
How The Millennials Survive In A Chaotic World Read more Image Flickr Ronnie Gray |
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
The Myth of the Fairy Tale Marriage
Is It Time For Radical Surgery? Read more Image Flickr Pako Guzman |
Vertical Divider
|
Fifty Shades of Grey -
Will There Be BDSM Dungeons in Every Town? Read More Image Flickr Todd Mecklem |
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
The Democracy Drama
Can A New Generation Get Us Out Of The Quicksand ? Read more Image Flickr Calvin Fleming |
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
|
Vertical Divider
|
Subscribe and receive new articles as they are posted
Furfriend
Tourists, flash bulbs, bamboo smoothies, life's tiring for us pandas
Image Flickr Paul and Cathy
|
Image Flickr Orin Zebest
|
Short bytes of news, views and random musings on some of the funny, sad, challenging and downright scary events that feed into the social revolution currently engulfing humanity on this third rock from the sun we call Planet Earth.
The World Loses Leonard Cohen
“Like a Bird on the Wire”
Leonard Cohen Flies Free
The Canadian singer/songwriter/poet and gentleman, Leonard Cohen, has gone. We knew it was coming, he had recently predicted he wouldn’t be long for this world, and now I’m struggling to sum up what was an incredible life. By all the normal rules Leonard should have been six feet under or at least totally brain dead long ago. Read his biography and you get a harrowing picture of emotional trauma and anguish self-medicated with endless sessions of drugs and alcohol to soften the pain. A rebel who scandalised proper Montreal society with his radical views and his hedonistic lifestyle, a tortured soul who nevertheless produced a stream of incomparable songs, covered by many other artists, and some lyrical poetry.
The Leonard Cohen we saw in his last years was quite different to that earlier persona. When he emerged after five years in a Buddhist monastery and embarked on a series of world tours which ran from 2008 – 2013 what we all witnessed was a totally changed man, serene, humble and self-deprecating, a charmer who captivated audiences with his quiet presence. Not with his voice of course, that hoarse, cracked delivery that threatened to fracture the song at every turn yet somehow conveyed the spirit of who he was and fitted with the sheer heart-wrenching impact of his lyrics.
The messages, emotions and insights conveyed by his songs were deep and powerful but for all that he was the message, an inspiration in this mad, chaotic world of ours. He touched a part of the human soul that yearns for an end to hate and discrimination, that hopes for a softer, kinder way of living. On a planet which has largely turned its back on religion he was for many people the essence of true spirituality. There’s a tightness in my throat and a heavy sadness in my heart as I think of his passing. Leonard, you’ll be sorely missed.
Image Flickr Vectorportal
Leonard Cohen Flies Free
The Canadian singer/songwriter/poet and gentleman, Leonard Cohen, has gone. We knew it was coming, he had recently predicted he wouldn’t be long for this world, and now I’m struggling to sum up what was an incredible life. By all the normal rules Leonard should have been six feet under or at least totally brain dead long ago. Read his biography and you get a harrowing picture of emotional trauma and anguish self-medicated with endless sessions of drugs and alcohol to soften the pain. A rebel who scandalised proper Montreal society with his radical views and his hedonistic lifestyle, a tortured soul who nevertheless produced a stream of incomparable songs, covered by many other artists, and some lyrical poetry.
The Leonard Cohen we saw in his last years was quite different to that earlier persona. When he emerged after five years in a Buddhist monastery and embarked on a series of world tours which ran from 2008 – 2013 what we all witnessed was a totally changed man, serene, humble and self-deprecating, a charmer who captivated audiences with his quiet presence. Not with his voice of course, that hoarse, cracked delivery that threatened to fracture the song at every turn yet somehow conveyed the spirit of who he was and fitted with the sheer heart-wrenching impact of his lyrics.
The messages, emotions and insights conveyed by his songs were deep and powerful but for all that he was the message, an inspiration in this mad, chaotic world of ours. He touched a part of the human soul that yearns for an end to hate and discrimination, that hopes for a softer, kinder way of living. On a planet which has largely turned its back on religion he was for many people the essence of true spirituality. There’s a tightness in my throat and a heavy sadness in my heart as I think of his passing. Leonard, you’ll be sorely missed.
Image Flickr Vectorportal
Bob Dylan And That Nobel Prize
The decision to award the 2016 Nobel Prize for Literature to Bob Dylan has produced an emotional response with reactions ranging from outrage to a standing ovation. Here are some typical comments:
Delight The author Salman Rushdie, himself a candidate for the 2016 award – “His words have been an inspiration to me ever since I first heard a Dylan album at school and I am delighted by his Nobel win.”
Sarcastic Rage Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting – “This is an ill-conceived nostalgia award wrenched from the rancid prostates of senile, gibbering hippies”. OMG
Ironic Applause The English novelist Will Self – “It cheapens Dylan to be associated at all with a prize more often awarded to a Buggins whose turn it is than to a world-class creative artist.”
So can his vast output of songs over more than 50 years really be called literature? The debate will go on forever. He may claim to be “just a song and dance man” but personally I agree with the writer who hailed him as one of the greatest poets America has ever produced. His protest songs inspired a generation and his lyrics continue to have a major influence on people around the world. The Times They Are A-Changin’ and literature too has to move with the times.
Image Flickr Passej
Delight The author Salman Rushdie, himself a candidate for the 2016 award – “His words have been an inspiration to me ever since I first heard a Dylan album at school and I am delighted by his Nobel win.”
Sarcastic Rage Irvine Welsh, the author of Trainspotting – “This is an ill-conceived nostalgia award wrenched from the rancid prostates of senile, gibbering hippies”. OMG
Ironic Applause The English novelist Will Self – “It cheapens Dylan to be associated at all with a prize more often awarded to a Buggins whose turn it is than to a world-class creative artist.”
So can his vast output of songs over more than 50 years really be called literature? The debate will go on forever. He may claim to be “just a song and dance man” but personally I agree with the writer who hailed him as one of the greatest poets America has ever produced. His protest songs inspired a generation and his lyrics continue to have a major influence on people around the world. The Times They Are A-Changin’ and literature too has to move with the times.
Image Flickr Passej
Greek Logic - When Wall Street Met Mykonos
Fishing boat on Mykonos
A boat docked on the Greek island of Mykonos. A tourist complimented the local fishermen on the quality of their fish and asked how long it took them to catch the fish.
“Not very long,” they answered in unison.
"Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" The fishermen explained that their small catches were sufficient to meet their needs and those of their families.
"But what do you do with the rest of your time?"
"We sleep late, fish a little, play with our children and take siestas with our wives. In the afternoons we have a snack at the beach or go into the village to see our friends at the Kafenio, have a few drinks and play tavli. In the evenings we go to a tavern, play the bouzouki and sing a few songs, maybe break a plate or two. We have a full life."
The tourist interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you. You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue you can buy a bigger boat."
"And after that?"
"With the extra money the larger boat will bring you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers. Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Athens or even London. From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."
"How long would that take?"
"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the tourist.
"And after that?"
"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the tourist, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"
"Millions? Really? And after that?"
"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."
"With all due respect that's exactly what we’re doing now. So what's the point wasting twenty five years?" asked the Greek fishermen.
And the moral of this story is: Know where you're going in life. You may already be there!
Lyntaki
Last Fuckable Day - Skewering Sexism in Hollywood
Marilyn Monroe
Hollywood is well known for its sexist attitudes but I’ve never seen its prejudice against women skewered so beautifully as it is in this hilarious video clip featuring Amy Schumer, Tina Fey, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Patricia Arquette. Last Fuckable Day is a classic that highlights the issue of aging and the way women are treated by an industry that believes they become sexless at 55 – or usually even earlier. Now I know it uses the f......... word frequently which may offend some people but this is a video raising a serious issue that deserves to go viral.
The worst example I’ve seen of this type of sexism is the 1995 film Grumpier Old Men which featured Jack Lemmon (70) married to Ann-Margret (54), the token female providing the love interest. The mismatch is heightened even further by the fact that Lemmon is a tired, crotchety old dude with very little to recommend him, particularly to a gorgeous looking Ann-Margret. Do you think there was any possibility the director would have considered casting them in reverse ages – the woman 16 years older than the man? No chance.
How is an industry that has a major influence on western society allowed to get away with such a blatant display of sexism? Good question. Is it just reflecting a commonly held view or has it actually created this attitude? I think the answer is a bit of both although Hollywood has always been a very male-dominated environment where women have traditionally been seen as weak and subservient. Tales of male directors demanding sex from women actors in return for a favourable casting are a dime a dozen in this town.
The video is a classic piece of acting from four very accomplished comediennes. Watch for the flaming arrow scene at the end. This is comedy at its best – very understated but packing a killer punch.
The worst example I’ve seen of this type of sexism is the 1995 film Grumpier Old Men which featured Jack Lemmon (70) married to Ann-Margret (54), the token female providing the love interest. The mismatch is heightened even further by the fact that Lemmon is a tired, crotchety old dude with very little to recommend him, particularly to a gorgeous looking Ann-Margret. Do you think there was any possibility the director would have considered casting them in reverse ages – the woman 16 years older than the man? No chance.
How is an industry that has a major influence on western society allowed to get away with such a blatant display of sexism? Good question. Is it just reflecting a commonly held view or has it actually created this attitude? I think the answer is a bit of both although Hollywood has always been a very male-dominated environment where women have traditionally been seen as weak and subservient. Tales of male directors demanding sex from women actors in return for a favourable casting are a dime a dozen in this town.
The video is a classic piece of acting from four very accomplished comediennes. Watch for the flaming arrow scene at the end. This is comedy at its best – very understated but packing a killer punch.
Sign up to the mailing list to receive new posts to the RicTheWriter site direct to your Inbox
|
|
The following websites are recommended as quality
sources of news, opinion & social commentary
sources of news, opinion & social commentary
Social Commentary
Villainesse New Zealand
The brainchild of New Zealand classical singer, Elizabeth Marvelly, now reincarnated as pop singer Lizzie Marvelly, this site is a mecca for issues that matter to women of the Millennial generation. Villainesse has also launched a global campaign "My Body My Terms" intended to spark conversation about sexual violence, victim-blaming, revenge porn & consent
Take me there
The brainchild of New Zealand classical singer, Elizabeth Marvelly, now reincarnated as pop singer Lizzie Marvelly, this site is a mecca for issues that matter to women of the Millennial generation. Villainesse has also launched a global campaign "My Body My Terms" intended to spark conversation about sexual violence, victim-blaming, revenge porn & consent
Take me there
Opinion
George Monbiot UK
George is a columnist for the Guardian & one of the true characters of UK journalism, covering mainly politics and the environment. His critical & sometimes savage condemnations of the political & aristocratic establishment are always well thought out & expose some of the critical but often ignored issues now facing our planet.
Take me there
George is a columnist for the Guardian & one of the true characters of UK journalism, covering mainly politics and the environment. His critical & sometimes savage condemnations of the political & aristocratic establishment are always well thought out & expose some of the critical but often ignored issues now facing our planet.
Take me there
News Commentary
|
The Guardian UK
Unashamedly left wing but without the usual baggage this site is a good source of British news and commentary. Funded by a trust that operates independently of the website this is one of those rare news site not dependent on advertising revenue and able to avoid some of the pressures of corporate journalism. Take me there The Atlantic US With the polarisation of the American media its almost impossible to find an online news site these days that doesn't have a liberal bias (left wing) or a conservative bias (right wing) but this site often has interesting and reasonably balanced posts on a wide range of subjects. Take me there Werewolf New Zealand Yes I know, Werewolf !! but ignore the weird name. This is a mainstream news commentary website and worth checking for Gordon Campbell’s insightful posts on the New Zealand scene. Take me there |
|
Any article on this site carrying a RicTheWriter or Lyntaki byline may be republished provided it is reproduced in full without editing or other changes and has a link to the RicTheWriter website.
RicTheWriter or Lyntaki must be credited as the source of the article. Other articles may be republished only with the consent of the original author. We would appreciate receiving email notification at the time an article is republished.
Slut-shaming Part 1
The Rise Of The Rebel Girrl
There has been a major change happening in Girl-land in recent years that can’t be linked to the new wave of feminism or any form of organised protest. This has been more of a spontaneous explosion, minor eruptions occurring around the world but more particularly in the US, as young women/girls (YWGs) challenge the double standard applied to male and female sexuality.
Their beef is very simple and hard to argue against. A man who has a lot of sex and fancies himself as a stud is “just doing what men do” so why is a YWG who has multiple partners or openly flaunts her sexuality branded a slut. It seems an open-and-shut case of blatant discrimination. Yet the attitude is so entrenched in western culture that many women fling the slut word at each other just as freely as their male counterparts. For a YWG to be openly sexual is to have ended up in the gutter.
In the past this criticism has always been out there but largely unrecorded. Now, with this new wave of female rebellion, the ‘s’ word is suddenly getting wide exposure as YWGs attack this out-dated attitude and men attempt to defend themselves. Leading the charge have been women like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton who have built their reputations on public displays of sexuality. Amy Schumer has taken the assault to another level using comedy to highlight the issue and paid the price. Follow this link to “The Slut-shaming was Off the Charts” and read the post and the comments and you’ll get some idea of the firestorm she unleashed.
Movies like Bridesmaids have added further fuel to the fire, pushing the view that women should have the same rights as men to behave outrageously. In the process they’re giving the “s” word a whole new meaning. In the same way that the term “queer” was turned around by the gay community and changed from an abusive insult into a term of pride, YWGs are taking this term of abuse and turning it on its head.
The fight for equality is not without its risks. While YWGs are being encouraged to be more openly sexual, when they do so the response from both sexes can be both unexpected and savagely vindictive. Slut-shaming tactics can range from people they thought of as friends spreading ugly rumours and shutting them out of social activities to abusive texts and nasty messages on Facebook.
YWGs who have pushed the boundaries by posting sexually explicit pictures on hidden Instagram accounts or sending naked selfies to boys may find themselves under cyber-attack when they fall out with someone and their supposedly private pics are posted on slut-shaming sites. When an impressionable young teenager gets messages like “Disgusting”, “What a slut” and “Go kill yourself” from people she thought were her friends it can seem as if her whole world has come crashing down on her.
Reactions to this wall of abuse from some YWG’s, particularly those with low self esteem, may range from intense shame and self-harming behaviour to severe depression and even suicide. For others, those with the rebel girrl gene, the response can be quite different – a defiant “I’m proud of my body” attitude, a demand that other people mind their own business, a staunch, confident rebuff that says “I’m not going to be intimidated”.
Right now, if this Mashable story is any indication, rebel girrls are on the march and the revolt seems unlikely to end any time soon. And why should it? The belief that regardless of what a man may do a woman should always be pure and chaste, is a relic from Victorian England that should never have survived into the 21st Century.
Their beef is very simple and hard to argue against. A man who has a lot of sex and fancies himself as a stud is “just doing what men do” so why is a YWG who has multiple partners or openly flaunts her sexuality branded a slut. It seems an open-and-shut case of blatant discrimination. Yet the attitude is so entrenched in western culture that many women fling the slut word at each other just as freely as their male counterparts. For a YWG to be openly sexual is to have ended up in the gutter.
In the past this criticism has always been out there but largely unrecorded. Now, with this new wave of female rebellion, the ‘s’ word is suddenly getting wide exposure as YWGs attack this out-dated attitude and men attempt to defend themselves. Leading the charge have been women like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton who have built their reputations on public displays of sexuality. Amy Schumer has taken the assault to another level using comedy to highlight the issue and paid the price. Follow this link to “The Slut-shaming was Off the Charts” and read the post and the comments and you’ll get some idea of the firestorm she unleashed.
Movies like Bridesmaids have added further fuel to the fire, pushing the view that women should have the same rights as men to behave outrageously. In the process they’re giving the “s” word a whole new meaning. In the same way that the term “queer” was turned around by the gay community and changed from an abusive insult into a term of pride, YWGs are taking this term of abuse and turning it on its head.
The fight for equality is not without its risks. While YWGs are being encouraged to be more openly sexual, when they do so the response from both sexes can be both unexpected and savagely vindictive. Slut-shaming tactics can range from people they thought of as friends spreading ugly rumours and shutting them out of social activities to abusive texts and nasty messages on Facebook.
YWGs who have pushed the boundaries by posting sexually explicit pictures on hidden Instagram accounts or sending naked selfies to boys may find themselves under cyber-attack when they fall out with someone and their supposedly private pics are posted on slut-shaming sites. When an impressionable young teenager gets messages like “Disgusting”, “What a slut” and “Go kill yourself” from people she thought were her friends it can seem as if her whole world has come crashing down on her.
Reactions to this wall of abuse from some YWG’s, particularly those with low self esteem, may range from intense shame and self-harming behaviour to severe depression and even suicide. For others, those with the rebel girrl gene, the response can be quite different – a defiant “I’m proud of my body” attitude, a demand that other people mind their own business, a staunch, confident rebuff that says “I’m not going to be intimidated”.
Right now, if this Mashable story is any indication, rebel girrls are on the march and the revolt seems unlikely to end any time soon. And why should it? The belief that regardless of what a man may do a woman should always be pure and chaste, is a relic from Victorian England that should never have survived into the 21st Century.
