Sunday, April 08, 2007
How To Tell When Someone Really Cares
They spend a whole £2 on you... The government is today expecting some sort of gratitude for announcing they're putting a whole £2million in to research to fight anorexia. The BBC article kindly juxtaposes that news with a photo caption pointing out that there are 1 million people in the UK with an eating disorder. Don't spend it all at once guys!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
It Aint What You Say...
Like many newsapers, the Evening Standard can do a great job of turning a regular little report into a specific targetted attack.
Headline: NURSERIES TURNING OUR CHILDREN INTO YOBS
Implication: Mothers who don't stay home full time are literally asking for their kids to turn into violent criminals.
Actual story: The report concludes "Long hours in the nursery (more than 35 hours a week) had both positive and negative effects on children's behaviour: they were more confident and sociable, but also more antisocial, and more worried and upset." So, err, six of one,...
And of course the article concludes that the government should shift it's focus away from childcare provision. The alternative option that occurs to me is the government should improve the quality of available childcare.
Headline: NURSERIES TURNING OUR CHILDREN INTO YOBS
Implication: Mothers who don't stay home full time are literally asking for their kids to turn into violent criminals.
Actual story: The report concludes "Long hours in the nursery (more than 35 hours a week) had both positive and negative effects on children's behaviour: they were more confident and sociable, but also more antisocial, and more worried and upset." So, err, six of one,...
And of course the article concludes that the government should shift it's focus away from childcare provision. The alternative option that occurs to me is the government should improve the quality of available childcare.
Why Is It Always Our Fault?
The Guardian in it's quest to provide the latest and most insightful research, is now publishing the results of surveys by FHM... This in itself poses a problem for me. If we are to assume that results of a survey compiled through FHM are a fair portrayal of the views of men in British society we are implicitly accepting that FHM's readership is an "average" sample of men. Of course it's not - it's a minority of men who enjoy reading deeply misogynist material. So unsurprisingly the results reflect that.
So this apparently is what men want: "a 50/50 partnership, in which both they and their partner would go out to work, sharing childcare and housework". So how would that work then? You would pop the child in a drawer in the office from nine to five while you both worked? I don't think it's possible to do half the housework and half the childcare and hold down a full time job. And where is the evidence that these modern-thinking guys are actually doing any more housework or childcare?
Here's another quote: "men believe they have made a dramatic shift in roles in the last 30 years - at the behest of women - the survey also suggests that men feel women have now changed their minds and want to go back to old roles." Sure. Or women stuck with these neanderthals are realising that if they want the job done properly they need to do it themselves.
So this apparently is what men want: "a 50/50 partnership, in which both they and their partner would go out to work, sharing childcare and housework". So how would that work then? You would pop the child in a drawer in the office from nine to five while you both worked? I don't think it's possible to do half the housework and half the childcare and hold down a full time job. And where is the evidence that these modern-thinking guys are actually doing any more housework or childcare?
Here's another quote: "men believe they have made a dramatic shift in roles in the last 30 years - at the behest of women - the survey also suggests that men feel women have now changed their minds and want to go back to old roles." Sure. Or women stuck with these neanderthals are realising that if they want the job done properly they need to do it themselves.
Monday, April 02, 2007
The Sporting Post
Ok, this is going to be a big one. There are things in life that we take for granted, things we've always known to be true and don't usually feel the need to question. And then sometimes for one reason or another we end up questioning them and sometimes they hold up to that questioning and sometimes they don't. Now I'm going to say something controversial:
Professional sports are a waste of money and resources.
I guess what made me really start thinking about all this was the death of Bob Woolmer. It's still not clear what happened but the general consensus that seems to be forming is that someone cared more about protecting their own match fixing racket than about Bob Woolmer's life. Even if we found out that Bob died of natural causes, the fact that we all assumed there was enough incentive for murder there should be cause enough for concern.
