Wednesday Words

The Saint Patrick Syndrome

11/30/2017

Irish myth is trippy stuff. Cu Chulainn, Finn mac Cumhaill, that lot. The most stunning aspect is the morality. Morality is high on the agenda, it’s just not what we’re used to today. ‘I’m the best man here because I’ve killed, maimed, raped and pillaged you or members of your extended family successfully, and by the way here’s your brother’s head.’ ‘Yeah, fair dos, you have the best portion of meat.’

Well, OK, so people have/had different ways of thinking about things. It makes sense not to walk into an early grave by accidentally or deliberately pissing off people who are more powerful than you. We do it all the time, on every level from the playground to international politics. However we tend to at least try to dress it up as something else. It’s this dressing that’s curious.

Irish and Celtic myth in general was written down in detail only by the Christian monks who eventually learned of it, and the traces of confusion and garbling are evident. But there are a couple of obvious trends.

The first is that the later the myth, the more some sort of notion of chivalry or something other than unadulterated Force Majeure creeps in. People start behaving in ways that at least have an excuse for maiming and killing.

The second trend comes with the incorporation of Christianity. Saint Patrick is brought to Ireland as a slave, escapes, goes back to Britain, takes holy orders, gets ordained as a bishop, and returns to Ireland to preach. Then there’s a string of ‘miracles’ that are performed in order to get the pagans and idolaters on side. Which include:

Having God lift a druid up into the air and drop him on a rock to shatter his skull
Having God bring down darkness and earthquake to kill everyone except the king and his wife
Sending a Christian boy and a druid into a house and setting it alight, toasting the druid to a crisp and leaving the boy untouched
When someone sends a perfectly well man to be ‘healed’ to Patrick as a test, the man drops dead.

These are extraordinarily violent stories, relying entirely on the concept of, once again, Force Majeure. ‘My tricks are better than your tricks. You’ll be better off with the more powerful clan. Don’t argue.’ Meanwhile the old Celtic gods and heroes like Brigit and Brendan (Bran) are slipped quietly into new clothes as saints, with a slightly different vocabulary to the old stories.

This was a marketing campaign that really worked. Ireland is the only country in Europe that Christianised peacefully. The people were persuaded away from their traditions precisely by the power of those same traditions. In other words, to introduce a new concept, using the old concept as a vehicle is one of the most effective methods.

I call this the Saint Patrick Syndrome.

0 Comments

The Curious Incident of the Patient In The Oval Office

8/19/2017

0 Comments

In a contentious world, one little-disputed statement is that Donald Trump is a narcissist. Whether he is clinically diagnosable with NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is unknown, and as he’s unlikely to let any psychologist make an assessment, is likely to remain unknown. So let’s use the words of the psychiatrist who defined NPD and simply say he’s a ‘world-class narcissist’.

Granted this, it seems strange that no-one pays much attention to the other side of the equation: the victims of narcissism. Here are some cherry-picked tactics narcissists employ:

Divide and conquer. Isolate individuals by spreading mistrust amongst friends and family.
Truth is only what the narcissist says it is at that particular time. Any adherence to facts completely unnecessary. If anyone questions this, question their sanity and/or moral integrity.
Propose yourself as the victim’s only saviour. The single one between them and destruction.

Victims of narcissists experience, among others, symptoms such as:

Intense isolation and helplessness
Confusion
A conviction of their own worthlessness
Idolization of the narcissist
A need to make excuses for the narcissist and justify them to others

Hmm. Does this sound at all like the public? We all know that for Trump’s ‘base’, he simply can do no wrong. As he said himself. ‘I could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any voters. It’s like incredible.’ We know that Americans feel near-catastrophically divided, not only between the two main parties but into smaller and smaller segments, many of the newly formed sub-divisions and offshoots, each warring their own little corner with increasing hate. Each segment thinks most if not all of the others are entirely misguided (worthless), and suspects (rightly) that the other groups think the same of them. Which, along with creating instant indignation, also inspires the niggling doubt that perhaps they ARE mistaken after all – which further escalates matters.

We all also know, much as he is a colourful character, Trump is a symptom, not a cause… albeit a symptom that heavily exacerbates the cause. We also know that the US phenomenon is being mirrored across the globe in various forms. Isolationism, paranoia, restriction of freedoms, xenophobia. The neo-Nazis in the States have quickly been dubbed ‘Vanilla Isis’ – a term they detest, presumably because it aligns them with an ideology they think they have nothing in common with. And there is certainly no need to point out again here the screaming parallels between the circumstances that created the opportunity for Fascism to thrive: economic hardship, a dramatic rise in propaganda, a huge wealth divide, and subsequent use of nationalism to (ironically) fist divide the nation to conquer it. We also know that it required colourful and none-too-intelligent figureheads to achieve this. We know that intense paranoia on all sides gave rise to notorious entities such as the Gestapo and subsequently the KGB and the Stasi – all of which are themselves both symptoms and perpetuators of intense, continued mistrust, fear and hatred.

So there is evidently *some* global force pulling us apart, even as the world of communication and interconnectedness is shrinking to a pinhead. There is no shortage of speculation on what that force is (communists, liberals, feminists, neo-Nazis, plutocrats, Republicans), but by definition the entity is bound to be unknown. Were it known, it would not be the entity. ‘Its’ very power lies in its facelessness. And like Rumpelstiltskin, were it to be called by its name, it would stamp its foot through the castle floor and vanish in a cry of despair.

What is its name?

Let’s go back to the victims of narcissists. How can victims recover? ‘With difficulty’, is one answer. However, we could reasonably say:

Step 1: remove the narcissist.
Step 2: reconnect the victim to society.