Slut-shaming Part 2
The Male Fight-back
From their angry reactions to female rebels like Amy Schumer there seems little doubt that some men feel threatened by women’s criticism of the current sexual culture. Check out this YouTube video and the sexist comments below it and you’ll get an idea of the male outrage that she triggers. This hostile reaction is often put down to misogyny (contempt for or prejudice against women) but fear of losing control is really at the heart of this attitude. The extreme nature of some of the comments suggests that these men have a real fear of losing their dominant position in the sexual hierarchy. Assertive women who push the boundaries are seen by the male ego as a dangerous threat, to be scorned and ridiculed as an example to any other would be rebels.
Any woman identifying as a feminist seems to come in for particularly hostile criticism. Here are some typical comments in response to an article by Lizzie Marvelly, an outspoken New Zealand feminist, criticising the sexist slant of the TV show, The Bachelor.
“Well, if it wasn't for a man you wouldn't be here.”
“Feminist torture themselves. As a man, I find few things more torturous than reading something a feminist wrote.”
“Men can hire everything these women bring to the table, and not have the nagging and drama or other annoying foibles one puts up with in relationships, because men’s risk of being bankrupt, and homeless is now totally in her power.” OMG! Really?
“Its not equality you want for women. Its control. No one forced these girls to take part.”
“Men are fighting back, its called MGTOW on YouTube, or Men Going Their Own Way.”
I had never heard of Men Going Their Own Way before I started doing research for this post but it seems its a movement started by men to express their opposition to a wide range of “negative trends” in society with feminism and women’s demands for equal rights the main targets. It’s a classy looking website with some very professional looking videos but not highly recommended unless you want to hook in to some very bizarre rants and whines - everything from how to deal with scheming and manipulative women to a video clip claiming to show that feminism has left male sexuality in crisis. You can check out the site at this link.
In all this male backlash there is very little attempt to address the issue of slut-shaming directly, probably because its so hard to argue that women should not have the same sexual freedom as men. Instead the debate is diverted to focus on the supposed risk that acceptance of a woman’s right to openly display her sexuality would pose to society. Sexualised women, by this they mean sluts, threaten the breakdown of the nuclear family, the destruction of civilised society and the collapse of the male patriarchy. Women are naturally promiscuous and their sexual desires should be kept under strict control (the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden argument). Allowing greater freedom to women has led to the feminisation of western men and a disastrous fall in the birth rate. These are all raised as legitimate arguments for putting women back in their place (in the home, under male control, raising children, staying pure and chaste) and perpetuating the slut shaming culture.
Why do some men feel so threatened by the movement towards equality? Apart from the feminist onslaught they can see that the statistics are not on their side. Marriage is no longer the solid institution it once was as divorce rates in many countries continue to trend around 50% and the Millennials show little interest and experiment with dangerous alternatives. This article from Rolling Stone provides some interesting insights into the sexual habits of young Millennials.
In a strange way the continuing existence of the slut gives these men some sort of comfort that they can hold the barricades separating this dangerous breed of women from the pure, chaste variety. Then at least they can tell friend from foe. Their nightmare would be if the barricades crumbled and all women charged into the slut camp creating a united front against them.
Any woman identifying as a feminist seems to come in for particularly hostile criticism. Here are some typical comments in response to an article by Lizzie Marvelly, an outspoken New Zealand feminist, criticising the sexist slant of the TV show, The Bachelor.
“Well, if it wasn't for a man you wouldn't be here.”
“Feminist torture themselves. As a man, I find few things more torturous than reading something a feminist wrote.”
“Men can hire everything these women bring to the table, and not have the nagging and drama or other annoying foibles one puts up with in relationships, because men’s risk of being bankrupt, and homeless is now totally in her power.” OMG! Really?
“Its not equality you want for women. Its control. No one forced these girls to take part.”
“Men are fighting back, its called MGTOW on YouTube, or Men Going Their Own Way.”
I had never heard of Men Going Their Own Way before I started doing research for this post but it seems its a movement started by men to express their opposition to a wide range of “negative trends” in society with feminism and women’s demands for equal rights the main targets. It’s a classy looking website with some very professional looking videos but not highly recommended unless you want to hook in to some very bizarre rants and whines - everything from how to deal with scheming and manipulative women to a video clip claiming to show that feminism has left male sexuality in crisis. You can check out the site at this link.
In all this male backlash there is very little attempt to address the issue of slut-shaming directly, probably because its so hard to argue that women should not have the same sexual freedom as men. Instead the debate is diverted to focus on the supposed risk that acceptance of a woman’s right to openly display her sexuality would pose to society. Sexualised women, by this they mean sluts, threaten the breakdown of the nuclear family, the destruction of civilised society and the collapse of the male patriarchy. Women are naturally promiscuous and their sexual desires should be kept under strict control (the Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden argument). Allowing greater freedom to women has led to the feminisation of western men and a disastrous fall in the birth rate. These are all raised as legitimate arguments for putting women back in their place (in the home, under male control, raising children, staying pure and chaste) and perpetuating the slut shaming culture.
Why do some men feel so threatened by the movement towards equality? Apart from the feminist onslaught they can see that the statistics are not on their side. Marriage is no longer the solid institution it once was as divorce rates in many countries continue to trend around 50% and the Millennials show little interest and experiment with dangerous alternatives. This article from Rolling Stone provides some interesting insights into the sexual habits of young Millennials.
In a strange way the continuing existence of the slut gives these men some sort of comfort that they can hold the barricades separating this dangerous breed of women from the pure, chaste variety. Then at least they can tell friend from foe. Their nightmare would be if the barricades crumbled and all women charged into the slut camp creating a united front against them.
Trumplandia
Watch For Piranhas
And Don't Panic
This is not about politics. Recently I decided there were enough people writing online about politics to scare the hell out of a school of piranhas. They were all in a state of panic (the journos not the Piranhas) and none of them had a clue what was going on so why add to the noise. So I deleted my blog and with it all my political posts. I can’t promise I will never use the “T” word again but I can assure you that if I do it will only be a passing reference to a temporary phenomenon.
We know (or most of us do) that the next few years are going to be tough and it has become very clear that the panic approach to the new regime in Washington is not going to help anyone. Nor can we rely on the opposition in the US Congress to help us out. They are too busy blaming everyone but themselves to be of any help. The two main agents of opposition to the new rulers of the universe, potentially, are going to be the media and you and me (the power of public protest). How will we react to the challenge?
The media contribution is crucial. The experience in other countries where governments have taken a hostile approach to the press has been that very few media owners are prepared to stand up and be counted. Big media is a corporate animal and corporates, with their eye on the bottom line, are very unwilling to risk taking on such a powerful adversary. Already there are signs that powerful media owners are lining up behind the new administration. Rupert Murdoch, whose companies own Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, has now indicated his support after being initially hostile. This is Murdoch’s usual style. He only supports winners and despite his age he still has enormous influence on the media.
We will have to wait and see how the others react. There are many ways to put pressure on the media – leaning on companies to withdraw advertising, limiting their access to news releases, banning them from press conferences, stacking news conferences with administration supporters, labelling reporting of events as lies and distortion. These are early days yet but the initial media reaction to the use of some of these tactics has not been very encouraging. Clearly it is time to move out of panic mode. Journalists will need to adopt new and innovative approaches to news collection and coverage of events if they wish to survive in the new environment.
Citizen protest is the other crucial element in this equation. With the women’s march on Washington and other marches in support around the world we have seen how people can be mobilised on these issues. However that protest will have to be determined and relentless if it wishes to have any chance of success. The Occupy movement showed how difficult it is to sustain public protest when the forces of authority have been mobilised against you. Already the police have signalled their intention to take a hard line against both the public and journalists whom they suspect of being involved in illegal protest action. Just being in the vicinity of a protest may be enough to trigger an arrest.
With the mainstream press showing early signs of surrender, alternative news sites may have an important role to play. Buzzfeed has stuck its neck out by publishing a story alleging Russian interference in the American election and the online group Avaaz, which promotes global activism, has signalled it will not be taking a backward step either. The latest Avaaz campaign supports the creation of a coalition of American cities, states and businesses to collectively meet the US climate target set at the Paris conference and bypass the new administration’s anti-climate change policy. This is a site with 44 million members in 194 countries that has obtained over a million signatures so far in support of its campaign and its influence should not be under-estimated.
So the forces on each side of the battle are mobilising as we all watch to see how this will pan out. It seems ironic that the phrase that comes to mind at this moment is that Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times”. Because right now the Chinese political bosses must be sitting back and watching the chaos and mayhem of these “interesting times” with wide smiles on their faces.
We know (or most of us do) that the next few years are going to be tough and it has become very clear that the panic approach to the new regime in Washington is not going to help anyone. Nor can we rely on the opposition in the US Congress to help us out. They are too busy blaming everyone but themselves to be of any help. The two main agents of opposition to the new rulers of the universe, potentially, are going to be the media and you and me (the power of public protest). How will we react to the challenge?
The media contribution is crucial. The experience in other countries where governments have taken a hostile approach to the press has been that very few media owners are prepared to stand up and be counted. Big media is a corporate animal and corporates, with their eye on the bottom line, are very unwilling to risk taking on such a powerful adversary. Already there are signs that powerful media owners are lining up behind the new administration. Rupert Murdoch, whose companies own Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, has now indicated his support after being initially hostile. This is Murdoch’s usual style. He only supports winners and despite his age he still has enormous influence on the media.
We will have to wait and see how the others react. There are many ways to put pressure on the media – leaning on companies to withdraw advertising, limiting their access to news releases, banning them from press conferences, stacking news conferences with administration supporters, labelling reporting of events as lies and distortion. These are early days yet but the initial media reaction to the use of some of these tactics has not been very encouraging. Clearly it is time to move out of panic mode. Journalists will need to adopt new and innovative approaches to news collection and coverage of events if they wish to survive in the new environment.
Citizen protest is the other crucial element in this equation. With the women’s march on Washington and other marches in support around the world we have seen how people can be mobilised on these issues. However that protest will have to be determined and relentless if it wishes to have any chance of success. The Occupy movement showed how difficult it is to sustain public protest when the forces of authority have been mobilised against you. Already the police have signalled their intention to take a hard line against both the public and journalists whom they suspect of being involved in illegal protest action. Just being in the vicinity of a protest may be enough to trigger an arrest.
With the mainstream press showing early signs of surrender, alternative news sites may have an important role to play. Buzzfeed has stuck its neck out by publishing a story alleging Russian interference in the American election and the online group Avaaz, which promotes global activism, has signalled it will not be taking a backward step either. The latest Avaaz campaign supports the creation of a coalition of American cities, states and businesses to collectively meet the US climate target set at the Paris conference and bypass the new administration’s anti-climate change policy. This is a site with 44 million members in 194 countries that has obtained over a million signatures so far in support of its campaign and its influence should not be under-estimated.
So the forces on each side of the battle are mobilising as we all watch to see how this will pan out. It seems ironic that the phrase that comes to mind at this moment is that Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times”. Because right now the Chinese political bosses must be sitting back and watching the chaos and mayhem of these “interesting times” with wide smiles on their faces.
Stop Violence Against Women And The Donald Trump Trainwreck
Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come (actually a quote from Victor Hugo) and the idea that male violence against women has to stop is having its time right now. Where once women would have stayed quiet in the face of sexual assaults and violent behaviour by men they are now prepared to stand up and speak out about the treatment they have received. The allegations of groping against Donald Trump by multiple women are just the latest in a stream of complaints from women around the world about similar behaviour from men. Before that we had the public airing of the victim statement written by the woman involved in the Stanford dumpster rape case and the widespread public revulsion at the sentence handed out to the offender.
In Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan women risk assault and even death if they speak out about male violence or challenge sexual norms. Once that was a powerful deterrent but now even the risk of death is not enough to deter some women. People around the world were horrified when a Pakistani man killed his sister, known online as Qandeel Baloch, in an honour killing because “she had brought dishonour to his family”. Her crime – she had dared to build a high media profile posting provocative selfies and videos and describing herself as a women’s rights activist. Her death will likely encourage other women to follow suit rather than deterring them after the government, under mounting pressure to tackle a pattern of crime that claims around 1,000 lives a year, announced that it would introduce legislation aimed at deterring honour killings and rape.
Some behaviour, like honour killing, can become so ingrained in a culture that even women defend or at least condone the behaviour. That has certainly been the pattern with male groping in Western culture. Even in the face of mounting sexual complaints against Trump and the video in which he openly boasts about his behaviour, women who are traditional Republican voters refuse to address the issue and some still continue to wave Women for Trump banners. The allegations against Donald Trump are unproven at this stage but there is no sign of these women jumping to his defence. Their silence has been deafening and it sends a clear message that acceptance of male sexual misbehaviour is deeply ingrained in American society.
For thousands of years all the world’s main religions have made male domination over women one of the central pillars of their belief system. That includes Christianity which is a core part of the value system of many Republican voters. To reject Trump now would be to challenge one of their key values and question the status of their male partners and husbands. When forced to choose they would rather bury their heads in the sand than take a stand in support of their fellow women.
Of course this attitude is not confined to the United States. In most Western countries there is still a strong but totally outdated attitude among many conservatives that a woman who is groped, sexually abused or raped must have been asking for it. Any woman who is drunk deserves what she gets. The “she asked for it” argument is still routinely raised by lawyers in rape cases as if it were a complete defence to a violent and traumatising act.
Only generational change can crack and ultimately smash the cultural concrete that holds these grotesque values in place. We are beginning to see that change now with the rise of the Millennials and the emergence of a different set of values. Campaigns like #StopViolenceAgainstWomen are raising public awareness of the issue and as the Millennials come of age and take positions of influence in society momentum for change will increase. It will take time but one day, like slavery and the denial of voting rights to women, male violence against women will be just a footnote in history. In the meantime the Donald Trump trainwreck rolls on.
In Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan women risk assault and even death if they speak out about male violence or challenge sexual norms. Once that was a powerful deterrent but now even the risk of death is not enough to deter some women. People around the world were horrified when a Pakistani man killed his sister, known online as Qandeel Baloch, in an honour killing because “she had brought dishonour to his family”. Her crime – she had dared to build a high media profile posting provocative selfies and videos and describing herself as a women’s rights activist. Her death will likely encourage other women to follow suit rather than deterring them after the government, under mounting pressure to tackle a pattern of crime that claims around 1,000 lives a year, announced that it would introduce legislation aimed at deterring honour killings and rape.
Some behaviour, like honour killing, can become so ingrained in a culture that even women defend or at least condone the behaviour. That has certainly been the pattern with male groping in Western culture. Even in the face of mounting sexual complaints against Trump and the video in which he openly boasts about his behaviour, women who are traditional Republican voters refuse to address the issue and some still continue to wave Women for Trump banners. The allegations against Donald Trump are unproven at this stage but there is no sign of these women jumping to his defence. Their silence has been deafening and it sends a clear message that acceptance of male sexual misbehaviour is deeply ingrained in American society.
For thousands of years all the world’s main religions have made male domination over women one of the central pillars of their belief system. That includes Christianity which is a core part of the value system of many Republican voters. To reject Trump now would be to challenge one of their key values and question the status of their male partners and husbands. When forced to choose they would rather bury their heads in the sand than take a stand in support of their fellow women.
Of course this attitude is not confined to the United States. In most Western countries there is still a strong but totally outdated attitude among many conservatives that a woman who is groped, sexually abused or raped must have been asking for it. Any woman who is drunk deserves what she gets. The “she asked for it” argument is still routinely raised by lawyers in rape cases as if it were a complete defence to a violent and traumatising act.
Only generational change can crack and ultimately smash the cultural concrete that holds these grotesque values in place. We are beginning to see that change now with the rise of the Millennials and the emergence of a different set of values. Campaigns like #StopViolenceAgainstWomen are raising public awareness of the issue and as the Millennials come of age and take positions of influence in society momentum for change will increase. It will take time but one day, like slavery and the denial of voting rights to women, male violence against women will be just a footnote in history. In the meantime the Donald Trump trainwreck rolls on.
The YOLO Generation - Are They Really Such Badasses ?
Of all the acronyms that people use in their online tweets or when they’re texting - LOL, ROTFL, WTF and all the rest – my favourite is YOLO or “You Only Live Once”. I’m a fan not because I’ve ever tweeted YOLO but because I think it sums up so beautifully the attitude of the emerging Millennial generation to the insane world in which they find themselves. The other reason why I fave YOLO is because of the outraged reaction of my generation, the Boomers, to this attempted trashing of some of their most sacred values.
Confused? Let me explain. Since it was popularised in the 2011 song “The Motto” by the rap singer Drake and its use spread like wildfire around the world YOLO has been soundly condemned by the establishment as “focussed on brash decisions and their consequences” (the Washington Post) and “mainly used to defend doing something ranging from mild to extreme stupidity” (by the Huffington Post). This outrage has focussed on incidents where young people have definitely been acting recklessly. The most infamous is a tweet from aspiring rapper Ervin McKinness, just minutes before he died in a fiery car crash that killed himself and four others, that described driving drunk at 120 mph - "Drunk going 120 drifting corners #FuckIt YOLO.”
But in all that outpouring of sarcasm and anger at the scandalous behaviour of the younger generation no one seems to have come close to explaining why the “you only live once” philosophy caught on so quickly and why its use spread around the globe. After all this is not a new saying. The eighteenth century German philosopher, Goethe, used the phrase “one only lives once in the world” in one of his plays and “carpe diem” meaning “seize the day” goes back to Roman times. Why does it resonate so strongly with the Millennials?
The usual reaction of the Boomers has been that these words are a call to live life to the full which has been subverted to justify a selfish, reckless risk taken without any regard to the long term consequences. YOLO should be used as advice to take life seriously not to act irresponsibly. But does that show any real understanding of what the Millennials are on about? I don’t think so.