Then a couple of days ago I got a letter from my energy supplier - EDF. They were proud to announce they would be sponsoring the forthcoming rugby world cup. So proud in fact they felt the need to write and let me know specially. All I could think was that this was an excuse by the management to use company money to get themselves ringside seats. Personally I will not benefit at all from their sponsorship. I would benefit much more if they instead reduced my bill by an amount equivalent to my share of the sponsorship. A bit like I would benefit much more from the London Olympics if they just reduced my council tax in line with my share.
Today I read an article from the BBC about the impact of sports on fans. The research showed that winning fans were in fact more aggressive than losing fans. They also found these fans were more aggressive than they had been before the game. Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase happiness. It's not the biggest study or the most impressive but it doesn't seem to have found any positive side effects to guys watching sports. And of course we've all seen horror footage of fans rioting after football matches. And I think most of us have been out socialising and had our evening disrupted by the arrival of a big crowd of noisy drunk guys huggging each other and singing something about "One-nil". And many of us have felt intimidated or actually been hurt, deliberately or accidentally by these guys.
Professional sports do nothing for gender equality. The three top sports in the UK: football, rugby and cricket are barely played by women, when they are the matches are almost never televised or promoted and sponsorship is negligible. No women play these sports professionally in the UK. Other minority sports face a continuous uphill struggle to get funding and recognition for the women's side of the game. How can we tell young people that they live in a society where we value equal opportunities, then say "boys you can work as professional sportpeople, sorry girls you can't"?
And finally look at all the other things that professional sports fans are encouraged to do: drink too much, smoke, eat unhealthy pies and chips and waste money gambling. They also are likely to hang around in big groups of guys leaving their wives unsupported and their children feeling unloved. If children are brought along they are dressed up in team colours they are too young to understand, taught how to shout abuse at other fans and exposed to drunken rowdy behaviour.
By now you are probably thinking "bah humbug"and you probably have a few questions racing round your head. A few points about the benfits of sports that have been drummed into us all from birth and are going to take a bit of dislodging...
What about encouraging children to take up sports? Surely we need sports funding more than ever now to combat rising child obesity?
I am all in favour of sport in schools. And indeed my EDF letter assures me that they'll be funding a major school rugby program alongside the rugby world cup. I can't get hold of the numbers but what percentage of the money they're spending is going to schools? I suspect very little. Lots more good could be done if management didn't need to keep their executive boxes.
When I was at school we all played sport twice a week. Well most kids did. We were told in every subject from music to maths that we shouldn't be competitive, it was about doing the best WE could. Except sport. Then is was about winning. And I wasn't good enough at it to win. So I wrote excuse notes, faked illness, went AWOL, etc. And I was wildly depressed about it - all the subjects I was good at I had to shut up about and the one thing I wasn't so good at I was paraded infront of the rest of the school and made to look like an idiot. Parents were not invited in for geography day - no, they came in for sports day and laughed at me.
Funding school sports equipment is the excuse for everything these days. You can even get free school sports equipment vouchers with chocolate eggs. Equipment doesn't make kids fit, bright enthusiastic dedicated teachers and parents who encourage kids to participate without belittling them make kids fit. Chocolate bars and a nation obsessed with sitting on the sofa watching others do sport don't help either. The number of children who will go on to play professional sport is tiny. The number who aspire to do so and see their dreams end in disappointment is much higher. And the number who know from the outset that they'll never be able to live up to that standard and are quickly taught that sport for them is something to watch, is the highest of all.
What about encouraging sports at grass-roots level for adults?
Years after I left school I discovered I enjoyed playing sport. I tried to join a team and when I couldn't find a team I started my own. Over the three years I ran that team (in Tokyo), I spent a fortune out of my own pocket paying for practice courts, balls, bibs, kit, spare shin-pads, socks, adverts to find new players, laundering kit, competition entry fees, website upkeep, hiring refs and linesmen, league subscription fees and internal administration money. Not to mention all the time I put in. Of course I was pretty careful about saving money where I could. We got our shirts from a local mens team who were throwing them out to get new ones, etc. Despite eventually winning the all-Japan women's five-a-side tournament, I was never able to get any sponsorship money from local businesses or government programs.