These two steps make a world of difference. It’s nothing like full recovery, but the whirlwind stops, the insanity dies down to a blissful silence. One can work from there.

As for the name of the force… forget conspiracy theories. Who’s plotting what is small stuff, even if they think they’re going to blow up the world. Past civilizations had no problem personifying these frightening and intangible forces. They named them many times over: Atë, Eris, Loki. Deities of mischief, delusion strife and discord. Strife itself is the force to be conquered.

Eris will not be quelled by dropping bombs, or boots on the ground, or a new form of government. But she squeals in agony at random acts of kindness, shrivels at harmony, disappears with friendship. Easy to suggest, hard in practice to do, especially if your gut reaction is to lash out rather than reach out. But the good news is, world peace may be more within reach than we think – perhaps no further away than the local gas station. 'Love is all you need' may be too simplistic to provide economic stability and public sanitation, but it's probably true that without love, you will have nothing you need.

0 Comments

‘Our Vegetable Love Will Grow’

7/19/2017

0 Comments

Advertisements portraying sexist stereotypes are to be banned in the UK by next year. This means no more women mopping floors, no more incompetent dads failing at changing nappies.

‘Great,’ we say. ‘Advertising has a huge influence on how people see society. We need to set good role models.’

Hang on, wouldn’t advertising be better reflecting what actually happens? Statistically women are more likely to be doing the cleaning, so they might be the ones buying the advertised product in the first place. Aren’t they the target audience?

‘Advertising is overwhelmingly run and created by men. The nature of the ‘reality’, real or desired, is skewed. We have to skew it back to portray a more holistic approach.’

Ok so more female advertising executives. But does that mean we have to actually create a law? Anyway, who decides on the finer points of what’s sexist? This could get awfully complicated. But very good news for lawyers.

The case may be a perfect example of misuse of a medium. The very nature of advertising is to make us want to do and have things. It’s psychological coercion. We use it in every area of life, from product placement in films, to a parent dressing up a piece of broccoli as a bug-eyed monster to get their kid to eat it. We’re not about to be able to eradicate the notion from our lives, so we have to control it. Ergo, the ban.

But there are two ways of control. There’s force (bringing in a law, hitting someone, taking military action). The other is persuasion. Traditionally called the ‘carrot and stick’.

Our gut reaction these days is to get the stick out immediately. Migrants? Stick. Anti-migrant problems? Stick. Terrorists? Definitely stick. Dictators who invade other countries? Sti… no wait, they’re scary so let’s do a carrot but very small and hold it a long way off. In fact let’s just pretend not to see. But I digress. The very point of advertising is, it’s a carrot. Why use it as a stick, or use stick on it?

Why not instead incentivise ‘positive’ and helpful portrayals? Why not, instead of spending all that money hammering out the fine details of what needs to be sticked, and how big the stick is, change tack and create a prestigious award for best/most helpful advert of the year? Of the month? Award for promoting the most environmentally beneficial product? Recognition for inspiring people to behave in a more civil way?

Yes, we do that. From the Nobel Peace Prize downwards. But somehow, people are never as interested in that as in when companies get busted for not doing the right thing. Or don’t get busted for not doing the right thing.

Here is a challenge for advertising companies. You hold some of the most powerful sway over human life. Use it. Make people want to do things that will benefit others. It will make you more money than ever, because there’s one desire that’s universal. Haven’t you noticed?

Everyone wants to be the good guy.

0 Comments

A Bit of a Shock

4/12/2017

0 Comments

Usually, ‘a bit of a shock’ during the weekly household clean-up would mean something like discovering an unpaid bill fallen behind the fridge, or a sandwich from last term’s gym bag quietly decomposing in a lunchbox under a bed. Maybe a dead cockroach or so. This week’s surprise came in a different form.

One of the kids likes to keep their room quite tidy, and is particular about the décor. Power to that. A few weeks ago a fluffy cushion appeared, along with some fairy lights. This week, there are scraps of paper taped to the side of the full-length mirror. Turns out, they’re tags. Brand tags. Cotton On, City Beach, Dotti, etc., displayed with the same zeal as the karate and school trophies on the other side of the mirror.

Whoa. I’m well aware that this individual is more fixated than even the average teenager on brands and their borrowed power, but this is something beyond expectations. OK. So this is their identity. They’re taping it up here to remind themselves. This is the type of person I am: someone who buys X and Y with their hard-earned cash.

I continue mopping the floor in thoughtful silence.

A few days later, I find myself drawing a polite ‘stop’ line on an online conversation regarding the dangers of vaccination. I find it slightly disturbing. Somewhere in the mass of article links they threw at me there might quite conceivably be at least some factual information, but the couple I followed up were woefully detached from reality and choc-a-block with polemical rhetoric. Life is short. I tell them I’ll continue to read information as it comes up, as long as they continue to consider an unrelated point I was making. They sort of agree, but add the caveat, they’ll ‘be hard to convince’.

The wording reminds me of another discussion I’d been having with someone on a MOOC. Someone closing the doors on a discussion stating ‘I don’t belong to your groupthink and I’m unlikely ever to do so.’ Nothing to do with reality or truth, whichever ‘side’ is more correct. Everything to do with… branding.

Branding.

‘I don’t belong to your groupthink and I’m unlikely ever to do so.’

Have you noticed how the media, in particular the online ‘alternative’ media, are becoming more and more partisan? Compare the level of emotive language and phrases in even mainstream media, and those of ten, fifteen years ago. The difference is astounding. In fact, we have to go right back to find a comparative degree of polemical writing. Round about the mid-1940s.