Take a good look at our world through the eyes of a teenager or twenty something growing up in todays workaholic, materialistic and increasingly bizarre culture and you might begin to understand their issues. This is what awaits them:
Student loans that may burden careers for decades
Houses priced out of reach of new entrants to the housing market
The 1% super rich having virtually all the wealth
The rise of the precariat and many young people entering the job market having to work for peanuts at McDonalds or Walmart
New entrants to the professions having to work impossible hours under enormous stress – junior doctors and young lawyers are only two examples.
The total failure of governments to rein in the finance and banking industry and the stench of corruption and greed that surrounds it
Donald Trump, Silvio Berlusconi, Sepp Blatter and FIFA, revelations of widespread sexual abuse in religious organisations
War in Syria and the destruction of Aleppo while the international community stands by apparently powerless to prevent the carnage.
Is this a planet with a long term future or would it be better to live for today and to hell with the consequences because tomorrow this whole crazy fantasy could explode in our faces and the world could be in flames?
Finally just to give a whole new twist to the debate here’s a quote from the ultimate wildman of YOLO, Hunter S Thompson.
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, Wow! What a Ride!
Confused? Let me explain. Since it was popularised in the 2011 song “The Motto” by the rap singer Drake and its use spread like wildfire around the world YOLO has been soundly condemned by the establishment as “focussed on brash decisions and their consequences” (the Washington Post) and “mainly used to defend doing something ranging from mild to extreme stupidity” (by the Huffington Post). This outrage has focussed on incidents where young people have definitely been acting recklessly. The most infamous is a tweet from aspiring rapper Ervin McKinness, just minutes before he died in a fiery car crash that killed himself and four others, that described driving drunk at 120 mph - "Drunk going 120 drifting corners #FuckIt YOLO.”
But in all that outpouring of sarcasm and anger at the scandalous behaviour of the younger generation no one seems to have come close to explaining why the “you only live once” philosophy caught on so quickly and why its use spread around the globe. After all this is not a new saying. The eighteenth century German philosopher, Goethe, used the phrase “one only lives once in the world” in one of his plays and “carpe diem” meaning “seize the day” goes back to Roman times. Why does it resonate so strongly with the Millennials?
The usual reaction of the Boomers has been that these words are a call to live life to the full which has been subverted to justify a selfish, reckless risk taken without any regard to the long term consequences. YOLO should be used as advice to take life seriously not to act irresponsibly. But does that show any real understanding of what the Millennials are on about? I don’t think so.
Take a good look at our world through the eyes of a teenager or twenty something growing up in todays workaholic, materialistic and increasingly bizarre culture and you might begin to understand their issues. This is what awaits them:
Student loans that may burden careers for decades
Houses priced out of reach of new entrants to the housing market
The 1% super rich having virtually all the wealth
The rise of the precariat and many young people entering the job market having to work for peanuts at McDonalds or Walmart
New entrants to the professions having to work impossible hours under enormous stress – junior doctors and young lawyers are only two examples.
The total failure of governments to rein in the finance and banking industry and the stench of corruption and greed that surrounds it
Donald Trump, Silvio Berlusconi, Sepp Blatter and FIFA, revelations of widespread sexual abuse in religious organisations
War in Syria and the destruction of Aleppo while the international community stands by apparently powerless to prevent the carnage.
Is this a planet with a long term future or would it be better to live for today and to hell with the consequences because tomorrow this whole crazy fantasy could explode in our faces and the world could be in flames?
Finally just to give a whole new twist to the debate here’s a quote from the ultimate wildman of YOLO, Hunter S Thompson.
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, Wow! What a Ride!
Onscreen Violence - Dangerous Influence Or Harmless Entertainment?
We live in a chaotic and dangerous world where death and violence are reported on a regular basis – suicide bombings, political assassinations, honour killings, civil war, police shootings, terrorist massacres. And then as if we can’t get enough of violence in our news bulletins and online news services we watch television programmes, movies and videos drenched with death and mindless mayhem.
As each new violent programme debuts and each new killing grabs the headlines I struggle more and more to understand how people cannot see a connection between these two events. Why do so many of us fail to make the connection that a society that regards murder, death and violence as entertainment simply fuels the fire of more war, terrorism and death in real life. Some people do make the connection – here are two links to posts on the Guardian and Villainesse websites that are worth reading on this subject. But these are the exception.
Okay, I know what critics of this point of view will say. That’s there’s no connection whatever between violence in real life and violence on our screens and they’ll point to scientific research as proof of this. They’ll point to numerous scientific surveys and research projects which apparently prove conclusively that people who watch The Hunger Games, Vikings or Game of Thrones are not going to go out and kill, rape or maim someone.
Frankly its bullshit. I don’t care how much scientific research there is, this is not a subject that science should be blundering into. The history of science contains many examples of surveys and research projects that come out with results that contradict or conflict with one another. Scientists make bold and confident assertions based on these results – then they change their minds. For years it was fat that was the chief cause of obesity and heart disease. Then, sorry we got that wrong. Now its sugar that’s the problem. Yet we ignore these inconsistencies.
I’m sick of hearing yet another scientific report that claims to conclusively prove that some food or drink is linked to cancer. Processed meat, farmed salmon, canned tomatoes, potato chips, smoked food, white flour, refined sugar, soft drinks. The list goes on and on and seems to get longer with every passing week.
The latest of course is alcohol. We’ve been told that alcohol is the cause of seven forms of cancer, even when consumed in low to moderate amounts. The study notes that this conclusion has been reached “without complete knowledge of biological mechanisms of how alcohol causes cancer” but that doesn’t matter apparently.
When science claims to be able to prove what happens in our minds I become even more sceptical. Most scientists will admit that they understand only a tiny part of our brain function and large parts of the human brain are simply unknown territory.
The other thing that makes me sceptical is their blindness when it comes to the power of positive and negative thinkingand its influence over our minds. We live in a world where successful businessmen and entrepreneurs are admired for their risk taking, their self-confidence and their positive approach to life. Names like Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come to mind. (I’ll leave “The Donald” out of this discussion.) Positive thinking is widely regarded as a quality which leads to success in life in our modern world.
So what about negative thinking. If we are surrounded by negative images, images of violence, death and destruction, wouldn’t that lead to negative thinking and more violence, death and destruction. The epidemic of depression and mental illness in western countries, frequently linked to crimes of murder and violent behaviour, certainly supports that argument. If you look at our world I think the evidence is all around us. We don’t need some scientific survey to tell us what is right in front of our eyes.
As each new violent programme debuts and each new killing grabs the headlines I struggle more and more to understand how people cannot see a connection between these two events. Why do so many of us fail to make the connection that a society that regards murder, death and violence as entertainment simply fuels the fire of more war, terrorism and death in real life. Some people do make the connection – here are two links to posts on the Guardian and Villainesse websites that are worth reading on this subject. But these are the exception.
Okay, I know what critics of this point of view will say. That’s there’s no connection whatever between violence in real life and violence on our screens and they’ll point to scientific research as proof of this. They’ll point to numerous scientific surveys and research projects which apparently prove conclusively that people who watch The Hunger Games, Vikings or Game of Thrones are not going to go out and kill, rape or maim someone.
Frankly its bullshit. I don’t care how much scientific research there is, this is not a subject that science should be blundering into. The history of science contains many examples of surveys and research projects that come out with results that contradict or conflict with one another. Scientists make bold and confident assertions based on these results – then they change their minds. For years it was fat that was the chief cause of obesity and heart disease. Then, sorry we got that wrong. Now its sugar that’s the problem. Yet we ignore these inconsistencies.
I’m sick of hearing yet another scientific report that claims to conclusively prove that some food or drink is linked to cancer. Processed meat, farmed salmon, canned tomatoes, potato chips, smoked food, white flour, refined sugar, soft drinks. The list goes on and on and seems to get longer with every passing week.
The latest of course is alcohol. We’ve been told that alcohol is the cause of seven forms of cancer, even when consumed in low to moderate amounts. The study notes that this conclusion has been reached “without complete knowledge of biological mechanisms of how alcohol causes cancer” but that doesn’t matter apparently.
When science claims to be able to prove what happens in our minds I become even more sceptical. Most scientists will admit that they understand only a tiny part of our brain function and large parts of the human brain are simply unknown territory.
The other thing that makes me sceptical is their blindness when it comes to the power of positive and negative thinkingand its influence over our minds. We live in a world where successful businessmen and entrepreneurs are admired for their risk taking, their self-confidence and their positive approach to life. Names like Richard Branson, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come to mind. (I’ll leave “The Donald” out of this discussion.) Positive thinking is widely regarded as a quality which leads to success in life in our modern world.
So what about negative thinking. If we are surrounded by negative images, images of violence, death and destruction, wouldn’t that lead to negative thinking and more violence, death and destruction. The epidemic of depression and mental illness in western countries, frequently linked to crimes of murder and violent behaviour, certainly supports that argument. If you look at our world I think the evidence is all around us. We don’t need some scientific survey to tell us what is right in front of our eyes.
Can Romance Survive In The Age Of Tinder
One of the most baffling features of the social revolution now engulfing us is the number of different trends that have emerged. In some cases they appear to be taking us in totally opposite directions making it very difficult to understand what is really happening. Take love and romance and the human need for companionship and sexual relationship .
On the one hand there is our obsession with romance which can be most clearly seen in the continuing popularity of the romantic novel. In 2013 total sales of romance novels in the United States were valued at $1.1 billion – that’s roughly 20% of all adult fiction. The stats show that around 46% of romance readers read at least one book a week. By comparison the typical American reads five books a year. A 2014 Nielsen survey indicated that 44% of the romance readers were aged between 18-44 which suggests that the fascination with romance is likely to be a continuing trend.
Then on the small screen you can watch the Bachelor, now in its 20th season in the US. In Australia the show is into its 4th season after achieving its highest ratings ever for the 3rd season. In New Zealand the just-finished 2nd season of The Bachelor ended with a surprise twist that generated enormous interest on social media and had the mainstream media scrambling to satisfy public hunger for all the juicy details.
On the other hand there are some major trends that could seemingly spell doom for romance and undying love. The last few years have seen the rise of a new wave of young feminists for whom shows like The Bachelor are a vomit-inducing fiasco, about as far from reality as the plot of a Mills & Boon novel. Another threat to romance has been the rise of Tinder and the emergence of a hook-up culture where men often view collecting match-ups as a sport in which sex is the only prize. Check out this link to Vanity Fair for an eye-opening insight into what is unfolding right now in The Big Apple.There’s also the vast assortment of online porn which anyone can now access in a few clicks and is about as far from romance as you can possibly get.
How do we make sense of all this chaos. It seems unlikely that romance plots will disappear any time soon. The search for a mate is hard-wired into most of us and the pull exerted by the romance industry is still irresistible to many. What we do seem to be getting is a trend towards more realism in romantic writing. The fairy tale ending may still be there but the traumas that come with all that relating and hooking up are more in evidence.
Movies like Trainwreck and Bridesmaids have highlighted the female angst, jealousy and bad behaviour that often accompany our mating and marriage rituals and the growing popularity of erotic romance is further eroding the myth of the prince riding in on his white horse to claim his virgin bride. Feminist writers like Caitlin Moran in Britain, Lena Dunham in the US, Clementine Ford in Australia and Lizzie Marvelly in New Zealand are gradually forcing greater recognition of the sexism that underlies the traditional romantic storyline. Many of our sexual prejudices are under serious challenge including the weird belief that men who get a lot of sex are studs while women who do the same are sluts.
So change is coming but don’t hold your breath. The romantic fairy tale storyline has been around for centuries. It may take a few more years yet before it finally self destructs.
On the one hand there is our obsession with romance which can be most clearly seen in the continuing popularity of the romantic novel. In 2013 total sales of romance novels in the United States were valued at $1.1 billion – that’s roughly 20% of all adult fiction. The stats show that around 46% of romance readers read at least one book a week. By comparison the typical American reads five books a year. A 2014 Nielsen survey indicated that 44% of the romance readers were aged between 18-44 which suggests that the fascination with romance is likely to be a continuing trend.
Then on the small screen you can watch the Bachelor, now in its 20th season in the US. In Australia the show is into its 4th season after achieving its highest ratings ever for the 3rd season. In New Zealand the just-finished 2nd season of The Bachelor ended with a surprise twist that generated enormous interest on social media and had the mainstream media scrambling to satisfy public hunger for all the juicy details.
On the other hand there are some major trends that could seemingly spell doom for romance and undying love. The last few years have seen the rise of a new wave of young feminists for whom shows like The Bachelor are a vomit-inducing fiasco, about as far from reality as the plot of a Mills & Boon novel. Another threat to romance has been the rise of Tinder and the emergence of a hook-up culture where men often view collecting match-ups as a sport in which sex is the only prize. Check out this link to Vanity Fair for an eye-opening insight into what is unfolding right now in The Big Apple.There’s also the vast assortment of online porn which anyone can now access in a few clicks and is about as far from romance as you can possibly get.
How do we make sense of all this chaos. It seems unlikely that romance plots will disappear any time soon. The search for a mate is hard-wired into most of us and the pull exerted by the romance industry is still irresistible to many. What we do seem to be getting is a trend towards more realism in romantic writing. The fairy tale ending may still be there but the traumas that come with all that relating and hooking up are more in evidence.
Movies like Trainwreck and Bridesmaids have highlighted the female angst, jealousy and bad behaviour that often accompany our mating and marriage rituals and the growing popularity of erotic romance is further eroding the myth of the prince riding in on his white horse to claim his virgin bride. Feminist writers like Caitlin Moran in Britain, Lena Dunham in the US, Clementine Ford in Australia and Lizzie Marvelly in New Zealand are gradually forcing greater recognition of the sexism that underlies the traditional romantic storyline. Many of our sexual prejudices are under serious challenge including the weird belief that men who get a lot of sex are studs while women who do the same are sluts.
So change is coming but don’t hold your breath. The romantic fairy tale storyline has been around for centuries. It may take a few more years yet before it finally self destructs.
The Millennials Are Under Attack - Spiderman To The Rescue?
Isn’t it strange how the millennials have become a favourite target of journalists and media commentators who have somehow decided that this generation is the most spoilt and over-indulged in human history. The attack continues with the Alexis Bloomer video clip.
You may have seen the clip from this young Texan millennial that apologises for the faults of her generation and then tells them its time they dropped their sense of entitlement, learned a little respect and came to grips with the real world. The video looks suspiciously like a put-up job, repeating almost word for word the standard complaints against millennials that frequently appear in our media.
What is presented as a completely unrehearsed cry from the heart filmed in her parked car appears more like a carefully staged media drama, just perfect for viral consumption. The fact that she is described as a TV and radio journalist only increases suspicions. Whatever the motive the clip has been a promotional dream for the anti-millennials, attracting more than 40 million views in a few days and featuring prominently on Fox News.
Of course the millennials have a sense of entitlement. After all that’s the way their parents, Gen X, brought them up and in the process created a huge burden of expectation. The millennials were the most pampered, sheltered generation ever. Children’s pushchairs, those tiny kiddie carriers that the Boomers favoured, morphed into huge Victorian-type invalid wheelchairs that Gen X favoured to protect their offspring. Out there (anywhere outside the house) became too dangerous for kids to venture out so they had to be car shuttled to and from school by their anxious parents.
Discipline, for the middle class and above, became a dangerous area to negotiate. Not surprisingly Gen X parents reacted against the physical discipline of their Boomer parents but then went to the other extreme, often being afraid to raise their voices against their wayward offspring. Tantrums in the supermarket became prolonged dramas that they and the other customers just had to suffer through.
But that doesn’t make the millennials the sullen, whining brats they’re painted as. Sure some of them have stayed stuck in that mode as they’ve grown older but many of them, probably the majority, have come to grips with this new world and are making their mark in unexpected and innovative ways. The current scenario reminds me of the 1950s when the children of the wartime generation, the Boomers, began to break loose and Elvis Presley and James Dean launched themselves on an unsuspecting public. Completely different to the millennials in some ways but the mood of YOLO was very similar and the media outrage sounds strangely familiar.
In 2016 we live in a world saturated with many entitlement myths that are currently being challenged. The myth that men are entitled to have voracious sexual appetites but not women, the myth that the 1% are entitled to keep their billions in tax havens while poverty and inequality explode, the myth that home owners and investors are entitled to make huge capital gains at the expense of young buyers just entering the property market. The millennial entitlement story is just one more myth that needs to be busted. Spiderman where are you?
You may have seen the clip from this young Texan millennial that apologises for the faults of her generation and then tells them its time they dropped their sense of entitlement, learned a little respect and came to grips with the real world. The video looks suspiciously like a put-up job, repeating almost word for word the standard complaints against millennials that frequently appear in our media.
What is presented as a completely unrehearsed cry from the heart filmed in her parked car appears more like a carefully staged media drama, just perfect for viral consumption. The fact that she is described as a TV and radio journalist only increases suspicions. Whatever the motive the clip has been a promotional dream for the anti-millennials, attracting more than 40 million views in a few days and featuring prominently on Fox News.
Of course the millennials have a sense of entitlement. After all that’s the way their parents, Gen X, brought them up and in the process created a huge burden of expectation. The millennials were the most pampered, sheltered generation ever. Children’s pushchairs, those tiny kiddie carriers that the Boomers favoured, morphed into huge Victorian-type invalid wheelchairs that Gen X favoured to protect their offspring. Out there (anywhere outside the house) became too dangerous for kids to venture out so they had to be car shuttled to and from school by their anxious parents.