When I came back to the UK I joined a local FA-registered side. I paid £50 FA registration fee, I paid to train every week, we all chipped in to pay for coaching, I paid for a transfer when I wasn't getting a game and we payed for matches we played and covered our own transport to and from games.
As far as I can see there is NO FUNDING at grassroots level for adult sport in the UK or overseas. Or if there is it isn't coming into the women's games at all. I no longer play group sport, the effort and cost isn't worth it.
Don't men need sports to somehow use up all that testosterone?
Well, as the Cardiff University researchers have established, watching sport in fact generates more testosterone and increases the likelihood that guys will become aggressive. If guys wanted to use up excess testosterone, they could try playing sport. Mr Cru likes boxing - he used to participate but now he just watches it on TV. I'm not a fan but in the interests of domestic harmony I tolerated it when he first moved in. A little over a year later I've started deliberately leaving the room when it's on. If I watch it late at night I don't sleep so well and I have more violent and upsetting dreams. Even as cynical and defensive towards it as I am, I am still well aware that I am affected by it. I thought boxing was the extreme end of sports but I increasingly see similarly agressive behaviour being accepted as the norm in rugby and even in supposedly non-contact football. And of course our screens and stadiums are now welcoming the even more violent option of "ulitmate fighting" where kicking, strangling and breaking arms and legs are also allowed. Occassionally Mr Cru will watch this too to my horror and every time I see it, there is actual blood spilt.
But what if I like watching sport?
So do I. But wouldn't it be nicer to go and see a game where the stakes were a great deal lower, where the games were genuinely played for honour? The prize money came from the ticket sales and thus accurately reflected the entertainment value of the sport? So playing good quality skillful sport became as important as winning and diving and then screaming for a penalty was a thing of the past? I think a happy medium would be that ticket sales could go to pay players wages, sponsorship money could only be given to school sports campaigns and merchandising profits should as a sign of good will be given to charity. Government money should of course be barred from going into sports, other than where needed in schools. I think the fun to be had watching sport under that arrangement would be much greater. And you could genuinely feel that you were doing something positive by going to a game.
But what about our international reputation for being good at sport?
We could trade that in for an international reputation for having the good sense not to waste resources encouraging drunken violent sexist aggression, cheating and in some cases even murder. We could use the money we save to build a new reputation as the country which prioritises improving the human condition across the globe rather than spending all our money on having half a dozen guys who can kick really hard and run really fast...
Professional sports are a waste of money and resources.
I guess what made me really start thinking about all this was the death of Bob Woolmer. It's still not clear what happened but the general consensus that seems to be forming is that someone cared more about protecting their own match fixing racket than about Bob Woolmer's life. Even if we found out that Bob died of natural causes, the fact that we all assumed there was enough incentive for murder there should be cause enough for concern.
Then a couple of days ago I got a letter from my energy supplier - EDF. They were proud to announce they would be sponsoring the forthcoming rugby world cup. So proud in fact they felt the need to write and let me know specially. All I could think was that this was an excuse by the management to use company money to get themselves ringside seats. Personally I will not benefit at all from their sponsorship. I would benefit much more if they instead reduced my bill by an amount equivalent to my share of the sponsorship. A bit like I would benefit much more from the London Olympics if they just reduced my council tax in line with my share.
Today I read an article from the BBC about the impact of sports on fans. The research showed that winning fans were in fact more aggressive than losing fans. They also found these fans were more aggressive than they had been before the game. Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase happiness. It's not the biggest study or the most impressive but it doesn't seem to have found any positive side effects to guys watching sports. And of course we've all seen horror footage of fans rioting after football matches. And I think most of us have been out socialising and had our evening disrupted by the arrival of a big crowd of noisy drunk guys huggging each other and singing something about "One-nil". And many of us have felt intimidated or actually been hurt, deliberately or accidentally by these guys.