‘Anti-vaccer’ is a brand. ‘Pro-life’ is a brand. ‘Liberal’ is a brand. And ‘Trump’ is most definitely, absolutely, a brand. The vehemence with which brand adherents proclaim their affiliations is more akin to religious zeal than logic. Martyrdom in the name of Apple. A brave soldier of the GOP. A disciple of Liberalism.

Is it a coincidence that the proliferation of the internet, which has allowed esoteric groups so fortuitously to find each other online, has ushered in this age of extreme branding? The branding which includes the whole race relations scenario. Logic, of course, doesn’t come into it.

The whole world is madly sticking metaphorical clothing labels on their bedroom walls to remind themselves of who they are. We have to feel the clothes on our skin to know our identity.

Which again takes me back to the war years. Hannah Arendt’s theory that in totalitarianism, the ideology replaces the individual. There is no individual, just the ideology – even to the destruction of the individual promoting it. The individual can no longer even experience its own experiences. She gives an example from the Stalinist trials in the 1930s, where a man is arrested on the grounds of being a saboteur. He says, well, I don't think I'm a saboteur, but the Party's always right, so I must be a saboteur.

The Yellow Star was a brand. Concentration camp tattoos were, literally, a brand.

There is no individual, just the ideology

When we say ‘extremism’, we think of some armed incognito, with a head typically covered with a scarf or a helmet or a white KKK hood. We don’t think of ‘ordinary’ people who happen to identify with one niche ideology or another, in opposition to any evidence that might deem this to be unwise, or unfounded. We respond, with extreme intolerance, to extremely intolerant groups, spawning more and more extremely intolerant groups.

Perhaps we don’t know the difference between ‘intolerance’ and ‘individuality’. Between confidence, and pride, and arrogance. Between faith and ignorance. Between trust and insanity.

Perhaps it’s time to take a step back, look up from our brands, and calm the fuck down.

0 Comments

An Immodest Proposal

3/29/2017

0 Comments

Bridging the gender gap across numerous sections of society isn’t proving an easy task. Even if you’re of the opinion that ‘feminism’ is a dirty word and equates to a foul conglomeration of misandric banshees hell-bent on destroying decent life as we know it, you’d still agree that male and female roles and positions in society tend to differ considerably. And even if you take the stance that this imbalance is the natural and right order of things, you’d still have to agree that in a relationship with one partner being the breadwinner, and the other the childcare provider, the latter partner loses out: in social recognition stakes, in remuneration, in decision making capacity, in effective voice in government. As it happens, the child-rearing party tends to be female, but were we to entirely swap positions and have predominantly stay-at-home dads, this imbalance would still be there. It would simply be the men being disadvantaged instead.

So we have a few choices.

Continue as is. The party that takes over childcare duties loses out. That’s life. They can take pride in some kind of supposed domestic superiority. We continue to tax, renumerate and recognise as normal.
Swap gender roles round. Females have done it for a long time – why not? The physical onus of carrying the child need only inconvenience the average female worker for about three months total per child. This is nothing compared to sick-leave taken by men for major surgery, sports and occupational injuries due to increased risk-taking propensities, and so on. At an average of 2.4 kids per female we’re looking at almost no palpable interruption to services or career.
Share and divide as appropriate in individual circumstances. This is actually the supposed current ‘modern’ model but as traditional bias is so lop-sided it’s impossible to achieve any kind of real balance. Besides, we all know that under just about any taxation system, part time employees get shafted of benefits, holidays, privileges, promotions and everything else. And were all external and domestic work allocated equally, that’s what everyone would be. A part time ‘worker’ externally.
Take model 3) above and restructure taxation and job sharing, so that part time workers will qualify for the same benefits as full time. This may seem sensible, but the burden on employers is already so great, and the tax levied on small businesses so prohibitive, that most Western societies are currently looking to decrease this as much as possible, in order to increase employment levels in real terms. It would be very hard, and be a drag on the economy, particularly as governments have notoriously sticky fingers and like to withhold much more tax than they re-invest in schemes or funds that benefit either the employers or employees.
Create a new community-based system of child raising.

So what is this Option 5 Model?

Currently, the most progressive systems enabling both child-producing partners to be active members of society in the work sector focus on providing childcare within or adjacent to the workplace, and getting females back into circulation as quickly as possible, with support from the state for the infant. Even this is a bit of a Nirvana.

But what is the reason for the inability of many to return to work? (Again, let’s forget about which gender it is. Just that someone has to look after the young kids.) Even today, if there’s an extended family, the grandparents can look after the toddlers, the school takes care of the somewhat older kids, and both Mum and Dad can get to work earning taxes and contributing to the economy like crazy. But guess what, the extended family has broken down in many places, for a host of reasons. It’s often just a nucleus of One Adult, with however many kids. That is butter spread very, very thin on toast.

Secondly, consider the disparity between the social recognition ‘homemakers’ receive, and the importance of their service to society. Without infants, life would quite literally come to a very solid full stop. Whatever lip-service might be paid about gratitude and respect, at the end of the day ‘homemaker’ is the lowest of the low. But. We. Really. Do. Need. Kids.

Now consider another aspect of life we consider essential. Been in the news quite a lot recently. Homeland security. When the political situation is unstable and homeland security is threatened, or it is expected that a large army might be needed at short notice, what do we do? We conscript. The drawbacks of conscription are obvious: unsuitable people being drafted and losing valuable years of their life, and wasting the resources of the government in the meantime. The benefits are not only that a large army is available for mobilization, but more importantly, the whole populace (or usually in the past, half the populace) is trained in some sort of self-defence. They gain skills, which at that time at least, are considered valuable enough to be mandatory. Interestingly, Israel, which has one of the highest GDP spends on defence in the world, also has one of the highest female inclusion rates in the military. No-one would disagree that Israel’s home defence is formidable and effective, particularly given the size of the country.