Discipline, for the middle class and above, became a dangerous area to negotiate. Not surprisingly Gen X parents reacted against the physical discipline of their Boomer parents but then went to the other extreme, often being afraid to raise their voices against their wayward offspring. Tantrums in the supermarket became prolonged dramas that they and the other customers just had to suffer through.
But that doesn’t make the millennials the sullen, whining brats they’re painted as. Sure some of them have stayed stuck in that mode as they’ve grown older but many of them, probably the majority, have come to grips with this new world and are making their mark in unexpected and innovative ways. The current scenario reminds me of the 1950s when the children of the wartime generation, the Boomers, began to break loose and Elvis Presley and James Dean launched themselves on an unsuspecting public. Completely different to the millennials in some ways but the mood of YOLO was very similar and the media outrage sounds strangely familiar.
In 2016 we live in a world saturated with many entitlement myths that are currently being challenged. The myth that men are entitled to have voracious sexual appetites but not women, the myth that the 1% are entitled to keep their billions in tax havens while poverty and inequality explode, the myth that home owners and investors are entitled to make huge capital gains at the expense of young buyers just entering the property market. The millennial entitlement story is just one more myth that needs to be busted. Spiderman where are you?
Sugar v Fat - How Science Got It Wrong
The revelation that sugar and not fat is the major cause of heart disease has come as a surprise to many people. How did science get it so wrong? This post is a follow on from an earlier post I did on Nigella Lawson and our strange love/hate affair with food which looks briefly at this issue. See my post Sensuality and the Domestic Goddess.
One of the things I try to do with my posts is to go back decades or even centuries to put an issue in its full perspective rather than just focussing on the present moment. In the Fat v Sugar debate we first have to go back to the seventeenth century and look at the way in which science has displaced religion as the dominant driver in our lives. Up to that time the church was the dominant institution in society, sometimes more powerful than the kings of the day and far more powerful than governments of those times. Religion dominated everyone’s thinking.
Then as scientific knowledge increased our basic belief systems gradually began to change. First there was Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity followed by Charles Darwin and his writings on evolution followed by Albert Einstein and many others. Today we live in a world where science has replaced religion and supposedly supplies all the answers to the questions, Who am I? Where Am I? and How Did I Get here? Or does it? The media have focussed on the fact that science “got it wrong”. But there is a bigger story here.
This is not an isolated episode. Science has often got it wrong in the past and there are now serious doubts in some people’s minds about its credentials as the source of all knowledge. Which is not surprising. Some of the scientists are having doubts themselves. One of the strongest claims of scientists is that they can carry out rigorous experiments, do scientific research and come up with conclusive results. That has never been true because it fails to take the human ego into account. And there are some big egos involved in most fields of so-called expertise, including science.
The Sugar v Fat debate goes back to the 1960s when there was a major trans-atlantic argument going on between the supporters of the fat theory and the sugar supporters. On one side was John Yudkin a British nutritionist who pinpointed sugar as the major factor in heart disease and put forward his evidence in the 1972 book, “Pure, White & Deadly”. On the other side of the debate were a number of nutritional scientists with powerful personalities who believed fat was the culprit. Their leader was a nutritionist at the University of Minnesota, Ancel Keys. What ensued was a bitter battle between the two opposing forces. Keys was confident and aggressive and with the support of the sugar industry used every opportunity to discredit Yudkin who had no skills in this type of combat.
Eventually Keys and his supporters won the day and it became accepted scientific fact that fat intake is the major cause of heart disease. Accepted at least until more recent research produced such strong evidence pointing to fat that it could not be ignored. Although even then the nutrition establishment fought tooth and nail to try and bury this new research and ignore its findings. Scientific egos went into overdrive in an attempt to defend their embattled fortress. The story is set out in depth in a Guardian article entitled The Sugar Conspiracy which is a long read but worth it if you have the time.
Unfortunately this type of battle of wills is not unusual in science and of course we are the losers (some of us paying with our lives) when strong egos prevail and science goes down a blind rabbit hole. As more of these blunders come to light, faith in science drops away and my prediction is that eventually it will go the same way as religion. There are just too many holes in the wall it has built up to protect itself from attack and too many theories and beliefs that are open to question. Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is being challenged and if that falls over a large chunk of the wall will go with it.
It is anybody's guess what will happen if the wall collapses completely. We live in interesting times.
One of the things I try to do with my posts is to go back decades or even centuries to put an issue in its full perspective rather than just focussing on the present moment. In the Fat v Sugar debate we first have to go back to the seventeenth century and look at the way in which science has displaced religion as the dominant driver in our lives. Up to that time the church was the dominant institution in society, sometimes more powerful than the kings of the day and far more powerful than governments of those times. Religion dominated everyone’s thinking.
Then as scientific knowledge increased our basic belief systems gradually began to change. First there was Isaac Newton and his theory of gravity followed by Charles Darwin and his writings on evolution followed by Albert Einstein and many others. Today we live in a world where science has replaced religion and supposedly supplies all the answers to the questions, Who am I? Where Am I? and How Did I Get here? Or does it? The media have focussed on the fact that science “got it wrong”. But there is a bigger story here.
This is not an isolated episode. Science has often got it wrong in the past and there are now serious doubts in some people’s minds about its credentials as the source of all knowledge. Which is not surprising. Some of the scientists are having doubts themselves. One of the strongest claims of scientists is that they can carry out rigorous experiments, do scientific research and come up with conclusive results. That has never been true because it fails to take the human ego into account. And there are some big egos involved in most fields of so-called expertise, including science.
The Sugar v Fat debate goes back to the 1960s when there was a major trans-atlantic argument going on between the supporters of the fat theory and the sugar supporters. On one side was John Yudkin a British nutritionist who pinpointed sugar as the major factor in heart disease and put forward his evidence in the 1972 book, “Pure, White & Deadly”. On the other side of the debate were a number of nutritional scientists with powerful personalities who believed fat was the culprit. Their leader was a nutritionist at the University of Minnesota, Ancel Keys. What ensued was a bitter battle between the two opposing forces. Keys was confident and aggressive and with the support of the sugar industry used every opportunity to discredit Yudkin who had no skills in this type of combat.
Eventually Keys and his supporters won the day and it became accepted scientific fact that fat intake is the major cause of heart disease. Accepted at least until more recent research produced such strong evidence pointing to fat that it could not be ignored. Although even then the nutrition establishment fought tooth and nail to try and bury this new research and ignore its findings. Scientific egos went into overdrive in an attempt to defend their embattled fortress. The story is set out in depth in a Guardian article entitled The Sugar Conspiracy which is a long read but worth it if you have the time.
Unfortunately this type of battle of wills is not unusual in science and of course we are the losers (some of us paying with our lives) when strong egos prevail and science goes down a blind rabbit hole. As more of these blunders come to light, faith in science drops away and my prediction is that eventually it will go the same way as religion. There are just too many holes in the wall it has built up to protect itself from attack and too many theories and beliefs that are open to question. Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is being challenged and if that falls over a large chunk of the wall will go with it.
It is anybody's guess what will happen if the wall collapses completely. We live in interesting times.
Sex, Gender & The David Bowie Legacy
Sex and gender seem to be constantly in the news these days and the recent death of David Bowie highlighted some of the radical changes that are taking place in our attitudes to sexuality and gender. Tributes to Bowie focussed mainly on his contribution to pop music but there was also recognition of his role in encouraging mainstream acceptance of what has now become a flood of gender alternatives. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and all the variations are the subject of open discussion in the media and online and recent posts have highlighted how many individuals in the music and movie industries openly acknowledge their alternative sexuality.
Bowie also had that androgynous look that was picked up and copied by many others including Tilda Swinton, Jared Leto, Annie Lennox and Grace Jones. Check out this photo gallery of androgynous hipsters although I’m not quite sure what Glenn Close is doing in there. The androgynous look has also become popular among straight singers and actors and in the modelling world as a rebellion against the stereotyping of Hollywood with its Marilyn Monroe blondes and George Clooney tall-dark-and-handsomes.
Caitlyn Jenner is the most recent high profile gender bender to make the headlines. And then there is Miley Cyrus and that famous “twerking” episode at the 2013 Video Music Awards that got the media in a frenzy and provoked passionate outbursts both for an against her performance. As someone who has openly proclaimed she doesn’t feel like either a boy or a girl Cyrus seems to fit into the transgender category but there is so much disagreement over what these terms mean that its difficult to know just where she slots in.
It is clear that there have been many people in recent years who have known they are not heterosexual and not gay or lesbian either but have not been able to openly express their doubts or to figure out where they sit on the gender spectrum. In today’s more open environment they can at least start to get some clarity although discrimination from the mainstream will continue for a long time yet. Is the human race heading for some sort of mutation where we all morph into a hybrid somewhere in between male and female and gender becomes totally fluid and maybe irrelevant? Its hard to know but there is no doubt we are going through a very radical period in human evolution and it has a way to go yet.
Bowie also had that androgynous look that was picked up and copied by many others including Tilda Swinton, Jared Leto, Annie Lennox and Grace Jones. Check out this photo gallery of androgynous hipsters although I’m not quite sure what Glenn Close is doing in there. The androgynous look has also become popular among straight singers and actors and in the modelling world as a rebellion against the stereotyping of Hollywood with its Marilyn Monroe blondes and George Clooney tall-dark-and-handsomes.
Caitlyn Jenner is the most recent high profile gender bender to make the headlines. And then there is Miley Cyrus and that famous “twerking” episode at the 2013 Video Music Awards that got the media in a frenzy and provoked passionate outbursts both for an against her performance. As someone who has openly proclaimed she doesn’t feel like either a boy or a girl Cyrus seems to fit into the transgender category but there is so much disagreement over what these terms mean that its difficult to know just where she slots in.
It is clear that there have been many people in recent years who have known they are not heterosexual and not gay or lesbian either but have not been able to openly express their doubts or to figure out where they sit on the gender spectrum. In today’s more open environment they can at least start to get some clarity although discrimination from the mainstream will continue for a long time yet. Is the human race heading for some sort of mutation where we all morph into a hybrid somewhere in between male and female and gender becomes totally fluid and maybe irrelevant? Its hard to know but there is no doubt we are going through a very radical period in human evolution and it has a way to go yet.
Naked Sexting - Why Kids Do It
Sexting has been in the headlines recently with the news that a survey in Britain has reported children as young as seven are sexting – not just sending sexual messages but also suggestive pictures and naked selfies. In the US sexting began almost as soon as it became possible to take photos on mobile phones and is now widespread among certain sections of the teenage population.
Sexting may be much more common than most parents think. When police in Virginia investigated a complaint of kids posting naked selfies on Instagram and other sites without the consent of the person in the photo they uncovered accounts with pics of around 100 girls. Many of them were from the local high school in nothing but their underwear, naked, or even engaging in sexual acts.
They came from every race, religion and social background, the only common factor being the fact that they all had mobile phones. Most of the girls whose photos appeared on Instagram had sexted a photo to a boyfriend or hoped-for boyfriend and they had sent them on to others who had posted them online. It was the reactions the police officers got from the boys and girls involved that had them totally confused.
Comments like “What’s so strange. These sort of selfies get passed round all the time. What’s this got to do with you. Its my body and I’m proud of it. If I want to send nude photos of myself why shouldn’t I.” Many of the girls were embarrassed and some felt betrayed that a personal sext sent to a person they knew had been posted online but there seemed to be a general attitude that passing round sexted photos was normal behaviour.
For some teenagers and younger, naked selfies seem to have become part of the ritual of making contact with the opposite sex, getting a girlfriend or boyfriend, and then, deeper into the relationship, a way of virtual flirting. Safe sex online. There appears to be some sexting of their own naked photos by boys but generally it is the girls who are doing this. Some of them want to be seen as confident and daring, others feel pressure to keep up with their social group. For many boys it becomes like a game, a status competition. They compete to be the first to show off a new picture or get a naked selfie from a girl no one else has been able to.
So is sexting a serious problem that should be stamped out or is it just a normal part of teenage experimentation, adjusting their behaviour to suit the online world. No one is quite sure but one thing is certain. Banning sexting would be an almost impossible ask unless you confiscate all their computers and mobiles. Instagram accounts can easily be opened under false names and kids are experts at hiding their activities from their parents. Maybe parents will just have to live with it.
Some of the information used in the writing of this post came from an article in The Atlantic – “Why Kids Sext”. The article is at this link but be warned – its a long read, more than 9,000 words in length.
Sexting may be much more common than most parents think. When police in Virginia investigated a complaint of kids posting naked selfies on Instagram and other sites without the consent of the person in the photo they uncovered accounts with pics of around 100 girls. Many of them were from the local high school in nothing but their underwear, naked, or even engaging in sexual acts.
They came from every race, religion and social background, the only common factor being the fact that they all had mobile phones. Most of the girls whose photos appeared on Instagram had sexted a photo to a boyfriend or hoped-for boyfriend and they had sent them on to others who had posted them online. It was the reactions the police officers got from the boys and girls involved that had them totally confused.
Comments like “What’s so strange. These sort of selfies get passed round all the time. What’s this got to do with you. Its my body and I’m proud of it. If I want to send nude photos of myself why shouldn’t I.” Many of the girls were embarrassed and some felt betrayed that a personal sext sent to a person they knew had been posted online but there seemed to be a general attitude that passing round sexted photos was normal behaviour.
For some teenagers and younger, naked selfies seem to have become part of the ritual of making contact with the opposite sex, getting a girlfriend or boyfriend, and then, deeper into the relationship, a way of virtual flirting. Safe sex online. There appears to be some sexting of their own naked photos by boys but generally it is the girls who are doing this. Some of them want to be seen as confident and daring, others feel pressure to keep up with their social group. For many boys it becomes like a game, a status competition. They compete to be the first to show off a new picture or get a naked selfie from a girl no one else has been able to.
So is sexting a serious problem that should be stamped out or is it just a normal part of teenage experimentation, adjusting their behaviour to suit the online world. No one is quite sure but one thing is certain. Banning sexting would be an almost impossible ask unless you confiscate all their computers and mobiles. Instagram accounts can easily be opened under false names and kids are experts at hiding their activities from their parents. Maybe parents will just have to live with it.
Some of the information used in the writing of this post came from an article in The Atlantic – “Why Kids Sext”. The article is at this link but be warned – its a long read, more than 9,000 words in length.
Love, Romance And The Wedding March - Do You Have What It Takes ?
There’s a Steve Earle song that tells the story of a guy who has a heart that’s been broken many times but is strong enough to handle the risks of romance. A heart that is fearless and keeps coming back for more.
I used to be a big fan of the Steve Earle style – loud, macho country rock that triggers the male testosterone and that song was one of my favourites. But gradually I grew out of that scene and Fearless Heart was one of the reasons. Like all young dudes I was seriously attracted to the idea of falling in love and the message resonated with me. You had to be fearless because if you dived in deep, opened your heart wide and then had it broken the consequences could be devastating. The adventure and the danger of love was only for the courageous daredevil.
Some time later I learned that Steve Earle was onto his sixth marriage and my thoughts began to change. WTF. That’s not matrimony – that’s mayhem. Sure falling in love is a risk. You never know where you’ll end up if you take the plunge. But jumping from one relationship to another, bailing out when things start getting tough doesn’t sound to me like the actions of a braveheart. Particularly when you’ve made the commitment of marriage with all its “till death do us part” mythology.
There are exceptions of course. Where there is sexual abuse or violence staying is usually not an option. That’s not what we’re dealing with here.
In many ways falling in love is the easy part. Its where all the warm, fuzzy vibes are, the racing emotions, the deep passionate kisses, the glorious sex. That indescribable feeling of being on Cloud Nine and knowing it will never end. And then it does. The romance stage comes to a crashing end and we get down to the serious business of relating to our lover.
That’s when both of the lovers start to make some alarming discoveries. They suddenly realise that this person they’ve given their heart to is not quite what they seem. Because the reality is that when two people fall in love they tend to hide all their own faults and weaknesses and, caught up in the delusional state that is romantic love, they see only the best side of their beloved. Which is a natural human reaction. In our desire to please our lover and hold her love we don’t want to do anything that will rock the boat.
Eventually however the effort of making ourselves perfect becomes too much and we begin to show our real nature – usually after the wedding or after we commit to a long term relationship. And that’s when the fearless heart should kick in. Because if we abandon ship when the seas start to get a little rough we learn nothing from the relationship. In most cases there is a reason why people with such apparently different personalities are attracted to one another – the attraction of opposites. There is a purpose to all this, a reason why our partner seems to have such annoying habits that give us the shits – habits that can severely test our patience and our tolerance levels.
Put simply, whether a relationship is a marriage or a variation of marriage or some other hybrid it’s meant to be a learning experience. Even though science says we’re all random creations that arrived by accident on some distant planet in a far off universe, there is a point to this game of life and relationship is a vital part of the process. When we look at the characters of the two partners they often show extremes. One may be a confident, loud, bossy, impatient, intolerant party animal. The other may be a quiet, patient, peace loving recluse, apparently calm but often insecure and angry underneath – a type the psychiatrists would probably call passive/aggressive.
Like oil and water the two don’t seem to mix But if they stick with it, work out their differences and focus on the things that hold them together, something magical can happen. Somehow they grow together rather than apart. Both learn to soften their personalities and the result is a strong bond that creates a true relationship.