Professional sports do nothing for gender equality. The three top sports in the UK: football, rugby and cricket are barely played by women, when they are the matches are almost never televised or promoted and sponsorship is negligible. No women play these sports professionally in the UK. Other minority sports face a continuous uphill struggle to get funding and recognition for the women's side of the game. How can we tell young people that they live in a society where we value equal opportunities, then say "boys you can work as professional sportpeople, sorry girls you can't"?
And finally look at all the other things that professional sports fans are encouraged to do: drink too much, smoke, eat unhealthy pies and chips and waste money gambling. They also are likely to hang around in big groups of guys leaving their wives unsupported and their children feeling unloved. If children are brought along they are dressed up in team colours they are too young to understand, taught how to shout abuse at other fans and exposed to drunken rowdy behaviour.
By now you are probably thinking "bah humbug"and you probably have a few questions racing round your head. A few points about the benfits of sports that have been drummed into us all from birth and are going to take a bit of dislodging...
What about encouraging children to take up sports? Surely we need sports funding more than ever now to combat rising child obesity?
I am all in favour of sport in schools. And indeed my EDF letter assures me that they'll be funding a major school rugby program alongside the rugby world cup. I can't get hold of the numbers but what percentage of the money they're spending is going to schools? I suspect very little. Lots more good could be done if management didn't need to keep their executive boxes.
When I was at school we all played sport twice a week. Well most kids did. We were told in every subject from music to maths that we shouldn't be competitive, it was about doing the best WE could. Except sport. Then is was about winning. And I wasn't good enough at it to win. So I wrote excuse notes, faked illness, went AWOL, etc. And I was wildly depressed about it - all the subjects I was good at I had to shut up about and the one thing I wasn't so good at I was paraded infront of the rest of the school and made to look like an idiot. Parents were not invited in for geography day - no, they came in for sports day and laughed at me.
Funding school sports equipment is the excuse for everything these days. You can even get free school sports equipment vouchers with chocolate eggs. Equipment doesn't make kids fit, bright enthusiastic dedicated teachers and parents who encourage kids to participate without belittling them make kids fit. Chocolate bars and a nation obsessed with sitting on the sofa watching others do sport don't help either. The number of children who will go on to play professional sport is tiny. The number who aspire to do so and see their dreams end in disappointment is much higher. And the number who know from the outset that they'll never be able to live up to that standard and are quickly taught that sport for them is something to watch, is the highest of all.
What about encouraging sports at grass-roots level for adults?
Years after I left school I discovered I enjoyed playing sport. I tried to join a team and when I couldn't find a team I started my own. Over the three years I ran that team (in Tokyo), I spent a fortune out of my own pocket paying for practice courts, balls, bibs, kit, spare shin-pads, socks, adverts to find new players, laundering kit, competition entry fees, website upkeep, hiring refs and linesmen, league subscription fees and internal administration money. Not to mention all the time I put in. Of course I was pretty careful about saving money where I could. We got our shirts from a local mens team who were throwing them out to get new ones, etc. Despite eventually winning the all-Japan women's five-a-side tournament, I was never able to get any sponsorship money from local businesses or government programs.
When I came back to the UK I joined a local FA-registered side. I paid £50 FA registration fee, I paid to train every week, we all chipped in to pay for coaching, I paid for a transfer when I wasn't getting a game and we payed for matches we played and covered our own transport to and from games.
As far as I can see there is NO FUNDING at grassroots level for adult sport in the UK or overseas. Or if there is it isn't coming into the women's games at all. I no longer play group sport, the effort and cost isn't worth it.
Don't men need sports to somehow use up all that testosterone?
Well, as the Cardiff University researchers have established, watching sport in fact generates more testosterone and increases the likelihood that guys will become aggressive. If guys wanted to use up excess testosterone, they could try playing sport. Mr Cru likes boxing - he used to participate but now he just watches it on TV. I'm not a fan but in the interests of domestic harmony I tolerated it when he first moved in. A little over a year later I've started deliberately leaving the room when it's on. If I watch it late at night I don't sleep so well and I have more violent and upsetting dreams. Even as cynical and defensive towards it as I am, I am still well aware that I am affected by it. I thought boxing was the extreme end of sports but I increasingly see similarly agressive behaviour being accepted as the norm in rugby and even in supposedly non-contact football. And of course our screens and stadiums are now welcoming the even more violent option of "ulitmate fighting" where kicking, strangling and breaking arms and legs are also allowed. Occassionally Mr Cru will watch this too to my horror and every time I see it, there is actual blood spilt.