Now. Parenting skills. Boy, do we need help with that. The average person is arguably already slightly better at self-defence than they are at parenting. But do we get training? No. You need a license in Australia to take care of a lizard, but nothing for a child. Our societies are ageing, our generation gaps are groaning under the strain of increased change and technological advances, our education systems have been chopped about and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator until they sometimes barely resemble anything useful, partly because parents cannot or will not give the home support that’s required. (Yes, I know there are a lot of wonderful schools and teachers out there but Western illiteracy and innumeracy levels speak for themselves.) We need help.

So, how about this. Small, community based, professionally monitored infant caring centres, staffed by members of the community, to whom parents can safely and freely entrust their children for the duration of their work day. At a ratio of 1.2 children per person, every working adult putting in one day a week, physically looking after the children, would entirely take care of the childcare issue.

10 adults: 12 kids. At a 1 to 6 adult to child ratio (plus the professional supervisors), these random 10 adults could care for ALL the children. This is taking the ultimate situation that all the children are in the crèche at the same time, and that workers ONLY contribute for the duration they are using the crèche. This would of course not be the case at all – with 1.2 children each you’d use about 8 or 9 years’ worth of crèche facility, and would potentially be available to contribute 30 years or so. The immediate pros and cons are:

Cons:

The adults lose one day a week out of (a hypothetical) five. Remuneration would have to fall as a result.
Everyone would have to be screened, and there would be some unsuitables. Some would slip through the screening, and some harm will be done somewhere. You could however argue that had this not come to light, they would simply have done harm to children away from the public eye and continued for longer.
It’s a lot of administration and change to set up. Tricky.
You’d have to look after a bunch of kids who were not necessarily yours. Some people may baulk at this. Or we may be surprised at how easily the caring instinct is spread to any infant.

Pros:

Everyone would have supervised training in looking after infants, hopefully, before they have any of their own. Bloody hell would some parents welcome that.
Children would have exposure to multiple people, styles, and personalities. Peers as well as adults. This will have a de-fragmenting effect on society at large.
Differences in personal circumstances, such as family structure, would be irrelevant because it wouldn’t matter whether you had kids, were attached, were gay, how old you were: your kids would all be cared for communally.
Older members of the community might welcome the opportunity to participate again. Examples of crèches combining with nursing homes are already in place, and are roaring successes. Their participation would bring down the adult-to-child ratio even further, very plausibly to the extent of reducing working adult contributions to a couple of days per month.
We gain a VAST number of working adults. They are now able to provide huge assets for the economy, taxes, and productivity, more than wiping out the losses from the sacrificed (maximum) one day in five.
Productivity for the working adults ‘conscripted’ may well be increased on the days they are engaged in their normal work. Studies show that ‘all work and no play’ does indeed make Jack a dull boy, and while childcare is no child’s play, diversification and a change of pace is well documented to increase concentration and satisfaction levels, and diminish burn-out.
Males get an immensely increased opportunity to be with children. It is a lament heard so frequent across the board that people barely even take notice of it. The perennial cry of ‘no father figure’ for the children is also wiped out with a stroke. Because it doesn’t matter if the mother and father has split or indeed never even been together: the population of the adults in the crèche will simply be 50/50.
The discrepancy of respect and remuneration allocated to ‘workers’ and ‘child carers’ would vanish. With everyone a carer, there is no-one to discriminate against.

So that’s the outline. If someone wants to pay me to suggest more details, I will. But the point is, whether it’s something along these lines or a different structure that truly allows parents to make their absolutely essential contribution to society in the form of children, without being punished for it, something has to change. Without such a system, there will never, ever be equality between child carers and providers of other services. There cannot be. In our interpretation, that often works out as ‘equality for women’, but in fact, it’s the child carers that’s the pertinent point. There’s no use scrubbing the decks of a ship if there’s a hole in the hull. You have to address the structural soundness first. With a sound childcare system that enabled participation from all, issues with female equality would simply evaporate. Now wouldn’t that be nice?

0 Comments

Two Sides Of The Coin

9/6/2016

0 Comments

The story of an Iranian asylum seeker fleeing her abusive husband hit the news a short while ago. This unfortunate lady had made it to Europe, but is currently on the brink of being deported back to Iran, as fleeing domestic abuse does not qualify for asylum. If this happens it will almost certainly be a death sentence, as it can be claimed that during her flight she has been disobedient to her husband, withheld affection and committed adultery, which is punishable by death in Iran. Stoning, to be specific. Constitutionalized marital rape, in other words. The oppression of women is such that WHO has listed Iran the top 3rd ranking country for death by suicide by WHO. Needless to say, her flight has also separated her from her children, almost certainly forever.

Isn’t this a dreadful situation? What kind of a country would do that to its citizens? …But wait, what’s this? In the news at the same time are the new guidelines for the definitions for domestic violence in Australia, as handed out by the Attorney-General. These stipulate that domestic violence can include not only physical abuse but ‘angry verbal outbursts, staring, silence, ignoring and withdrawal of affection’. Also on the list are ‘threatening to divorce or abandon the victim if the victim fails to comply with demands or threatening to have an affair.’ Victims of domestic violence have hailed this as a step in the right direction, which will help combat ‘a complex pattern of violent or abusive behaviours’.