Getting to that point requires courage, strength and, yes, a fearless heart. Jumping ship at the first sign of rough weather requires just the opposite.
I used to be a big fan of the Steve Earle style – loud, macho country rock that triggers the male testosterone and that song was one of my favourites. But gradually I grew out of that scene and Fearless Heart was one of the reasons. Like all young dudes I was seriously attracted to the idea of falling in love and the message resonated with me. You had to be fearless because if you dived in deep, opened your heart wide and then had it broken the consequences could be devastating. The adventure and the danger of love was only for the courageous daredevil.
Some time later I learned that Steve Earle was onto his sixth marriage and my thoughts began to change. WTF. That’s not matrimony – that’s mayhem. Sure falling in love is a risk. You never know where you’ll end up if you take the plunge. But jumping from one relationship to another, bailing out when things start getting tough doesn’t sound to me like the actions of a braveheart. Particularly when you’ve made the commitment of marriage with all its “till death do us part” mythology.
There are exceptions of course. Where there is sexual abuse or violence staying is usually not an option. That’s not what we’re dealing with here.
In many ways falling in love is the easy part. Its where all the warm, fuzzy vibes are, the racing emotions, the deep passionate kisses, the glorious sex. That indescribable feeling of being on Cloud Nine and knowing it will never end. And then it does. The romance stage comes to a crashing end and we get down to the serious business of relating to our lover.
That’s when both of the lovers start to make some alarming discoveries. They suddenly realise that this person they’ve given their heart to is not quite what they seem. Because the reality is that when two people fall in love they tend to hide all their own faults and weaknesses and, caught up in the delusional state that is romantic love, they see only the best side of their beloved. Which is a natural human reaction. In our desire to please our lover and hold her love we don’t want to do anything that will rock the boat.
Eventually however the effort of making ourselves perfect becomes too much and we begin to show our real nature – usually after the wedding or after we commit to a long term relationship. And that’s when the fearless heart should kick in. Because if we abandon ship when the seas start to get a little rough we learn nothing from the relationship. In most cases there is a reason why people with such apparently different personalities are attracted to one another – the attraction of opposites. There is a purpose to all this, a reason why our partner seems to have such annoying habits that give us the shits – habits that can severely test our patience and our tolerance levels.
Put simply, whether a relationship is a marriage or a variation of marriage or some other hybrid it’s meant to be a learning experience. Even though science says we’re all random creations that arrived by accident on some distant planet in a far off universe, there is a point to this game of life and relationship is a vital part of the process. When we look at the characters of the two partners they often show extremes. One may be a confident, loud, bossy, impatient, intolerant party animal. The other may be a quiet, patient, peace loving recluse, apparently calm but often insecure and angry underneath – a type the psychiatrists would probably call passive/aggressive.
Like oil and water the two don’t seem to mix But if they stick with it, work out their differences and focus on the things that hold them together, something magical can happen. Somehow they grow together rather than apart. Both learn to soften their personalities and the result is a strong bond that creates a true relationship.
Getting to that point requires courage, strength and, yes, a fearless heart. Jumping ship at the first sign of rough weather requires just the opposite.
Lisbeth Salander And Star Wars - How The Millennials Survive In A Chaotic World
It could be a scene from a square in any number of cities around the world.
Sitting in a deckchair in the summer sun listening to the techno groove music, watching the DJ whose faraway eyes suggest a heavy session with cocaine or something more powerful, noticing the girl with the bright-as-bright hair colours, half shocking pink and half indigo blue, seeing the breast feeding mother, the dreadlocked Rasta, the androgynous dude in the tank top and shorts who could be male but then again could just as easily be female, the girl in the torn denim shorts letting it all hang out. The races and nationalities, a coleslaw of different accents and skin colours.
Picking up the brochures displayed around the square promoting up-coming shows – an all-male drag queen spectacular, an adventure in mayhem featuring 3 guys, 30 litres of paint and 55 smashed up bananas, fire artists performing amid fiery sculptures and blazing landscapes, a Korean recreation of a Greek tragedy, a gripping play that looks behind the mask of domestic violence and a raucous and raunchy version of a well-known fairy tale.
Wondering what the teenagers make of all this, how they navigate through this sea of confusion. At least that‘s what it seems to me, a castaway from another world who emerged in the 1950s in a sea of blandness – conservative grey suits, long dresses, polite tea parties and refined manners. Sure the 1960s blew that all away with its sex, drugs and rock n’ roll but that scene was tame compared with the wild mayhem that today’s youth are confronted with.
So how do they cope ? We oldies often fixate on the downside of modern society but maybe young people are coping with it a lot better than we imagine. I know the youth suicide rate in the west is appalling and online bullying and harassment is a major problem. Yet I suspect young people are much more resilient than we give them credit for. Popular culture may seem meaningless and lacking in values but maybe it helps to make sense of the chaos that goes on all around them.
Take that scene in Star Wars: The Force Awakens where the punk heroine channelling Lisbeth Salander and her black sidekick trail Han Solo into a bar full of assorted weirdos from across the universe, a scene filled with dark energy and menace. While we oldies were freaking out the kids loved it. Or those scenes from countless video games where the player finds herself in a strange alien world where terror lurks around every corner hefting an AK47 and a mean attitude. While these games have the potential to teach kids some very subversive and anti-social values (take Grand Theft Auto in all its incarnations as an example) they also give players an opportunity to learn to swim in strange waters and navigate the unknown with confidence.
We live in a world where the old boundaries have disappeared and the new ones are still a work in progress. This is both a dangerous and an exciting time to be young in a world where everything is open. The borders of the possible are elastic – housewives climbing Everest, same sex families, a woman in charge of the most powerful nation on earth (no, not yet), straight men wearing (OMG) dresses !!!! Where will it end ?
Still not sure about that tank top and shorts. Maybe a guy, probably an either/or. And definitely a sign of our changing times.
Sitting in a deckchair in the summer sun listening to the techno groove music, watching the DJ whose faraway eyes suggest a heavy session with cocaine or something more powerful, noticing the girl with the bright-as-bright hair colours, half shocking pink and half indigo blue, seeing the breast feeding mother, the dreadlocked Rasta, the androgynous dude in the tank top and shorts who could be male but then again could just as easily be female, the girl in the torn denim shorts letting it all hang out. The races and nationalities, a coleslaw of different accents and skin colours.
Picking up the brochures displayed around the square promoting up-coming shows – an all-male drag queen spectacular, an adventure in mayhem featuring 3 guys, 30 litres of paint and 55 smashed up bananas, fire artists performing amid fiery sculptures and blazing landscapes, a Korean recreation of a Greek tragedy, a gripping play that looks behind the mask of domestic violence and a raucous and raunchy version of a well-known fairy tale.
Wondering what the teenagers make of all this, how they navigate through this sea of confusion. At least that‘s what it seems to me, a castaway from another world who emerged in the 1950s in a sea of blandness – conservative grey suits, long dresses, polite tea parties and refined manners. Sure the 1960s blew that all away with its sex, drugs and rock n’ roll but that scene was tame compared with the wild mayhem that today’s youth are confronted with.
So how do they cope ? We oldies often fixate on the downside of modern society but maybe young people are coping with it a lot better than we imagine. I know the youth suicide rate in the west is appalling and online bullying and harassment is a major problem. Yet I suspect young people are much more resilient than we give them credit for. Popular culture may seem meaningless and lacking in values but maybe it helps to make sense of the chaos that goes on all around them.
Take that scene in Star Wars: The Force Awakens where the punk heroine channelling Lisbeth Salander and her black sidekick trail Han Solo into a bar full of assorted weirdos from across the universe, a scene filled with dark energy and menace. While we oldies were freaking out the kids loved it. Or those scenes from countless video games where the player finds herself in a strange alien world where terror lurks around every corner hefting an AK47 and a mean attitude. While these games have the potential to teach kids some very subversive and anti-social values (take Grand Theft Auto in all its incarnations as an example) they also give players an opportunity to learn to swim in strange waters and navigate the unknown with confidence.
We live in a world where the old boundaries have disappeared and the new ones are still a work in progress. This is both a dangerous and an exciting time to be young in a world where everything is open. The borders of the possible are elastic – housewives climbing Everest, same sex families, a woman in charge of the most powerful nation on earth (no, not yet), straight men wearing (OMG) dresses !!!! Where will it end ?
Still not sure about that tank top and shorts. Maybe a guy, probably an either/or. And definitely a sign of our changing times.
Sensuality And The Domestic Goddess - Nigella Meets Monty Python
We humans are highly sensual beings and in our relationship with food we connect with many of the subtle and not so subtle nuances of that most intimate side of our nature. To my mind no one channels that inner sensuality more graphically than the domestic goddess, Nigella Lawson. Which leads me to wonder why there is so much criticism of her culinary performances.
Could it be that the criticism is a reflexion of our conflicted relationship with our own sensuality. I suspect that to many the vision she presents as she luxuriates in the pleasures of the kitchen sits very uncomfortably with the behavioural norms of our outwardly liberated but inwardly still puritanical society. Food is a dangerous substance – treat it badly and we risk falling prey to the grievous sin of gluttony and slip-sliding into some hedonistic, Monty Pythonesque world of debauchery and licentiousness. Just the sound of those two words is enough to conjure up grim nightmares of Sodom and Gomorrah and the fall from grace. All part of course of our rich Christian heritage.
But enough. We have sufficient guilt and shame in our lives so let’s not go there. Let’s return to the luscious paradise of Nigellaland. Public displays of sensuality, particularly from a woman, are not something we handle very well, provoking feelings of embarrassment and self consciousness. Too many of us confuse sensuality with sexuality and I don’t want to go into our freudian attitudes to sex in this post. That’s another story. No, this is about food and it seems our views about Nigella and sensuality are just as confused as our views about food and its enjoyment.
There is a widespread belief in western society that “we are what we eat”. Put very simply if we eat too many of those tempting, luscious and of course sinful foods then we are taking a ride with Nigella down the one way road to ill health, gross obesity, disease and quite possibly early death. Take the other fork in the road and graze predominantly on the “healthy foods” and we will be saintly, sanctimonious and saved. Or will we ?
It’s ironic, in a globalised world where we have such a quantity of food available in such stunning variety, that we display so much angst and guilt about such a vital ingredient of human existence. Has there ever been a time on this planet when humans had a more bizarre relationship with their food. We live in a world where obesity has reached epidemic proportions, where bulimia and anorexia are serious health conditions. And then there’s our obsession with diets, searching endlessly for the holy grail of perfect figure and ideal weight. That’s another post all on its own.
On the one hand we celebrate and obsess about food in countless glossy magazines and in endless food shows on the goggle box and on the other hand we live in dread of the diseases its consumption can apparently cause – cancer, heart disease, liver and kidney failure…... The list is long and scary and ever-growing.
I’d like to examine that basic belief – “we are what we eat”. Really ? What proof do we have of this theory, because that’s all it is, a theory. There is no absolute proof although there may seem to be some links “the experts” can point to that suggest some foods and certain diseases are related. There is in fact plenty of evidence that suggests “the experts” may be wrong or at the very least confused.
Exhibit Number One: – the sensational U turn that is now evident as medical researchers admit they were probably wrong about fat being the major cause of heart disease. Now sugar has become the prime suspect and we are having to rethink all our beliefs about these two food ingredients.
Exhibit Number Two: - new research that suggests a surprisingly large percentage of cancers may simply be random accidents and not related to factors such as food consumption at all. Some of us suspected that all along. We knew that cancer and heart disease can happen to people who have led an active life and been careful to follow a healthy diet, not just those of us who habitually pig out on McDonalds and Coca Cola.
Exhibit Number Three: - the evidence right in front of us that suggests very strongly that some of the demonised foods cannot possibly be the terrorists they are painted as. Countries like Greece and Italy where oil at varying levels of purity has traditionally been consumed in vast quantities. Argentina and Brazil where meat features at virtually every meal and vegetarians are an endangered species. None of these countries appear to have higher rates of chronic disease. Most of the third world where millions of people live relatively healthy lives on subsistence diets containing spoiled and contaminated food that our doctors would nominate as prime disease carriers.
This is not an attempt to denigrate the diseases or the obesity and other food-related health issues that people suffer from or dismiss them as imaginary or self imposed – they are very real and we need to address them. To do so however we need to take a very hard look at our relationship with what should be one of the great pleasures of life and somehow get some balance back into the equation.
Yes we are highly sensual beings with senses of touch, smell and taste, appreciation of texture and visual appeal and an ability to blend ingredients that can bring us immense satisfaction. Nigella’s uniqueness lies in her ability to channel all those senses and all that satisfaction into one glorious foodie extravaganza. Food is truly one of the great pleasures of life and its time we jettisoned all the baggage that we’ve attached to it.
So let’s drop the guilt and celebrate this Xmas without reservations. That doesn’t mean eating enormous quantities of food and drinking ourselves into oblivion. It means eating with appreciation for the time and effort that has been put into the preparation of the meal, revelling in the visuals and enjoying the exquisite range of taste sensations. Give your senses a gift this Xmas rather than a thrashing – they’ll thank you for it.
Could it be that the criticism is a reflexion of our conflicted relationship with our own sensuality. I suspect that to many the vision she presents as she luxuriates in the pleasures of the kitchen sits very uncomfortably with the behavioural norms of our outwardly liberated but inwardly still puritanical society. Food is a dangerous substance – treat it badly and we risk falling prey to the grievous sin of gluttony and slip-sliding into some hedonistic, Monty Pythonesque world of debauchery and licentiousness. Just the sound of those two words is enough to conjure up grim nightmares of Sodom and Gomorrah and the fall from grace. All part of course of our rich Christian heritage.
But enough. We have sufficient guilt and shame in our lives so let’s not go there. Let’s return to the luscious paradise of Nigellaland. Public displays of sensuality, particularly from a woman, are not something we handle very well, provoking feelings of embarrassment and self consciousness. Too many of us confuse sensuality with sexuality and I don’t want to go into our freudian attitudes to sex in this post. That’s another story. No, this is about food and it seems our views about Nigella and sensuality are just as confused as our views about food and its enjoyment.
There is a widespread belief in western society that “we are what we eat”. Put very simply if we eat too many of those tempting, luscious and of course sinful foods then we are taking a ride with Nigella down the one way road to ill health, gross obesity, disease and quite possibly early death. Take the other fork in the road and graze predominantly on the “healthy foods” and we will be saintly, sanctimonious and saved. Or will we ?
It’s ironic, in a globalised world where we have such a quantity of food available in such stunning variety, that we display so much angst and guilt about such a vital ingredient of human existence. Has there ever been a time on this planet when humans had a more bizarre relationship with their food. We live in a world where obesity has reached epidemic proportions, where bulimia and anorexia are serious health conditions. And then there’s our obsession with diets, searching endlessly for the holy grail of perfect figure and ideal weight. That’s another post all on its own.
On the one hand we celebrate and obsess about food in countless glossy magazines and in endless food shows on the goggle box and on the other hand we live in dread of the diseases its consumption can apparently cause – cancer, heart disease, liver and kidney failure…... The list is long and scary and ever-growing.
I’d like to examine that basic belief – “we are what we eat”. Really ? What proof do we have of this theory, because that’s all it is, a theory. There is no absolute proof although there may seem to be some links “the experts” can point to that suggest some foods and certain diseases are related. There is in fact plenty of evidence that suggests “the experts” may be wrong or at the very least confused.
Exhibit Number One: – the sensational U turn that is now evident as medical researchers admit they were probably wrong about fat being the major cause of heart disease. Now sugar has become the prime suspect and we are having to rethink all our beliefs about these two food ingredients.
Exhibit Number Two: - new research that suggests a surprisingly large percentage of cancers may simply be random accidents and not related to factors such as food consumption at all. Some of us suspected that all along. We knew that cancer and heart disease can happen to people who have led an active life and been careful to follow a healthy diet, not just those of us who habitually pig out on McDonalds and Coca Cola.
Exhibit Number Three: - the evidence right in front of us that suggests very strongly that some of the demonised foods cannot possibly be the terrorists they are painted as. Countries like Greece and Italy where oil at varying levels of purity has traditionally been consumed in vast quantities. Argentina and Brazil where meat features at virtually every meal and vegetarians are an endangered species. None of these countries appear to have higher rates of chronic disease. Most of the third world where millions of people live relatively healthy lives on subsistence diets containing spoiled and contaminated food that our doctors would nominate as prime disease carriers.
This is not an attempt to denigrate the diseases or the obesity and other food-related health issues that people suffer from or dismiss them as imaginary or self imposed – they are very real and we need to address them. To do so however we need to take a very hard look at our relationship with what should be one of the great pleasures of life and somehow get some balance back into the equation.
Yes we are highly sensual beings with senses of touch, smell and taste, appreciation of texture and visual appeal and an ability to blend ingredients that can bring us immense satisfaction. Nigella’s uniqueness lies in her ability to channel all those senses and all that satisfaction into one glorious foodie extravaganza. Food is truly one of the great pleasures of life and its time we jettisoned all the baggage that we’ve attached to it.
So let’s drop the guilt and celebrate this Xmas without reservations. That doesn’t mean eating enormous quantities of food and drinking ourselves into oblivion. It means eating with appreciation for the time and effort that has been put into the preparation of the meal, revelling in the visuals and enjoying the exquisite range of taste sensations. Give your senses a gift this Xmas rather than a thrashing – they’ll thank you for it.