But what if I like watching sport?
So do I. But wouldn't it be nicer to go and see a game where the stakes were a great deal lower, where the games were genuinely played for honour? The prize money came from the ticket sales and thus accurately reflected the entertainment value of the sport? So playing good quality skillful sport became as important as winning and diving and then screaming for a penalty was a thing of the past? I think a happy medium would be that ticket sales could go to pay players wages, sponsorship money could only be given to school sports campaigns and merchandising profits should as a sign of good will be given to charity. Government money should of course be barred from going into sports, other than where needed in schools. I think the fun to be had watching sport under that arrangement would be much greater. And you could genuinely feel that you were doing something positive by going to a game.
But what about our international reputation for being good at sport?
We could trade that in for an international reputation for having the good sense not to waste resources encouraging drunken violent sexist aggression, cheating and in some cases even murder. We could use the money we save to build a new reputation as the country which prioritises improving the human condition across the globe rather than spending all our money on having half a dozen guys who can kick really hard and run really fast...
Monday, March 26, 2007
Don't Forget To Leave a Good-Looking Corpse...
...while you're still alive girls! The Huffington Post has the most thorough coverage on the subject I think. To summarise, the producers of what-were-we-expecting misogyny parade America's Next Top Model have set the women contestants the "challenge" of staging their own deaths. Luckily the size zero women already look pretty close to death in most cases so maybe the exercise was just to save on make-up...
The Right News For The Wrong Reason
Rapper Snoop Dogg has been refused a Visa to come and perform in the UK. And the concert's been cancelled as a result! In fact he's been refused because of a previous violent incident at Heathrow. What he should have been prevented from performing for is having lyrics clearly intended to incite hatred and violence against women. For instance:
"Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that wont do what you say)
You can’t control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won’t obey)
Can you control your hoe? (You’ve got to know what to do, and what to say)
You’ve got to put that bitch in her place, even if it’s slapping her in her face.
Ya got to control your hoe. Can you control your hoe? "
"Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that wont do what you say)
You can’t control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won’t obey)
Can you control your hoe? (You’ve got to know what to do, and what to say)
You’ve got to put that bitch in her place, even if it’s slapping her in her face.
Ya got to control your hoe. Can you control your hoe? "
Love Not Actually
Spot the deliberate mistake. Stephen Marsh loved his wife deeply. So he took several lovers and started a sadomasochistic relationship with one of them behind his "beloved" wife's back. You know, just for a "bit of fun". But he loved his wife deeply, no really.
Is that the sort of evidence you would expect to hold water in a murder trial? No, me either.
Is that the sort of evidence you would expect to hold water in a murder trial? No, me either.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Does Anyone Ever Actually Get Convicted of Rape?
Yet another stomach-churning story, this time from overseas. Key flaws in the defence's arguement - swallowed by the judges include:
Firstly they claim a discrpancy between the number of men accused and the number of men she said raped her. The offence they are charged with is "sexual aggression" so presumably the fourth guy sexually assaulted her without actually raping her. She also claims to have been blindfolded throughout the attack. So how is she supposed to count the number of guys attacking her while blindfolded?
Secondly - and this is the really nauseating bit - they claim "she had invited them to have sex "without a word". ". Yup "without a word". So she consented silently? Guys here's an idea - before having sex with a woman, ask her if she wants to have sex with you. Clever huh? Do I get a prize?
Firstly they claim a discrpancy between the number of men accused and the number of men she said raped her. The offence they are charged with is "sexual aggression" so presumably the fourth guy sexually assaulted her without actually raping her. She also claims to have been blindfolded throughout the attack. So how is she supposed to count the number of guys attacking her while blindfolded?