But it’s different from that awful Iranian law, right? Although technically if a woman refuses to sleep with her husband that’s now classified as domestic violence in Australia. Of course it’s different. Besides, the Attorney General clarified that the guide would ‘assist judicial officers with their decision-making’ while the chairperson of the taskforce for the Law Council of Australia domestic and family violence said it ‘does not rewrite the law nor change definitions’ of abuse. ‘It is a guide only.’ …So, that’s quite different from Article 21 of Iran’s Constitution which gives clergymen the right to interpret any law pertaining to women by stating that ‘The government must ensure the rights of women in all respects, in conformity with Islamic criteria.’ Quite, quite different. Even though they’re both punitive measures enforceable by law at the discretionary whim of the judiciary.

On that note, I think I’ll go out and celebrate my newfound freedom from domestic violence.

0 Comments

The Rights of Things

8/10/2016

0 Comments

Recently, Spanish Parliament passed a resolution that Great Apes should ‘enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured’. The argument is that as Great Apes are very close to humans in both DNA and behaviour, they should, as ‘non-human hominids’, be ‘given’ some of the same basic rights.

This curious point of view crops up again and again. It’s closely linked to the everlasting – and completely futile – quest to find something, anything, that is ‘uniquely human’ or that can ‘prove’ humans are somehow superior to everything else. I have seriously seen the impassioned statement ‘dolphins can’t make microchips’ to further this argument. People go crazy about it.

The first and most obvious issue is that not even humans enjoy these rights. They may, as long as they have the economic and political means to enforce them, for a period of time. Otherwise, not. The billions of humans that would have been astonished and overjoyed to be allowed to live freely without being tortured span from the furthest reaches of history until today. Millions are currently un-enjoying the lack of those rights as I type.

The second issue is – since when, in the name of all that is sane, is it our decision as to who or what has a ‘right’ to live, or to freedom, or to not be tortured? Are we seriously saying that unless we accord them (and incidentally never keep our promise), they don’t have them? Of course they have them. If something is alive, it wants to live. Torture and imprisonment are not conducive to this. Their right exists, whether or not we acknowledge or honour it. A budgie, a minnow, grass, cyanobacteria, dandelions. The question is, do we have the will or the luxury not to destroy that right?

Cockroaches have just as much right to life as we do. You could argue, more, because they’re so resilient and provide a beneficial service to other life in breaking down waste matter. Yet the majority of us are fine with killing them if they enter our homes. We justify this by saying a) they are ‘horrible’ and non-human (duh, they’re insects), and b) they spread disease and spoil foodstuffs. Item b) is a problem we can’t afford to ignore, so the cockroach’s right-to-life crumbles before us. It doesn’t make the initial ‘right’ any less, or our actions any more justifiable. It’s what we choose to do. Because we can. And we’ve decided we want to.

The perspective extends to almost every area of life. We are certainly not alone in usurping other beings’ right-to-life, but perhaps as we excel in it, we might be more mindful about what we tell ourselves. Most of the time it is not something we ‘have’ to do, nor is it matter-of-course, nor do our need negate the needs of whatever we’re killing or torturing. It’s just that we’ve chosen to do it. In the case of the Great Apes, a more accurate version might be, ‘we have decided that our need or desire to kill and torture this particular type of animal is less great than our desire to preserve them’. The fact that they are 99% human is, considering our inglorious track record, hardly in their favour.

0 Comments

Matrimonial Tunnel Vision

7/13/2016

0 Comments

If I see another supposedly ‘reasoned’ piece on whether to ‘let’ same-sex couples marry, I won’t be held responsible for my actions. I here claim benefit of reasonable provocation and temporary insanity. Who, in the name of fuck, is ‘letting’, and what exactly are ‘we’ ‘giving’?

For the sake of clarity, I'm bypassing arguments (I won’t say what I think of them) about same-sex relationships and various notions about whether the concept is acceptable or not. This has been dealt with elsewhere.

What ‘we’ haven’t looked at much is the concept of marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? It is not, as a hell of a lot of people seem to think, the joining of two people (of whatever sex) to be loving and happy for evermore. Or even for a little while. They can do that perfectly well without marriage. You like someone, you stay with them, it’s comfortable. Why the hoo-ha? Big ceremonies, lots of expense, paperwork? To tell the world? Yes, but to tell it what? That you love each other?

No, not really. You’re telling the world, and the government, that you’re committed to making a social unit that is more manageable, more powerful, more economically viable than the same number of single, uncoupled individuals. That you will stick to the model you have, and provide social stability and greater motive force. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

In any such union, there is a division of labour. We’ll leave out whose labour is greater, who benefits in what way, who comes worse off and for what reasons. Let’s say it’s a rare case in which each party benefits completely equally, and in many cases the commodities and work being provided are so different it would be hard to judge in absolute terms. But in whatever way tasks are divided, it does allow for more total productivity, less doubling-up of resources, more flexibility overall, and above all greater stability and accountability. It’s a social and economic contract that benefits the society at large – probably more than it benefits the individual. If society were better organized, after all, we wouldn’t need to make sure there’s someone to take care of the kids, and someone to bring in cash. Ideally childcare would be communal enough to allow all parties of the contract to work externally, as well as spend time in their special tighter unit. If governments got their shit together, all the pressures on whatever marital unit we’re working with would ease dramatically. But we don’t, and that unit is what provides at least some sort of support. No wonder marriage takes a hammering. And we’re saying we want to exclude 10% of the population from contributing to this immensely lucrative and beneficial arrangement? NOW who should plead insanity, me or the governments who make these rules?