The Myth of the Fairy Tale Marriage
Is It Time For Radical Surgery?
Honour killing tends to be regarded as a practice that only affects eastern countries where culturally the husband is widely regarded as the head of the household and believes he has the absolute right to control the lives of all his family members. If his wife commits adultery or his daughter has sex outside marriage or marries without his consent some cultural communities in these countries will uphold his right to kill her "to protect his honour".
We rightly regard these practices as abhorrent but in many western countries right now the incidence of husbands killing their wives and men killing their partners is increasing at an alarming rate and the reason for this epidemic is much the same. In both east and west it is the male ego that is the cause of this horrific crime, an ego that in too many cases still believes a husband has the right to treat his wife as a possession, the right to control her life and the right to discard her when she no longer meets his needs or satisfies his wishes and desires.
Obviously the man has the option of divorcing his wife and moving on if he feels this way. Unfortunately the statistics make it clear that for many men this is not an acceptable solution. Divorce still carries a stigma in some people's eyes and may be seen as an admission of failure and a blow to the man's honour. The law's insistence on equal rights for both partners in this situation can also be difficult for the male ego to handle. Easier apparently for the male partner to remove this inconvenient obstacle in his life's path.
Belief in the fantasy of everlasting romantic love and the fairy tale marriage is still rife in our society and its not just women who buy into the myth. The male version of the fairy story is built on the traditional foundation of a dashing and powerful prince sweeping the beautiful but subservient princess off her feet and carrying her off to his castle (which he rules over) where their roles stay the same and they live happily ever after. Despite Shrek's best efforts to dispel this myth the truth has still not got through to many men.
Somehow we have to educate young men in the reality of marriage and open their eyes to the horrendous divorce statistics and the reason for such a disastrous failure rate. They need to understand that there is no guarantee of success, that the princess will not always bow to their wishes, that many women today expect to be co-rulers of the kingdom and real marriage involves constant challenges and readiness to give and take. Bullying behaviour and physical violence is not an acceptable alternative to discussion and negotiation.
In the east where arranged marriages are still common, traditional family values place the man in a very powerful position. In the west where there has been a strong move away from this attitude and we at least pay lip service to equality and partnership in marriage, the situation is quite different. While men may feel threatened by the rising power of women who are no longer prepared to tolerate abuse or violence when a marriage begins to disintegrate, they must be made to realise that this response never has been and never will be appropriate. Somehow the myth has to be smashed once and for all.
We rightly regard these practices as abhorrent but in many western countries right now the incidence of husbands killing their wives and men killing their partners is increasing at an alarming rate and the reason for this epidemic is much the same. In both east and west it is the male ego that is the cause of this horrific crime, an ego that in too many cases still believes a husband has the right to treat his wife as a possession, the right to control her life and the right to discard her when she no longer meets his needs or satisfies his wishes and desires.
Obviously the man has the option of divorcing his wife and moving on if he feels this way. Unfortunately the statistics make it clear that for many men this is not an acceptable solution. Divorce still carries a stigma in some people's eyes and may be seen as an admission of failure and a blow to the man's honour. The law's insistence on equal rights for both partners in this situation can also be difficult for the male ego to handle. Easier apparently for the male partner to remove this inconvenient obstacle in his life's path.
Belief in the fantasy of everlasting romantic love and the fairy tale marriage is still rife in our society and its not just women who buy into the myth. The male version of the fairy story is built on the traditional foundation of a dashing and powerful prince sweeping the beautiful but subservient princess off her feet and carrying her off to his castle (which he rules over) where their roles stay the same and they live happily ever after. Despite Shrek's best efforts to dispel this myth the truth has still not got through to many men.
Somehow we have to educate young men in the reality of marriage and open their eyes to the horrendous divorce statistics and the reason for such a disastrous failure rate. They need to understand that there is no guarantee of success, that the princess will not always bow to their wishes, that many women today expect to be co-rulers of the kingdom and real marriage involves constant challenges and readiness to give and take. Bullying behaviour and physical violence is not an acceptable alternative to discussion and negotiation.
In the east where arranged marriages are still common, traditional family values place the man in a very powerful position. In the west where there has been a strong move away from this attitude and we at least pay lip service to equality and partnership in marriage, the situation is quite different. While men may feel threatened by the rising power of women who are no longer prepared to tolerate abuse or violence when a marriage begins to disintegrate, they must be made to realise that this response never has been and never will be appropriate. Somehow the myth has to be smashed once and for all.
Fifty Shades of Grey -
Will There Be BDSM
Dungeons in Every Town?
Now I know this is a very complex subject and probably not one a mere male should venture into. Still I'll risk it. Like many other readers I struggled with the Mills & Boon writing of this book and I have to admit that after 50 pages of Book One I couldn't take any more. So I'm hardly an expert on the writings of E.L. James. But like many others I'm intrigued by the appeal of this work. Anything that sells 100 million copies and still climbing within an amazingly short time has to be a literary phenomenon. It can't be just dismissed out of hand.
What is the attraction for all those readers, mainly middle aged women apparently, who just couldn’t put these books down. It seems ironic that in a world where women are increasingly asserting themselves and taking top jobs in politics, business, the professions, a book about a meek little female who enjoys being dominated and mock tortured should rise to the top. Surely this is the opposite of what women want for themselves. So why the submission to such a self centred guy ?
I’m sure the submission and the Victorian dominator stunts are part of the appeal. There’s a trait in everyone that’s attracted to the kinky and the forbidden side of life, even if its deeply buried in many people. But I think the real fascinator is the challenge of the unknown. Readers are attracted by this new and unexplored territory, by the games and the delicious possibilities for pleasure, not by the uptight bastard who wields the whip. After centuries of the missionary position and men having all the fun, women are starting to break out. They’re starting to push the boundaries and experiment in ways that are shocking even our permissive society. Lesbian marriage, Madonna and Lady Gaga, cougars, teenage girls seducing older men, its all happening.
Will BDSM be accepted into the mainstream and will we end up with dungeons in every town ? I don’t think so. While it appears to be amazingly popular –check out the extensive entry on BDSM in Wikipedia – this is only a phase of the sexual revolution, not the final destination. These things always go in cycles with the radicals pushing boundaries to their extreme limits until finally things settle back into some sort of midway position which is acceptable to the majority of people in a society.
This trend is definitely in the expansion stage of the cycle. Look at some recent movies – Blue is the Warmest Colour - a 3 hour in-depth exploration of lesbian love. Young & Beautiful – a teenage girl explores life as a prostitute. Fading Gigolo – a movie where normal transmission is reversed and a male escort provides therapeutic services to a sexually frustrated Sharon Stone. So don’t fear. All this humping and pumping is just one intricate thread on a mysterious loom that weaves the rich tapestry of life on Planet Earth.
What is the attraction for all those readers, mainly middle aged women apparently, who just couldn’t put these books down. It seems ironic that in a world where women are increasingly asserting themselves and taking top jobs in politics, business, the professions, a book about a meek little female who enjoys being dominated and mock tortured should rise to the top. Surely this is the opposite of what women want for themselves. So why the submission to such a self centred guy ?
I’m sure the submission and the Victorian dominator stunts are part of the appeal. There’s a trait in everyone that’s attracted to the kinky and the forbidden side of life, even if its deeply buried in many people. But I think the real fascinator is the challenge of the unknown. Readers are attracted by this new and unexplored territory, by the games and the delicious possibilities for pleasure, not by the uptight bastard who wields the whip. After centuries of the missionary position and men having all the fun, women are starting to break out. They’re starting to push the boundaries and experiment in ways that are shocking even our permissive society. Lesbian marriage, Madonna and Lady Gaga, cougars, teenage girls seducing older men, its all happening.
Will BDSM be accepted into the mainstream and will we end up with dungeons in every town ? I don’t think so. While it appears to be amazingly popular –check out the extensive entry on BDSM in Wikipedia – this is only a phase of the sexual revolution, not the final destination. These things always go in cycles with the radicals pushing boundaries to their extreme limits until finally things settle back into some sort of midway position which is acceptable to the majority of people in a society.
This trend is definitely in the expansion stage of the cycle. Look at some recent movies – Blue is the Warmest Colour - a 3 hour in-depth exploration of lesbian love. Young & Beautiful – a teenage girl explores life as a prostitute. Fading Gigolo – a movie where normal transmission is reversed and a male escort provides therapeutic services to a sexually frustrated Sharon Stone. So don’t fear. All this humping and pumping is just one intricate thread on a mysterious loom that weaves the rich tapestry of life on Planet Earth.
Shame and Loathing
In Las Vegas
No, this is not a Hunter S Thompson tale of weird drug-induced hallucinatory adventures although there may be some similarities if you care to look closely.
We live in a world that seems to be awash with guilt and shame. In fact most of what we call drama is built around events and experiences that trigger these two emotions. And they certainly have their place and their purpose. When we do something that our culture judges to be seriously wrong, guilt and shame are emotions that should cause us to take a good hard look at what we have done and to reflect on the consequences of our words or actions
Having examined our behaviour we can then choose to make appropriate changes (or not) and move on, dropping guilt and shame behind us and forgetting them. Instead in our selfie world they have transmuted into strange beasts that we seem unable to release and that just hang around and feed our neuroses. Our media - movies, television, novels - play on this obsession with negative emotions and encourage us to wallow in it endlessly. We love the drama so much that the pain becomes pleasurable.
This appears to be a peculiarly western pre-occupation. The Dalai Lama has commented that when he first arrived in the West he was struck by the prevalence of shame and self loathing among its people, feelings that were relatively unknown in his native country of Tibet. The bizarre by-products of these twisted feelings - self mutilation, eating disorders and body hatred - that have become so common in our society simply didn’t exist.
This is the legacy of Christianity, a religion which still has a major impact on our collective psyches even though the majority of westerners have turned their backs on it. Although we may believe that its teachings have no effect on us in fact Christianity forms much of the framework upon which western society is based. Our belief in helping others in our society who are in need is based on the Christian parable of The Good Samaritan. The bible story of the prodigal son focuses on the virtue of forgiveness and our belief in generosity to others also derives from a bible story. While many people probably believe that Walt Disney invented the happy ending where the good guys always win in the end, the principle that good will ultimately triumph over evil is a fundamental teaching of Christianity. In the last few thousand years these stories have helped to create the system of positive values against which much of our behaviour is judged.
My experience of religion is probably fairly typical. I can remember as a teenager sitting in church, bored out of my brain, listening to the minister telling us what hopeless sinners we were and threatening hellfire and damnation if we didn’t repent. That more than anything was what turned me off religion. But after years of this indoctrination and more years spent in a school system which constantly threatened punishment for a vast range of minor misdemeanours the brain washing was irreversible. Unfortunately the belief in sin is buried so deep that for many of us there is very little chance of escaping its clutches.
This is not intended to be an anti-religious rant. Religion has its place and I respect the views of those genuinely devout Christians who live their beliefs. My beef is not with the positive teachings and values of Christianity but with its emphasis on negativity. Interestingly modern scholars are now challenging the use of the word ‘sin’, maintaining that it is actually a misinterpretation of the original Christian teachings. The correct translation of ‘sin’ should be an error or a mistake which has a quite different slant. In its zeal to make new converts the early church chose to focus on the negative and play on people’s emotions. More and more ‘mistakes’ were converted into religious sins and guilt and shame became very heavy emotions that weighed on people’s psyches and could not be easily dropped to allow the ‘sinful’ event to dissipate.
Modern society is gradually changing its attitude towards mistakes which is a very healthy development. We are now starting to realise that its perfectly normal to make mistakes - in fact thats the way we learn. Rather than beating ourselves up when something goes wrong we should treat it as part of the learning curve, work out where we made the error so that we can avoid repeating it and then move on. Eventually guilt and shame will lose their attraction and our addiction to these painful emotions will finally be broken
We live in a world that seems to be awash with guilt and shame. In fact most of what we call drama is built around events and experiences that trigger these two emotions. And they certainly have their place and their purpose. When we do something that our culture judges to be seriously wrong, guilt and shame are emotions that should cause us to take a good hard look at what we have done and to reflect on the consequences of our words or actions
Having examined our behaviour we can then choose to make appropriate changes (or not) and move on, dropping guilt and shame behind us and forgetting them. Instead in our selfie world they have transmuted into strange beasts that we seem unable to release and that just hang around and feed our neuroses. Our media - movies, television, novels - play on this obsession with negative emotions and encourage us to wallow in it endlessly. We love the drama so much that the pain becomes pleasurable.
This appears to be a peculiarly western pre-occupation. The Dalai Lama has commented that when he first arrived in the West he was struck by the prevalence of shame and self loathing among its people, feelings that were relatively unknown in his native country of Tibet. The bizarre by-products of these twisted feelings - self mutilation, eating disorders and body hatred - that have become so common in our society simply didn’t exist.
This is the legacy of Christianity, a religion which still has a major impact on our collective psyches even though the majority of westerners have turned their backs on it. Although we may believe that its teachings have no effect on us in fact Christianity forms much of the framework upon which western society is based. Our belief in helping others in our society who are in need is based on the Christian parable of The Good Samaritan. The bible story of the prodigal son focuses on the virtue of forgiveness and our belief in generosity to others also derives from a bible story. While many people probably believe that Walt Disney invented the happy ending where the good guys always win in the end, the principle that good will ultimately triumph over evil is a fundamental teaching of Christianity. In the last few thousand years these stories have helped to create the system of positive values against which much of our behaviour is judged.
My experience of religion is probably fairly typical. I can remember as a teenager sitting in church, bored out of my brain, listening to the minister telling us what hopeless sinners we were and threatening hellfire and damnation if we didn’t repent. That more than anything was what turned me off religion. But after years of this indoctrination and more years spent in a school system which constantly threatened punishment for a vast range of minor misdemeanours the brain washing was irreversible. Unfortunately the belief in sin is buried so deep that for many of us there is very little chance of escaping its clutches.
This is not intended to be an anti-religious rant. Religion has its place and I respect the views of those genuinely devout Christians who live their beliefs. My beef is not with the positive teachings and values of Christianity but with its emphasis on negativity. Interestingly modern scholars are now challenging the use of the word ‘sin’, maintaining that it is actually a misinterpretation of the original Christian teachings. The correct translation of ‘sin’ should be an error or a mistake which has a quite different slant. In its zeal to make new converts the early church chose to focus on the negative and play on people’s emotions. More and more ‘mistakes’ were converted into religious sins and guilt and shame became very heavy emotions that weighed on people’s psyches and could not be easily dropped to allow the ‘sinful’ event to dissipate.
Modern society is gradually changing its attitude towards mistakes which is a very healthy development. We are now starting to realise that its perfectly normal to make mistakes - in fact thats the way we learn. Rather than beating ourselves up when something goes wrong we should treat it as part of the learning curve, work out where we made the error so that we can avoid repeating it and then move on. Eventually guilt and shame will lose their attraction and our addiction to these painful emotions will finally be broken
Race Relations In The Spotlight
A Tale Of Two Countries Taking
Very Different Paths
Six months ago I returned to live in New Zealand after 12 years in Australia. By that time I had completely lost touch with events in New Zealand and had no idea where the country was on matters of politics, race, equality, the big issues. I had come from a country that seemed to have chosen a very tortuous road, dominated by extreme policies. Governments that paid lip service to human rights but in practice viewed many sections of society as virtual outcasts, not part of the mainstream and therefore justifying different treatment. This excluded category comprised Aboriginals, “boat people”, Muslims and other immigrants who appeared to be failing to integrate into "the Australian way of life”.
While a significant minority, for whom people like the late Malcolm Fraser provided a strong voice, are appalled at the direction the country has taken, the majority voice has drowned out their objections. Their views are ignored as adults and children arriving “illegally”, fleeing from war, violence and persecution are herded into camps and held under prison conditions leading to suicide, self harm and psychological damage, losing all dignity and hope.
While the majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens the media tend to focus on the small minority of the disaffected, stirring up racial tensions that bubble just below the surface of society. Events like the Cronulla Beach race riots and the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney have brought that tension into the open and provoked debate but the war on terror rhetoric obscures everything. On the streets people of clearly middle eastern origin are treated with suspicion and the country seems in the grip of paranoia.
But it is the treatment of the country’s first peoples, the Aboriginals, that concerns me the most. I lived in Brisbane in the 1970s and saw at first hand the heavy-handed tactics of the police under the Bjelke Petersen government. Times have changed and aboriginals are no longer routinely herded into police paddy wagons at closing time and carted off to the cells. Some strong community leaders have emerged and the people are slowly regaining their self respect. But it is a long, hard struggle. When Kevin Rudd finally said “sorry” for the past it was a gesture that had great significance for some aboriginals. But since then very little has changed. In the parks the men still gather in angry groups to drink and vent their anger. Governments still throw money at the problem and make supportive noises but there seems no will to address the real issues. The threatened closure of remote aboriginal communities is simply a continuation of the ongoing policy of neglect.
By comparison the country I grew up in has always seemed to be more tolerant towards non-European cultures and races. Of course we have always had racial discrimination. It would be naïve to suggest otherwise. The stereotype of Maori as lazy, untrustworthy and probably looking for a chance to steal your car or burgle your house, which was prevalent when I went to school in a small Bay of Plenty town in the 1960’s, is still around, though much less deeply ingrained. Attitudes and prejudices are softening.