Secondly - and this is the really nauseating bit - they claim "she had invited them to have sex "without a word". ". Yup "without a word". So she consented silently? Guys here's an idea - before having sex with a woman, ask her if she wants to have sex with you. Clever huh? Do I get a prize?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Born Again Virgins...
There's an article on Alternet about the phenomenon of Born-Again Virgins. Which is all very well and I find the subject kindof amusing until we get to the bit where the author, Amy DePaul says:
"There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them."
Why does having sex mean you're not in control of your own body? The implication is that women who have sex are doing so because men want them to. Maybe some women actually like sex.
More importantly the whole article is about women's virginity, no mention is made of whether men should try the whole not-having-sex thing. No it's women for whom virginity is an issue - of course!
"There is a strong argument to be made on behalf of women -- Christian or not -- taking control of their bodies and making choices that are right for them."
Why does having sex mean you're not in control of your own body? The implication is that women who have sex are doing so because men want them to. Maybe some women actually like sex.
More importantly the whole article is about women's virginity, no mention is made of whether men should try the whole not-having-sex thing. No it's women for whom virginity is an issue - of course!
Is this Appropriate?
The BBC has published a glowing review of Phil Spector's career - to mark the beginning of his trial for the murder of Lana Clarkson. I think that's a bit sick.
Oranges are not the only Book Awards
Article in The Independent on the nominations for the Orange book award. The article starts off saying women's fiction is too domestic and not imaginative enough (that's right Ms Rowling, teenage wizzards and quidditch and platform 9 and 3/4 or whatever isn't imaginative enough, sorry). And it goes on to complain that there are too many books about "rural school teachers". Well someone must want to read about rural school teachers or no-one would publish such books. Then the article goes on to say women authors are doing so well that maybe there's no need for a special prize. Well hold on, you can't have it both ways. Either women are less imaginative than men and need special help or they're doing so well they don't need a prize - you REALLY can't claim that both are true.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Parental Rights and Wrongs
There is yet another push afoot to force contraception and abortion providers to tell girl's parents if such services are being requested. Tory MP Angela Watkinson says parents have a "right to know".
Well I agree, parents do have a right to know. If they wish to exercise that right they need only raise their children in a loving supportive environment where they make it clear that they are there to help, not to judge. Do that and your kids will tell you what's going on in their lives. When kids don't want to talk to their parents, there's a problem. Usually fear. To be honest if kids are getting pregnant while they're still at school, that's one sign that the parents haven't done the best job to start with.
If such a law were passed it would lead to:
1) More runaways, pregnant teenage runaways sleeping on the streets getting ill, getting raped and murdered, getting co-erced into prostitution and drugs, babies born hooked on drugs, infanticide.
2) More domestic violence and child abuse when abusive parents find out about their childrens sex lives.
3) More late term abortions - because why tell your parents you're having an abortion at 8 weeks when you can wait til 14 weeks, just after your 16th birthday, and have one secretly then?
4) More teenage pregnancy - because girls dont' want their parents to know they're taking contraception.
5) Even more teenage pregnancy - when parents find out and confiscate contraceptives.
6) More STDs - because teenagers don't want their parents to know they asked for free condoms.
7) Less education on the subject - because teenagers who feel unable to ask their parents for sexual advice will be afraid to visit clinics for advice in case their parents find out.
But of course Angela Watkinson han't thought about this. She's such an expert on the subject that she even added "The first thing [parents] learn may be when their children are reported to have some form of sexually transmitted disease", which would only make sense if everyone who requested contraception or abortion ended up with an STD. Clearly at least those requesting free condoms are less likely to get an STD, and it's perfectly possible to catch an STD without getting pregnant or using contraception.
But finally the whole thing is of course about knowing when GIRLS are having sex. No-one wants to talk to the parents of the boys who are getting teenagers pregnant, and no-one wants to talk to teenage boys whose girlfriends might be using contraception, nor indeed who might themselves be asking for free condoms. Because of course sex is only shocking and awful when women do it...