As a limber-up for our 21st century Western, calcified minds, let’s remember a few things about intimate social units outside our comfort-zone. There may be the good, the bad and the ugly but they all ‘work’ for whatever reason – even if many individuals within the system end up worse off, it is always a form of social stability.

Polygamy – has been the norm around the globe in many quarters. We can tell by the DNA evidence: relatively few men pass on their genes, whereas most women do. Current estimates of the age-gap between ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ float at around 40,000 years, and I love Stephen Fry’s facetious comment on this that ‘one can only suppose that life before Adam must have been heavy to industrial strength lesbianism’. Reasons for polygamy? (Apart from the obvious of male appetite and power.) Infant mortality and economic viability, as well as the propensity of said males to go out and get killed and thereby depleted in number. Not great reasons, but practical. Been around for a while, still is many countries – either legally or recognized at a government level. A study of 1,000 cultures found only 186 to be monogamous, the vast majority of the rest to be infrequently or frequently polygamous.

Polyandry – Much less common, but still practiced in Nepal, India, Africa and Tibet – although the Chinese government has outlawed it there. Typically it occurs in places where there are not enough resources to sustain a large population and the utmost has to be squeezed out of the land to survive. Most cases are fraternal polyandry, where the woman marries two brothers and they all live in the same house. Sometimes it can be father and son. The model usually works best when the two males are related, as the offspring have a better chance of being looked after well.

Matrilineal societies – When offspring are cared for in the unit of the females. It gives rise to ‘visit’ relationships, where either males or females visit their chosen sexual partner’s abode for the night, and live separately. This is still practiced in Yunan province in China (although of course it’s being stamped out by the authorities), and I found, to my utter surprise, in the Heian period in Japan. As older societies (we’re talking pre-Bronze age here) were much more prone to being matrilineal, one can assume it used to be more of a norm in the past.

One thing these arrangements have in common is practicality. All of them probably have issues in putting more than a fair share of the burden of life on one party or other. But it does get things done. The now-common idea of monogamous, lifelong marriage is by no means the majority view, so anyone on that high horse can get off it right away.

If we’re entirely honest, the best way to arrange things would be to live in groups large enough to sustain a rotation of duties. That way everyone has a chance to both have children and to work and forge an independent career. But we’re not asking for this. All we’re asking is that we be sensible and fit in with the social structure that’s already there. Personally, my first marriage was entirely for economic purposes – although based on a firm relationship. My partner was offered a job in the USA, and for me to be able to get a work visa, we had to be married. So we did. We didn’t love each other any more or any less because of the paperwork, nor did we stay together for longer because of it. But we were allowed to earn more money, pay more taxes, and contribute more to the economy. Governments incentivise marriage because of the social stability benefits already mentioned. It is unbelievable that this incentive would have been unavailable to a same-sex couple at the time. It simply shoots everyone in the foot. We seriously need to grow up.

0 Comments

Circular Arguments

7/6/2016

0 Comments

There is a theory that the more democratic a country, the more self-repressive it will become in curtailing freedom of speech. In a totalitarian environment, any dissent from the given standards can simply be clubbed out. There is therefore no great fluctuation between opposing views in ‘the masses’, as they are all under one giant thumb.

In more democratic environments there is no such physical unifying force. This leads to the populace at large coming into contact with views and beliefs alien to their own. Which in turn leads to indignation, objection, even violence.

As a self-curbing mechanism, parameters and boundaries are set. ‘You’re allowed to say this, but not that – otherwise you can’t play with us, moreover we might hit you.’ The media play an absolutely vital role in setting the most current standards of what thoughts are fashionable in which circles; and they make sure the circles are few in number. Not having a clear ideology-genre will lose followers and readership.

Under these circumstances, it’s necessary to consider where we are going before leaping into bed with the idea of outlawing any particular ideology. It may seem like a good idea to ban posters of skinny, skimpily clad models from the London Underground on the grounds that they pressure women into impossible body-image ideals. But are we then going to ban the human form in every shape? Is it Ok to have a picture of a fat, older person? How about men? Why should skinny young women be singled out to be discriminated against? Infinite numbers of artists have more than adequately shown that the human form in pretty much any stage of life or shape can be rendered beautiful by the treatment of the subject – that is, after all, the essence of advertising. If we’re entirely honest, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, we’d ban all advertising. But this is not what’s being proposed. We’re merely singling out a victim.

Most countries have legal boundaries on what can and can’t be said. Some of the most obvious are laws against incitement to violence. This seems like generally a good idea, although it is ironic that while individuals are barred from inciting violence, governments are completely exempt, and are free to stir up hatred almost as part of their job description.

The role that insult and deliberate verbal and ideological offence plays in human society cannot be underestimated. Insult and intimidation have been part of our social tactical toolbox since prehistory. They play a role in both aggression and defence that is parallel to physical opposition. Verbal insult, satire and derision has particularly been utilized by those with less physical power to achieve ends without bloodshed.

Of course, just because we’ve always been prone to resorting to either physical violence or verbal intimidation does not mean that either is desirable. It is simply that they are intimately woven into our makeup. The disarming of either has necessarily to be done with extreme caution. Violence is bad – but does that mean we should stand stock still while someone else punches us? If verbal, pictorial, ideological or cultural abuse with ‘good cause’ is allowed, who decides what the good cause is?

Again, the problems with verbal and physical battles are similar. Perhaps a sharp and timely rebuke might stop further potential damage, as much as a well-executed physical act of aggression might prevent larger bloodshed at least in the short term. But when political campaigning turns into nothing but mudslinging and misdirection until voters have no clear information to base their decisions on, the usefulness of the insult has obviously long since gone as far as the good of the country is concerned. Likewise, to quote Calvin and Hobbes, ‘Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world’s problems?’