The New Zealand I left in 2002 was also going through difficult times and many people seemed to share my view that the treaty settlement issue was driving a wedge between the races and threatening the stability of a once cohesive society. For the European Pakeha population New Zealand's national day of celebration, Waitangi Day, was a day to be avoided and forgotten, not observed with pride.
In 2002 the predominant mood among Pakeha seemed to be one of resentment and frustration at the cost and drawn out nature of the settlement process, concern that Maori were becoming privileged citizens in a land which had always believed in equality. That sentiment is still around but it seems to have become very much a minority view. The overwhelming attitude that I pick up from the print and digital media and from conversation is generally one of acceptance of the outcome, satisfaction with the social cohesion and unity of the country.
The treaty settlement process and the positive discrimination policies that went with it were always going to be hard. Positive discrimination by its nature requires policies that clearly favour one group in society at the expense of another. It upsets what was previously regarded as the natural balance and raises concern that the process will go too far and veer out of control. In America similar policies aimed at raising the negro population to a more equal position were hugely controversial and were eventually derailed by a powerful conservative backlash. Australia has barely started down that road. Put in that context I believe New Zealand has done a remarkable job and we should be grateful for the wise heads who have guided us down this difficult path.
The success of the course New Zealand has chosen to take can be seen all over the country in the resurgence of Maori self belief – the prominent carvings in our towns and cities, the rejuvenation of the Whakarewarewa thermal area as a world class tourist attraction, the Maori crafts people, entertainers, actors and business entrepreneurs. In a nation where the standard of television news and entertainment has dropped alarmingly Maori television stands out as a shining light. Sure, not everything has been a success – Maori businesses have failed, treaty settlement proceeds have been misused, some Maori politicians have been less than perfect. Pakeha know all about that.
From where I stand that European view of Maori as lazy is in essence a cultural and not a racial issue. What do I mean by that ? Simply that we Pakeha come from a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant background that has always had an obsession with work, making progress, getting ahead – and look where that has taken us and the rest of the western world. For around 25 years I have had a vision of New Zealand as a model for a new way, where the relaxed attitudes and spiritual respect for the land of Maori are mixed with the creativity, technology and drive of Pakeha. A vision of the two races working together in harmony in a way that respects each other’s strengths and insights and sidesteps the madness of the market economy.
Once it was a dream. Now it seems a real possibility.
While a significant minority, for whom people like the late Malcolm Fraser provided a strong voice, are appalled at the direction the country has taken, the majority voice has drowned out their objections. Their views are ignored as adults and children arriving “illegally”, fleeing from war, violence and persecution are herded into camps and held under prison conditions leading to suicide, self harm and psychological damage, losing all dignity and hope.
While the majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens the media tend to focus on the small minority of the disaffected, stirring up racial tensions that bubble just below the surface of society. Events like the Cronulla Beach race riots and the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney have brought that tension into the open and provoked debate but the war on terror rhetoric obscures everything. On the streets people of clearly middle eastern origin are treated with suspicion and the country seems in the grip of paranoia.
But it is the treatment of the country’s first peoples, the Aboriginals, that concerns me the most. I lived in Brisbane in the 1970s and saw at first hand the heavy-handed tactics of the police under the Bjelke Petersen government. Times have changed and aboriginals are no longer routinely herded into police paddy wagons at closing time and carted off to the cells. Some strong community leaders have emerged and the people are slowly regaining their self respect. But it is a long, hard struggle. When Kevin Rudd finally said “sorry” for the past it was a gesture that had great significance for some aboriginals. But since then very little has changed. In the parks the men still gather in angry groups to drink and vent their anger. Governments still throw money at the problem and make supportive noises but there seems no will to address the real issues. The threatened closure of remote aboriginal communities is simply a continuation of the ongoing policy of neglect.
By comparison the country I grew up in has always seemed to be more tolerant towards non-European cultures and races. Of course we have always had racial discrimination. It would be naïve to suggest otherwise. The stereotype of Maori as lazy, untrustworthy and probably looking for a chance to steal your car or burgle your house, which was prevalent when I went to school in a small Bay of Plenty town in the 1960’s, is still around, though much less deeply ingrained. Attitudes and prejudices are softening.
The New Zealand I left in 2002 was also going through difficult times and many people seemed to share my view that the treaty settlement issue was driving a wedge between the races and threatening the stability of a once cohesive society. For the European Pakeha population New Zealand's national day of celebration, Waitangi Day, was a day to be avoided and forgotten, not observed with pride.
In 2002 the predominant mood among Pakeha seemed to be one of resentment and frustration at the cost and drawn out nature of the settlement process, concern that Maori were becoming privileged citizens in a land which had always believed in equality. That sentiment is still around but it seems to have become very much a minority view. The overwhelming attitude that I pick up from the print and digital media and from conversation is generally one of acceptance of the outcome, satisfaction with the social cohesion and unity of the country.
The treaty settlement process and the positive discrimination policies that went with it were always going to be hard. Positive discrimination by its nature requires policies that clearly favour one group in society at the expense of another. It upsets what was previously regarded as the natural balance and raises concern that the process will go too far and veer out of control. In America similar policies aimed at raising the negro population to a more equal position were hugely controversial and were eventually derailed by a powerful conservative backlash. Australia has barely started down that road. Put in that context I believe New Zealand has done a remarkable job and we should be grateful for the wise heads who have guided us down this difficult path.
The success of the course New Zealand has chosen to take can be seen all over the country in the resurgence of Maori self belief – the prominent carvings in our towns and cities, the rejuvenation of the Whakarewarewa thermal area as a world class tourist attraction, the Maori crafts people, entertainers, actors and business entrepreneurs. In a nation where the standard of television news and entertainment has dropped alarmingly Maori television stands out as a shining light. Sure, not everything has been a success – Maori businesses have failed, treaty settlement proceeds have been misused, some Maori politicians have been less than perfect. Pakeha know all about that.
From where I stand that European view of Maori as lazy is in essence a cultural and not a racial issue. What do I mean by that ? Simply that we Pakeha come from a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant background that has always had an obsession with work, making progress, getting ahead – and look where that has taken us and the rest of the western world. For around 25 years I have had a vision of New Zealand as a model for a new way, where the relaxed attitudes and spiritual respect for the land of Maori are mixed with the creativity, technology and drive of Pakeha. A vision of the two races working together in harmony in a way that respects each other’s strengths and insights and sidesteps the madness of the market economy.
Once it was a dream. Now it seems a real possibility.
The Poverty Crisis
Five Global Trends That
Breed Inequality
Child poverty, the working poor, domestic violence, social welfare reform – these are terms we see and hear frequently in the media these days. In the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand unacceptable levels of poverty, stress and family violence affect a significant proportion of the population. In New Zealand child poverty was considered serious enough to be an issue at the last election. Why is this happening amid the apparent wealth and affluence of the western world?
The causes of the poverty crisis are complex and inevitably it is the usual suspects, our politicians, who have to take most of the blame for the situation we are facing today. The causes of the current crisis can be traced back to five major global trends.
1. Globalisation
For the start of the problem, we have to go back to the 1980s and the rise to power of Maggie Thatcher with her recipe for radical economic reform. In the Thatcher view of the world, market forces should be given free reign and companies should be allowed to get on with making money with as little interference from governments as possible. These policies were followed by Ronald Reagan in the US and ultimately spread throughout the world leading to the birth of globalisation and the political/business environment we see today.
2. The Rise of Corporations
However with globalisation came some unexpected stowaways that have played havoc with the balance we knew in our pre-1980s world, creating inequality, division and stress in our once egalitarian societies. Previously governments dominated the world scene but with globalisation came a massive change in the rankings. Companies have become so powerful and wealthy that large corporations are now the dominant force on the planet. They have reinforced their power through a process of corporate financing of political parties which has become so pervasive that no politician can hope to get elected without a very large inflow of corporate dollars. Hillary Clinton’s fund-raising campaign to finance her 2016 presidential bid provided a perfect example of that process in action.
3. The Sting in the Tail – Social Welfare under Attack
Of course big business expects a return on its generous political investments and that is where the problems begin for many of our citizens. The sting in the tail is that governments have to pursue policies that will encourage and support business growth. In practice this means selling off publicly-owned assets, making efficiency cuts and reducing government services to a minimum. Taken to its extreme, as Maggie Thatcher preached, it involves the complete dismantling of state social welfare support. In the view of Maggie and her supporters, social welfare is a dangerous redistribution of income which is harmful to the global financial system.
4. Made in China – the New Kid on the Global Block
The dark knight in this ongoing melodrama is China. In the 1980s very few commentators foresaw the rise of China as a major player on the world stage, let alone its rising economic dominance. In a globalised world it has become possible for the west not just to trade extensively with China but to set up joint ventures on Chinese soil to supply goods to the west. The rest is history. The vast majority of the goods we buy are now made in China and our ongoing prosperity is heavily dependent upon the continuing growth of the Chinese economy.
5. The Sting in the Tail – The Low Price, Low Wage Economy
Most bonanzas have a downside and in our case, because we have chosen to put all our eggs in the China basket, the downside is that our local manufacturers and producers have had to compete with the low prices of the Chinese products. Their only option has been to slash costs in order to compete and that has been an impossible ask for many. In these shark-infested waters big companies have prospered, swallowing up smaller competitors and forcing others out of business. Even some of the bigger players have been pushed to the wall. Steel mills, vehicle assembly plants, timber mills, power stations and dairy factories have all closed down as they become uneconomic, throwing thousands out of work and many onto welfare.
“I Guess I’ve Arrived, This Must be the Bottom”
This new world is not a pretty sight. Yes, our shops may be stocked with an overwhelming variety of cheap consumer goods but the real price we pay is not so obvious. Following the collapse of a number of clothing factory buildings in Bangladesh there has been ongoing publicity exposing the shocking working conditions experienced by many staff employed in Asian sweatshops.
Western businesses, even those which have joint venture agreements with Asian companies, have been forced to come up with a variety of cost-cutting strategies in order to compete. A common tactic has been reducing the size or the quality of products while steadily increasing the price. Cadbury’s in New Zealand has recently come under attack for trying to fool consumers with size reductions in chocolate bars. Clothing stores like Rivers and Target in Australia have pursued a steady policy of lowering the quality of their materials to grunge levels to try and maintain sales figures. “Cheap”, “low price” and “20-70% discount” have become the new mantras.
With globalisation and the increased power of companies, trade unions have been decimated enabling employers, particularly in the US, to dictate wages policy. The term “working poor” was first coined in the US where business has pressured politicians to keep the minimum wage at levels so low that many workers are barely able to survive. Full-time staff have become a threatened species as employers use casual and part-time staff to reduce their wages bill. Now this disease has spread to other countries including Australia and New Zealand.
The trend is ever downward in this lemming-like race to the bottom and the eventual outcome is only too obvious. Children and their parents living in poverty, the unemployed and the homeless, domestic violence brought on by financial stress and job loss – these are the obvious casualties of a world that has lost its way. When their only lifelines, social welfare services, are slashed as well these bottom dwellers reach desperation point.
I believe there is a streak of compassion in every human being, even if that quality is deeply buried in some of us. Politicians know this. They know that savaging social welfare is not a popular measure so they take a tactical approach. Maggie Thatcher tried the full frontal attack. Tony Abbott tried ambush. Neither worked. John Key used smooth talking, bluster and denial but even that failed to defuse the issue.
Where is this low quality/low price/low wage insanity taking us ? What will our world look like when the madness stops ?Those are the questions I ask myself.
The causes of the poverty crisis are complex and inevitably it is the usual suspects, our politicians, who have to take most of the blame for the situation we are facing today. The causes of the current crisis can be traced back to five major global trends.
1. Globalisation
For the start of the problem, we have to go back to the 1980s and the rise to power of Maggie Thatcher with her recipe for radical economic reform. In the Thatcher view of the world, market forces should be given free reign and companies should be allowed to get on with making money with as little interference from governments as possible. These policies were followed by Ronald Reagan in the US and ultimately spread throughout the world leading to the birth of globalisation and the political/business environment we see today.
2. The Rise of Corporations
However with globalisation came some unexpected stowaways that have played havoc with the balance we knew in our pre-1980s world, creating inequality, division and stress in our once egalitarian societies. Previously governments dominated the world scene but with globalisation came a massive change in the rankings. Companies have become so powerful and wealthy that large corporations are now the dominant force on the planet. They have reinforced their power through a process of corporate financing of political parties which has become so pervasive that no politician can hope to get elected without a very large inflow of corporate dollars. Hillary Clinton’s fund-raising campaign to finance her 2016 presidential bid provided a perfect example of that process in action.
3. The Sting in the Tail – Social Welfare under Attack
Of course big business expects a return on its generous political investments and that is where the problems begin for many of our citizens. The sting in the tail is that governments have to pursue policies that will encourage and support business growth. In practice this means selling off publicly-owned assets, making efficiency cuts and reducing government services to a minimum. Taken to its extreme, as Maggie Thatcher preached, it involves the complete dismantling of state social welfare support. In the view of Maggie and her supporters, social welfare is a dangerous redistribution of income which is harmful to the global financial system.
4. Made in China – the New Kid on the Global Block
The dark knight in this ongoing melodrama is China. In the 1980s very few commentators foresaw the rise of China as a major player on the world stage, let alone its rising economic dominance. In a globalised world it has become possible for the west not just to trade extensively with China but to set up joint ventures on Chinese soil to supply goods to the west. The rest is history. The vast majority of the goods we buy are now made in China and our ongoing prosperity is heavily dependent upon the continuing growth of the Chinese economy.
5. The Sting in the Tail – The Low Price, Low Wage Economy
Most bonanzas have a downside and in our case, because we have chosen to put all our eggs in the China basket, the downside is that our local manufacturers and producers have had to compete with the low prices of the Chinese products. Their only option has been to slash costs in order to compete and that has been an impossible ask for many. In these shark-infested waters big companies have prospered, swallowing up smaller competitors and forcing others out of business. Even some of the bigger players have been pushed to the wall. Steel mills, vehicle assembly plants, timber mills, power stations and dairy factories have all closed down as they become uneconomic, throwing thousands out of work and many onto welfare.
“I Guess I’ve Arrived, This Must be the Bottom”
This new world is not a pretty sight. Yes, our shops may be stocked with an overwhelming variety of cheap consumer goods but the real price we pay is not so obvious. Following the collapse of a number of clothing factory buildings in Bangladesh there has been ongoing publicity exposing the shocking working conditions experienced by many staff employed in Asian sweatshops.
Western businesses, even those which have joint venture agreements with Asian companies, have been forced to come up with a variety of cost-cutting strategies in order to compete. A common tactic has been reducing the size or the quality of products while steadily increasing the price. Cadbury’s in New Zealand has recently come under attack for trying to fool consumers with size reductions in chocolate bars. Clothing stores like Rivers and Target in Australia have pursued a steady policy of lowering the quality of their materials to grunge levels to try and maintain sales figures. “Cheap”, “low price” and “20-70% discount” have become the new mantras.
With globalisation and the increased power of companies, trade unions have been decimated enabling employers, particularly in the US, to dictate wages policy. The term “working poor” was first coined in the US where business has pressured politicians to keep the minimum wage at levels so low that many workers are barely able to survive. Full-time staff have become a threatened species as employers use casual and part-time staff to reduce their wages bill. Now this disease has spread to other countries including Australia and New Zealand.
The trend is ever downward in this lemming-like race to the bottom and the eventual outcome is only too obvious. Children and their parents living in poverty, the unemployed and the homeless, domestic violence brought on by financial stress and job loss – these are the obvious casualties of a world that has lost its way. When their only lifelines, social welfare services, are slashed as well these bottom dwellers reach desperation point.
I believe there is a streak of compassion in every human being, even if that quality is deeply buried in some of us. Politicians know this. They know that savaging social welfare is not a popular measure so they take a tactical approach. Maggie Thatcher tried the full frontal attack. Tony Abbott tried ambush. Neither worked. John Key used smooth talking, bluster and denial but even that failed to defuse the issue.
Where is this low quality/low price/low wage insanity taking us ? What will our world look like when the madness stops ?Those are the questions I ask myself.
The Democracy Drama
Can A New Generation
Come To Our Rescue ?
The Threat to Democracy
Democracy as a political theory has been with us since the time of the ancient Greeks but like many theories its boundaries are not always clear. There are some fairly well defined principles however. Since the adoption of the democratic system of government in the west it has generally been possible for people and countries to agree on what is or is not acceptable in a democracy. We have been able to draw a rough line in the sand and concur on where practices and principles fall (democratic or undemocratic) in relation to this mythical boundary.
That was until 11 September 2001 and the bombing of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre in New York. Fourteen years on it is clear that this event and subsequent political responses have blurred the boundaries of democracy to such an extent that there is now widespread disagreement on their location. The boundary lines are not just uncertain. The entire area around this militarised zone is now filled with ethical quicksand that can trap the unwary. The air hereabouts is heavy with mirages and smokescreens that can blur the vision and distort judgement. To venture into this strange trackless wilderness is to risk losing your moral compass. Which is exactly what has happened to many of our politicians.
The reasons for this loss of perspective are well known. In their zeal to counter the epidemic of civil war and terrorism that now seems to be sweeping the globe, western governments have adopted a wide range of tactical responses from the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the widespread surveillance of their own and foreign citizens, backed up with with a tough crackdown on whistleblowers. Leading the charge on this front is Barack Obama whose administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the previous US administrations combined.