Well I agree, parents do have a right to know. If they wish to exercise that right they need only raise their children in a loving supportive environment where they make it clear that they are there to help, not to judge. Do that and your kids will tell you what's going on in their lives. When kids don't want to talk to their parents, there's a problem. Usually fear. To be honest if kids are getting pregnant while they're still at school, that's one sign that the parents haven't done the best job to start with.
If such a law were passed it would lead to:
1) More runaways, pregnant teenage runaways sleeping on the streets getting ill, getting raped and murdered, getting co-erced into prostitution and drugs, babies born hooked on drugs, infanticide.
2) More domestic violence and child abuse when abusive parents find out about their childrens sex lives.
3) More late term abortions - because why tell your parents you're having an abortion at 8 weeks when you can wait til 14 weeks, just after your 16th birthday, and have one secretly then?
4) More teenage pregnancy - because girls dont' want their parents to know they're taking contraception.
5) Even more teenage pregnancy - when parents find out and confiscate contraceptives.
6) More STDs - because teenagers don't want their parents to know they asked for free condoms.
7) Less education on the subject - because teenagers who feel unable to ask their parents for sexual advice will be afraid to visit clinics for advice in case their parents find out.
But of course Angela Watkinson han't thought about this. She's such an expert on the subject that she even added "The first thing [parents] learn may be when their children are reported to have some form of sexually transmitted disease", which would only make sense if everyone who requested contraception or abortion ended up with an STD. Clearly at least those requesting free condoms are less likely to get an STD, and it's perfectly possible to catch an STD without getting pregnant or using contraception.
But finally the whole thing is of course about knowing when GIRLS are having sex. No-one wants to talk to the parents of the boys who are getting teenagers pregnant, and no-one wants to talk to teenage boys whose girlfriends might be using contraception, nor indeed who might themselves be asking for free condoms. Because of course sex is only shocking and awful when women do it...
Monday, March 12, 2007
Action to take Today
The UK government will vote this Wednesday on the renewal of the Trident Nuclear programme. Blair wants to spend around $20bn on nuclear weapons which almost no-one in the rest of the country thinks is a good ideas. Johann Hari has done a lovely job in The Independent of explaining why "renewing" Trident puts us at more risk than ever of nuclear holocaust.
My own reasons for not wanting to "renew" (they use that word to make it seem less shocking, they mean BUYING NEW NUKES) the weapons stockpile is a little different. You see I'm not a world leader, I don't and never will have my finger on the nuclear button. So when Tony Blair describes Trident as a "deterrent" I don't get it. What he must mean is "I won't detonate my nukes unless someone nukes the UK". I really hope no evil despot anywhere around the world nukes the UK. If they do though then as I watch the flesh shrivel off my bones and melt into the blackened earth the last thing that will make me feel better is the sure knowledge that somewhere near the offending despot are hundreds of thousands of civilians who probably didn't even have the opportunity to vote against him and their flesh is being melted off their bones too. I was listening to Marcus Brigstock on the Now Show last week and he made this point rather succinctly when he said "When it comes to nuclear war, there's no such thing as one all".
And why is it that the only people with access to nuclear bunkers are the same people with access to the nuclear buttons? I could also point out how much good could be done in this country's health and education systems, as well as in international aid with $20bn.
Well two days to go to the vote and lots of MPs are showing signs of wanting to vote against it. If you haven't already done so please use the website www.writetothem.com to ask your MP to vote against the proposals.
My own reasons for not wanting to "renew" (they use that word to make it seem less shocking, they mean BUYING NEW NUKES) the weapons stockpile is a little different. You see I'm not a world leader, I don't and never will have my finger on the nuclear button. So when Tony Blair describes Trident as a "deterrent" I don't get it. What he must mean is "I won't detonate my nukes unless someone nukes the UK". I really hope no evil despot anywhere around the world nukes the UK. If they do though then as I watch the flesh shrivel off my bones and melt into the blackened earth the last thing that will make me feel better is the sure knowledge that somewhere near the offending despot are hundreds of thousands of civilians who probably didn't even have the opportunity to vote against him and their flesh is being melted off their bones too. I was listening to Marcus Brigstock on the Now Show last week and he made this point rather succinctly when he said "When it comes to nuclear war, there's no such thing as one all".