Perhaps the most expedient answer is, forbearance. Forbear from both types of violence – even though they are in reach. Do not legislate against them. Legislate against wilful acts of violence, deception, incitement. But do not curb every offensive available to people. Such a tactic is hyperbolic, and in its own overarching dogma swallows its own tail like the Midgard Serpent; for is it not a type of insult in itself to decree certain types of slurs acceptable and others not? In pedagogical circles, we understand quite clearly that the maximum gain in self-control is attained not through excessive parental control and direction, but through allowing maximum freedom while keeping the child within acceptable bounds. We present positive behavioural models and encouragement and praise as often as possible. We don’t change much as we grow older. Society will surely never develop into anything more graceful unless given some credit for being able to control itself.

0 Comments

‘If like a crab, you could go backwards.’

6/29/2016

0 Comments

Nature abhors a vacuum. And a vacuum is what now rages through the British public’s and the British leadership’s minds, sucking all rational thought into a vortex of shock.

Let’s say, for the sake of charity and hope, that the British public voted to exit the EU because they believed that a home-grown government would be less cumbersome, less bureaucratic and more in tune with their needs than one based in Brussels. That they did not vote for xenophobic, utterly misguided reasons such as these Barnsley voters. Let’s say that the elected representatives who egged their populace on to leave, had full knowledge of the economic realities, and that the case of Cornwall suddenly seeking ‘reassurance’ that the huge subsidies it receives annually from the EU would ‘not be affected’, despite the region's considerable majority Leave vote. (Cornish fishermen and farmers are beneficiaries of the Common Fisheries and Agricultural policies – but not for long now.) Let’s say, Mr Farage will revisit and revise his statement after the vote, that the campaign-driving advertisement that $350 million per week will be allocated to the NHS instead of to the EU was ‘a mistake’ and he will not be held to it – that the money is a ‘feather bed’ for ‘the NHS, schools, and all sorts of things.’

Having decided all these charitable things, let’s now stop being ridiculous. It’s one thing for individuals to have regrets. The day after the vote, Google registered a massive spike in searches for ‘What is the EU.’ Voters sound as if they’re embarrassed the morning after a big piss-up, and the term ‘Regrexit’ has already sprung up. Yes, we’re very sorry, we didn’t know what we were doing, we used our hard-won votes without even knowing what the hell we were leaving or what 'they' do. We don't know where the money comes or goes or what it means to our own employment and economic prospects in the short, let alone the long term. It’s voted, it’s fact. We can’t be so imbecilic and immature as to think we can get out of it with ‘I didn’t mean it, Mum.’ The constitution rules that a country may opt out of the EU, but after that it can NEVER come back. That’s the game, we played it. So no pointless energy expended on gathering petitions for a second referendum, please. There are a plethora of ‘plans’ formenting now, but all of them are in some way trying to claw back a modicum of the EU, if not all of it. This is both unseemly and unhelpful.

Maybe the EU was indeed so unwieldy and out of control there was no way to fix it. Maybe a ‘clean’ start (though such a thing is impossible but we’ll talk figuratively and broadly) will be for the better in the long run. One thing is certain: now that we’ve done this, Europe as we know it has drunk from the cup, and breathes but a little before ‘the potent poison quite oer’crows its spirit’. We must look forward, not back. To waste energy in heaping further layer upon layer of deception, subterfuge, embezzling, bureaucracy, false alliances, tactical maneuvering without any outcome, good or bad, is to redouble the very properties we have supposedly voted to escape. We cannot procrastinate our final exit. If we drag this divorce out, those with more verve will muscle in, and any benefits will be quickly sucked away.

It is however a bitter irony that the vote driven by the slogan ‘Make Britain Great Again’ will almost certainly result in the ‘Great’ literally dropping off the name.

0 Comments

Brexit Terror Smokescreens

6/24/2016

0 Comments

There has been a ‘War on terror’ for the last decade and a half. It’s used as an excuse for surveillance, ever diminishing limits to freedom, and increasing intrusion on privacy. None of which have any discernible effect in curtailing terrorist movements.

‘It’s the foreigners’ fault’ has been the oldest trick in the political power-holder’s hand since well before Alexander the Great. The Crusades, inasmuch as the Dark Ages hot-shots bothered to excuse themselves to the populace, without doubt distracted from a shit economy at home. Jews have been the convenient archetypal ‘foreigner’ for millennia: an easy scapegoat for economic failure – particularly as the Jewish cultural value placed on education, hard work and thrift inevitably results in disproportionate accumulation of wealth in Jewish hands, envy for which is easily turned into suspicion and blame, even by the most flat-footed and inept politician. Other examples are endless.

Surely we all know this? Surely we are aware that the rise in xenophobia across the globe directly correlates to a sinking global economy and collapse of financial institutions? Surely we all know that the last round of such a global phenomenon, the Great Depression, led to an identical rise in extremist militant far right politics in the general populace, and xenophobia to an extent where home-grown nationals were viewed as ‘foreigners’ purely on basis of ethnicity, and from there in rapid steps to atrocities we are still in global PTSD over? Don’t we remember this? The comparisons between Trump and Hitler have been thick and fast from the start of his rise to power. Don’t forget, Hitler was ‘Time’ magazine’s ‘Man of the Year’ in 1939.