Controversial government counter-terrorism measures include:
The Whistleblowers
While many still see these actions as justified responses in the “War on Terror”, there is now mounting criticism at the use of these tactics and the consequent erosion of democratic freedoms and rights. This criticism extends to the treatment of whistleblowers who expose these practices and almost inevitably face prosecution and the threat of long prison sentences. Edward Snowden has declared that “a whistleblower almost has to become comfortable with the idea of becoming a martyr, because the probability of retaliation is so certain.”
Yet despite these challenges the number of whistleblowers has increased dramatically since September 11 and there is high-level support for the view that we should encourage the actions of these people not criminalise their behaviour. A recent report by the UN Envoy charged with safeguarding free speech around the globe, David Kaye, highlights the harsh treatment of whistleblowers in the US, most notably Edward Snowden. In his view confidential sources and whistleblowers are a crucial element of a healthy democracy and governments should protect them rather than demonise them.
The Generation Factor
One interesting trend is the relative youth of some of these outlaws. Julian Assange is a member of Generation X and Edward Snowden, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and Antoine Deltour who was charged in the Lux Leaks case, are all from the generation known as The Millennials aka Generation Y.
There is a tendency these days to bad mouth these coming generations as selfie-driven no-hopers who are only interested in their next Facebook post and will bring society to ruin and despair. That may be a mistake. Sarah Sladek in her book “Knowing Y: Engage the Next Generation Now” suggests that members of The Millennials are very different to other generations. From her research they have the following characteristics:
When you look at those key indicators it starts to become clear why Snowden, Manning and Deltour have been so determined to expose corruption. Their actions can be written off as treason or delusional behaviour but to put them in that category would be to underestimate their intelligence, the extent to which they are driven by conscience and belief in high ethical standards and most of all their courage. The consequences of their actions have been severe:
How many of us would risk that sort of fate ? Maybe its time to stop being so critical of Gen X and The Millennials. Maybe, just maybe these “lost generations” could be the saviours of our precious democratic freedoms.
Democracy as a political theory has been with us since the time of the ancient Greeks but like many theories its boundaries are not always clear. There are some fairly well defined principles however. Since the adoption of the democratic system of government in the west it has generally been possible for people and countries to agree on what is or is not acceptable in a democracy. We have been able to draw a rough line in the sand and concur on where practices and principles fall (democratic or undemocratic) in relation to this mythical boundary.
That was until 11 September 2001 and the bombing of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre in New York. Fourteen years on it is clear that this event and subsequent political responses have blurred the boundaries of democracy to such an extent that there is now widespread disagreement on their location. The boundary lines are not just uncertain. The entire area around this militarised zone is now filled with ethical quicksand that can trap the unwary. The air hereabouts is heavy with mirages and smokescreens that can blur the vision and distort judgement. To venture into this strange trackless wilderness is to risk losing your moral compass. Which is exactly what has happened to many of our politicians.
The reasons for this loss of perspective are well known. In their zeal to counter the epidemic of civil war and terrorism that now seems to be sweeping the globe, western governments have adopted a wide range of tactical responses from the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the widespread surveillance of their own and foreign citizens, backed up with with a tough crackdown on whistleblowers. Leading the charge on this front is Barack Obama whose administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the previous US administrations combined.
Controversial government counter-terrorism measures include:
- Torture of prisoners in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan
- Kidnapping of suspects by US forces or their allies and their forcible removal to third countries for interrogation and torture (known as rendition)
- Ordering air strikes in heavily populated areas resulting in significant civilian deaths and the use of drones to assassinate terrorist targets
- Electronic surveillance of huge volumes of personal communications by the US National Security Agency and the British spy agency GCHQ
The Whistleblowers
While many still see these actions as justified responses in the “War on Terror”, there is now mounting criticism at the use of these tactics and the consequent erosion of democratic freedoms and rights. This criticism extends to the treatment of whistleblowers who expose these practices and almost inevitably face prosecution and the threat of long prison sentences. Edward Snowden has declared that “a whistleblower almost has to become comfortable with the idea of becoming a martyr, because the probability of retaliation is so certain.”
Yet despite these challenges the number of whistleblowers has increased dramatically since September 11 and there is high-level support for the view that we should encourage the actions of these people not criminalise their behaviour. A recent report by the UN Envoy charged with safeguarding free speech around the globe, David Kaye, highlights the harsh treatment of whistleblowers in the US, most notably Edward Snowden. In his view confidential sources and whistleblowers are a crucial element of a healthy democracy and governments should protect them rather than demonise them.
The Generation Factor
One interesting trend is the relative youth of some of these outlaws. Julian Assange is a member of Generation X and Edward Snowden, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and Antoine Deltour who was charged in the Lux Leaks case, are all from the generation known as The Millennials aka Generation Y.
There is a tendency these days to bad mouth these coming generations as selfie-driven no-hopers who are only interested in their next Facebook post and will bring society to ruin and despair. That may be a mistake. Sarah Sladek in her book “Knowing Y: Engage the Next Generation Now” suggests that members of The Millennials are very different to other generations. From her research they have the following characteristics:
- The vast majority (92%) believe that business should be measured by more than profit
- Many of them (61%) are driven by a desire to make a difference in the world
- They want to do business with ethical, trustworthy organisations
When you look at those key indicators it starts to become clear why Snowden, Manning and Deltour have been so determined to expose corruption. Their actions can be written off as treason or delusional behaviour but to put them in that category would be to underestimate their intelligence, the extent to which they are driven by conscience and belief in high ethical standards and most of all their courage. The consequences of their actions have been severe:
- Edward Snowden in exile in Russia and threatened with a life sentence in an American jail if he leaves,
- Julian Assange risking arrest and jail if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London,
- Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in an American jail,
- Antoine Deltour facing a long jail term in Luxembourg if found guilty of releasing documents exposing tax schemes by multi-national corporations
How many of us would risk that sort of fate ? Maybe its time to stop being so critical of Gen X and The Millennials. Maybe, just maybe these “lost generations” could be the saviours of our precious democratic freedoms.
Return To Downton Abbey
Are "The Working Poor" The
New Servant Class ?
In 2016 we are witnessing the return of the working poor, a section of society which has work but cannot earn enough to survive and is sinking back into the type of poverty experienced in industrial towns and cities in England during the 19th Century.
We see this with employers like McDonalds which exploit young people who need work and are willing to take casual jobs with no certainty of long-term employment and at very low rates of pay. Migrant workers on farms and orchards work in even worse conditions in many countries, exploited by unscrupulous bosses and subject to harassment and victimisation if they fail to perform to expectations.
These work practices have spread to large corporations that can use their power and muscle to shut out unions and enforce working conditions that would be unacceptable in most workplaces. Walmart, the world’s largest company, with over 11,000 stores in 28 countries, has a reputation for exploiting its staff, changing work schedules, reducing working hours and cancelling shifts without notice. In the US it recently agreed under pressure to increase its minimum wage payout by $1 to $9 per hour, still not enough for workers to survive.
Amazon is infamous for paying low wages and using contractors, not employees, who are forced to work under enormous pressure, rushing around warehouses and filling orders for up to 11 hours a day. If they don’t meet performance targets or take too much time off, contracts can be terminated without notice.
As employment opportunities shrink more and more people are being forced into work that would have only been taken by people classed as “servants” in Victorian society – mowing lawns, house cleaning, child care, laundry, dog walking. Like Amazon contractors many of these people eke out a precarious existence, never knowing when they will get work, low paid with no sickness or holiday pay benefits.
None of these people would regard themselves as servants but that is where our societies are heading as the epidemic of inequality spreads throughout western countries. If current trends continue more and more of the middle class will fall into economic hardship and we will eventually return to the era where there are only two levels of society – those living in extreme wealth and those living in extreme poverty.
This outcome may seem improbable in a society where many of us can still afford to shop in glitzy shopping malls, buy shiny new cars and take holidays on tropical islands. But if we remain blind to the changes that are happening all around us and fail to take action to protect our rights our final destination will be the servant’s quarters at Downton Abbey.
We see this with employers like McDonalds which exploit young people who need work and are willing to take casual jobs with no certainty of long-term employment and at very low rates of pay. Migrant workers on farms and orchards work in even worse conditions in many countries, exploited by unscrupulous bosses and subject to harassment and victimisation if they fail to perform to expectations.
These work practices have spread to large corporations that can use their power and muscle to shut out unions and enforce working conditions that would be unacceptable in most workplaces. Walmart, the world’s largest company, with over 11,000 stores in 28 countries, has a reputation for exploiting its staff, changing work schedules, reducing working hours and cancelling shifts without notice. In the US it recently agreed under pressure to increase its minimum wage payout by $1 to $9 per hour, still not enough for workers to survive.
Amazon is infamous for paying low wages and using contractors, not employees, who are forced to work under enormous pressure, rushing around warehouses and filling orders for up to 11 hours a day. If they don’t meet performance targets or take too much time off, contracts can be terminated without notice.
As employment opportunities shrink more and more people are being forced into work that would have only been taken by people classed as “servants” in Victorian society – mowing lawns, house cleaning, child care, laundry, dog walking. Like Amazon contractors many of these people eke out a precarious existence, never knowing when they will get work, low paid with no sickness or holiday pay benefits.
None of these people would regard themselves as servants but that is where our societies are heading as the epidemic of inequality spreads throughout western countries. If current trends continue more and more of the middle class will fall into economic hardship and we will eventually return to the era where there are only two levels of society – those living in extreme wealth and those living in extreme poverty.
This outcome may seem improbable in a society where many of us can still afford to shop in glitzy shopping malls, buy shiny new cars and take holidays on tropical islands. But if we remain blind to the changes that are happening all around us and fail to take action to protect our rights our final destination will be the servant’s quarters at Downton Abbey.
Nightmare On Main Street
Is The Middle Class Doomed ?
In the established democracies of the west we tend to think of democracy as the norm, something that will always be with us.In fact today’s democratic model is a recent arrival on the planet and it is a fragile flower.
Wealth = power and when great wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, as it has been for most of history, those few have no interest in protecting democracy. To do so goes against their natural instinct which is to acquire more and more power.
Democracy can only flourish where the leaders of a nation are committed to the concepts of opportunity and equalityand all citizens enjoy these freedoms. The rise of a prosperous middle class is one of the most visible signs that this process is occurring.
If you own your own home and have a well-paid job then you can count yourself as part of the middle class. What most people don’t realise is that prior to about 1900 this section of society was virtually unknown.
Until the dawn of the twentieth century a very small elite held all the wealth and the vast majority of people owned almost nothing. The middle class as we know it today simply did not exist. It was only the massive changes in the social order precipitated by two world wars and the government policies introduced to deal with those changes that led to the emergence of this new social grouping.
These policies included the creation of a welfare support system and universal health care and encouraged the innovation and business opportunities and the employment conditions that we have today. Our modern shopping malls and our affluent consumer society are the outward signs of these changes. In a sense these developments represent Democracy in action, they are the products of a society based on opportunity and equality.
However since the 1980s the fragile flower of Democracy has begun to wilt, gradually at first but now at a rapidly increasing rate. Inequality is advancing at a dangerous pace, as evidenced by the widening gap between rich and poor, the increasing incidence of families in poverty and the re-emergence of the “working poor”, people in employment but struggling to survive financially.
Welfare support systems are being pruned, access to quality health care is shrinking, unemployment is rising and part time and casual work are becoming the norm. Wages and salaries are lagging well behind inflation except for a small number of top executives who are able to pull in excessive salary packages, increasing the wealth gap still further.
The attack on the middle class is largely happening under the radar. If it continues there is no guarantee that the west will not return to the mass inequality that existed prior to World War 1. If that happens the middle class will be annihilatedand Democracy may well disappear with it.
Wealth = power and when great wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, as it has been for most of history, those few have no interest in protecting democracy. To do so goes against their natural instinct which is to acquire more and more power.
Democracy can only flourish where the leaders of a nation are committed to the concepts of opportunity and equalityand all citizens enjoy these freedoms. The rise of a prosperous middle class is one of the most visible signs that this process is occurring.
If you own your own home and have a well-paid job then you can count yourself as part of the middle class. What most people don’t realise is that prior to about 1900 this section of society was virtually unknown.
Until the dawn of the twentieth century a very small elite held all the wealth and the vast majority of people owned almost nothing. The middle class as we know it today simply did not exist. It was only the massive changes in the social order precipitated by two world wars and the government policies introduced to deal with those changes that led to the emergence of this new social grouping.
These policies included the creation of a welfare support system and universal health care and encouraged the innovation and business opportunities and the employment conditions that we have today. Our modern shopping malls and our affluent consumer society are the outward signs of these changes. In a sense these developments represent Democracy in action, they are the products of a society based on opportunity and equality.
However since the 1980s the fragile flower of Democracy has begun to wilt, gradually at first but now at a rapidly increasing rate. Inequality is advancing at a dangerous pace, as evidenced by the widening gap between rich and poor, the increasing incidence of families in poverty and the re-emergence of the “working poor”, people in employment but struggling to survive financially.
Welfare support systems are being pruned, access to quality health care is shrinking, unemployment is rising and part time and casual work are becoming the norm. Wages and salaries are lagging well behind inflation except for a small number of top executives who are able to pull in excessive salary packages, increasing the wealth gap still further.
The attack on the middle class is largely happening under the radar. If it continues there is no guarantee that the west will not return to the mass inequality that existed prior to World War 1. If that happens the middle class will be annihilatedand Democracy may well disappear with it.
How to Escape Malls, Fast
Foods And Traffic Gridlock
Feast Days In The Greek Islands
For those of us who enjoy “the good life” of crowded shopping malls, traffic gridlock and fast food outlets here’s a reminder of what we’re missing. Even in the midst of harsh austerity programmes and the threat of financial Armageddon life on a small Greek island has many elements that we can only envy. If our huge mega-cities of the twenty first century are to survive we need to somehow incorporate the same sense of community and sheer enjoyment of life into our urban lifestyle.
Greek Easter is over. Till next year. We ate a lot, imbibed a little local red from our friend's barrel, talked a lot, laughed, socialised with visitors from our neighbourhood and enjoyed everyone's company. A lot of cleaning but having daughters makes it all so much easier. A job shared is a job done quickly. Daughters also relieve us of all those leftovers, taking them home for their hungry hordes in the next few days.
Neighbours 'popped in' for a few moments, had a glass of wine and inspected the goat, giving their advice and opinion on its considered tenderness and taste. Ours was both tender and tasty. I tried not to eat any of that delicious crispy skin, the fattiest part of the animal. Elli ate the brain and sucked the teeth. No-one ate those eyeballs this year. Music and children's voices could be heard all around us, smoke arising from the hills and valleys as everyone put some sort of meat on the barbeque, sang and danced, as is the Greek style.
1st of May is also May Day. We should have gone out in the fields as we do every year to gather wild flowers and an olive branch to hang over our gate. However, Easter Sunday is a day already so full of happenings, we just forgot. Usually we find a nice young olive branch and join it in a circle. To this we tie poppies and daisies and whatever else we find until the wreath is rich with colour and variety. An added artichoke and head of garlic will bring us luck. The wreath stays over the door or gate till midsummer when it is burnt on a bonfire.
Monday after Easter is the feast of St George. St George is usually celebrated on 23rd April but if, as this year, it falls during Lent the fiesta is held on the Monday after Easter Sunday. We have many, many Georges which means a telephone call to them all, a greeting on Facebook these days and a visit with a box of sticky cakes or a bottle of ouzo if they are close friends or relatives and live on the island. So it is not really over just yet, not until the last of the 'Georges' leftover roast lamb has been finished and the barrel drunk dry.
Then tomorrow is the feast day of St Mark and a local saint St Leonidio.
And then we can rest.
Lyntaki
Greek Easter is over. Till next year. We ate a lot, imbibed a little local red from our friend's barrel, talked a lot, laughed, socialised with visitors from our neighbourhood and enjoyed everyone's company. A lot of cleaning but having daughters makes it all so much easier. A job shared is a job done quickly. Daughters also relieve us of all those leftovers, taking them home for their hungry hordes in the next few days.
Neighbours 'popped in' for a few moments, had a glass of wine and inspected the goat, giving their advice and opinion on its considered tenderness and taste. Ours was both tender and tasty. I tried not to eat any of that delicious crispy skin, the fattiest part of the animal. Elli ate the brain and sucked the teeth. No-one ate those eyeballs this year. Music and children's voices could be heard all around us, smoke arising from the hills and valleys as everyone put some sort of meat on the barbeque, sang and danced, as is the Greek style.
1st of May is also May Day. We should have gone out in the fields as we do every year to gather wild flowers and an olive branch to hang over our gate. However, Easter Sunday is a day already so full of happenings, we just forgot. Usually we find a nice young olive branch and join it in a circle. To this we tie poppies and daisies and whatever else we find until the wreath is rich with colour and variety. An added artichoke and head of garlic will bring us luck. The wreath stays over the door or gate till midsummer when it is burnt on a bonfire.
Monday after Easter is the feast of St George. St George is usually celebrated on 23rd April but if, as this year, it falls during Lent the fiesta is held on the Monday after Easter Sunday. We have many, many Georges which means a telephone call to them all, a greeting on Facebook these days and a visit with a box of sticky cakes or a bottle of ouzo if they are close friends or relatives and live on the island. So it is not really over just yet, not until the last of the 'Georges' leftover roast lamb has been finished and the barrel drunk dry.
Then tomorrow is the feast day of St Mark and a local saint St Leonidio.
And then we can rest.
Lyntaki