And why is it that the only people with access to nuclear bunkers are the same people with access to the nuclear buttons? I could also point out how much good could be done in this country's health and education systems, as well as in international aid with $20bn.
Well two days to go to the vote and lots of MPs are showing signs of wanting to vote against it. If you haven't already done so please use the website www.writetothem.com to ask your MP to vote against the proposals.
McCruella
Good news for Scottish fans of me and my comedy. Myself and Mr Cru are off on a mini-tour of Scotland during the latter half of this week and you can catch us at:
Thurs 15th Mar:
The Moffet Tavern, Forres, Scotland
Fri 16th Mar:
Flannigan's Elgin, Scotland
Sat 17th Mar:
The Harbour Bar, Buckie, Scotland
Thurs 15th Mar:
The Moffet Tavern, Forres, Scotland
Fri 16th Mar:
Flannigan's Elgin, Scotland
Sat 17th Mar:
The Harbour Bar, Buckie, Scotland
Real News!
Last night on my way back from gigs in Ladbroke Grove and Camden I was on a 341 bus going past Islington Green, up Essex Road when the bus stopped and ahead of up I witnessed at least 10 police cars and at least 30 police officers, half of whom were carrying guns, filling the road. Some of them were even crouched behind their cars pointing their guns across the roof. They appeared to have stopped a dark blue car and were going through it very carefully seat at a time and through the boot and bonnet too. The car was stopped right in the middle of the road - it hadn't pulled over and there was some broken glass on the road though it wasn't clear where from. I've been watching the news to see a story about a drive-by shooting or something but nothing coming up. Probably just plod over-reacting to a speeding infraction. Shame cos I was rather hoping to sell this picture for a small fortune to one of the tabloids:
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Women and War
It can't be fun going to war. And of course when things ain't fun you can guarantee they're even less fun for the women involved. This video is really shocking. Turns out female US military personel are routinely not going to the toilets on their own for fear of rape by their own male counterparts. This has led to some of them not drinking and subsequently dying of dehydration and the situation has been deliberately hushed up rather than addressed.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Showreel Time
I have a new showreel boys and grrls - which means all you Cru-blog fans in obscure parts of the world who don't get to come to my shows can experience the same effect from the comfort of your own living rooms/parlours/bedsits/hostels/internet cafes/offices. Just click here.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Family Facts and Figures
David Cameron has for some reason decided that the pressure on single parents isn't enough. I have no problem with him chasing up runaway parents (mostly Dads) for maintenance money. Forcing people who don't want to do so to spend time with children however doesn't strike me as a sensible plan and his focus on the importance of marriage above all else in child-raising offers little encouragement for the 1 in 4 women in this country who will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.
His big piece of data is that "70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families". Well here's another piece of statistical data he seems to have overlooked: 80% of the benefits of a two-parent family come from the improved financial status. What single parents really need to enable them to raise their children well is quite often money.
His big piece of data is that "70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families". Well here's another piece of statistical data he seems to have overlooked: 80% of the benefits of a two-parent family come from the improved financial status. What single parents really need to enable them to raise their children well is quite often money.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Best Excuse For Abuse...
...religion of course! Being ostracised from your family is a form of abuse. Being shut out from your entire community and left without any support systems is even worse. When we hear about gay people who've been ostracised because of their sexuality we are rightly outraged. Similarly parents who turn their backs on disabled children or those who look a little different from the rest (such as when a recessive gene gives white parents a black child or vice versa) are considered contemptible without question. If your child however says "Hey I just figured out there may actually not be a big guy with a beard flying around on the clouds, playing the harp and simultaneously monitoring and judging everything that we do, not to mention writing a highly mis-interpretable book" then it's fine to never speak to them again and tell everyone in the family and community to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