We’re distracted beyond all plausibility. A violent moron guns down a roomful of homosexuals and claims inspiration from the call from Daesh to murder infidels over Ramadan. Is it the fault of guns? Of Islam? Of Daesh? Of homophobia? Of homosexuals? Of males? Of the Internet? Of Christianity? Of immigrants? No. Ultimately the act of gunning down these innocents is the fault of the global ECONOMY. Don’t forget, it’s not just the West that’s being subjected to endless rants on the ‘Terror From Abroad’. The mess and chaos that fuels Daesh itself is poor economic management heading up an explosive mix of under-education and a tribal mentality of corruption and nepotism. Sounds familiar? Exactly the same as the economic disaster that paved the way to Trump. That opened the curtains for Nigel Farage. That fuelled the far-right Swedish Democrats and the Danish DPP. The Iraqis and the British, the Americans and the Afghans, the Syrians and the Swedes, are not on the different sides they think they are. They are all in the same boat, and it’s sinking fast. And the only ones hustling away the insufficient lifeboats at the back are the people in power, promulgating a global climate of hate and suspicion. Anything, anything but think about why people are really so dissatisfied.

What made ‘Great’ Britain ‘great’? Many Britons seems to equate the notion with Imperialism, with slavery and living off the sweat of others, with military power, and with the arrogance that comes with being a leading global economy. Some are ashamed of this, some are proud of it. But the fact is that though slavery, Imperialism and all sorts of things we label as Victorian nastiness may have contributed in their own way to increased wealth of the nation (and without wealth, remember, you can’t have military power either), the real power raising the little bunch of islands was productivity and trade. The Industrial Revolution. Mechanisation and advances in technology. And above all trade, trade trade, until wealth flooded into the country at a rate never witnessed before.

What do we produce now? Bureaucrats. Britain, and a huge percentage of the ‘developed’ world, is now a massive army of desk-bound shufflers of paper. Perhaps from the exalted view we have of professions like lawyers and bankers (ahem) we think this sort of activity brings in money. It doesn’t. It simply shuffles it endlessly, like the paper on the desk – and each time a bit gets chipped off with nothing being added to replace it.

We can’t have another Industrial Revolution. In fact we watch in alarm at countries like China who are having to go through the accompanying horrors of industrialisation at the same time as the backlash and aftermath. But we must, as a world, produce. And trade. Or there is no economy, no contentment, and endless opportunities for anything from Daesh to the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to catch the attention of a zombified populace wondering what the hell is wrong with the world. I’m not talking about endless plastic nonsense to fuel a degenerate and demented capitalism that continues chewing up the world and shitting it out as garbage. We need to provide food, clothing, adequate housing, healthcare, education, superannuation. None of these criteria are adequately met in any ‘developed’ country. Let alone others. At the moment, no-one has a Plan B for an Industrial Revolution. We need one urgently.

This phenomenon traces back in short steps to the devaluing of tradespeople as ‘blue collar’ and to the utterly artificial bloating of universities forced into churning out an endless supply of people with no vocation, real education or ability for rational thought. Into this world of pointless mouse-clickers and the jobless disenfranchised comes a call to arms. Any call. Religion, food additives, discrimination, vocabulary disputes. It latches onto the discontent like Velcro. The economy? Why, it’s the fault of the foreigners. That’ll take care of itself. Less sugar in your diet and you’ll feel better. Or maybe it was more sugar. It’s certainly not the lack of an adequate healthcare system, the embezzlement of your retirement funds by the Government, the lack of a plumber when your toilet overflows that’s making you blue. Besides, look at the foreigners. Better build a wall or something. They’re terrifying.

The language of terror has so seeped into our tongues and our consciousness that even those who acknowledge this very tactic of misdirection, still use the language of fear. https://medium.com/@ChrisBrosnahan/im-fucking-terrified-7057458c704#.bzccjlpvq. Last time the global economy failed to recover from the Great Depression until WWII knocked people and production on the head. Please, please could we not go through the same process again this time? Could we just remember FDR’s injunction at the time, that ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ Rarely has this statement been as true as it is right now.

0 Comments

The Psyche, the Wardrobe and the Mobile Phone

6/15/2016

0 Comments

How long do you think a wardrobe should last? According to one of my teenagers, six years is a good run. Six years? Some of the wardrobes I was brought up with were over 200 years old, and I’m not talking stately homes, just old family wardrobes. According to my kids ‘only Narnia has wardrobes that old.’

Now it could be that I’ve moved from Europe to Australia, and things tend to be younger here. But no-one past the age of 30 would doubt humans have recently developed a cultural expectation of extreme impermanence – from Twitter to global politics. Where does it come from? The digital age where pixels flash?

No. It’s more centred around physical items. One particular consumable has pivotal control over consumer conditioning, lifespan expectations and (funnily enough) also the flow of pixels. The mobile phone.

A phone used to sit in the corner for 20, 30 years. Even when they went mobile, initially they were designed to last, provided you didn’t drop them down a well. A decade no problem. Then Apple discovered the joy of fragility.

Sleek, desirable, and delicate. And with such a princess you wouldn’t expect the new model to use the same charger, would you? Or the case. Or the apps. Programs like Norton pave the path of applications with a set lifespan. It makes sense: viruses change all the time, so should your antivirus, right? Desktop computers dwindle in number compared to laptops, because like the phone, no one wants to be tied down to use their computer. But laptops are fragile. The proportion of income spent on information technology rises with each year, and we barely notice the creep. The charisma of the smartphone seduces computer technology and the union produces rapid generations of indecisive half-breeds of ipads, tablets and overgrown phones, each one declaring itself the new way-to-be. Many users ditch the computer altogether and are smartphone-dependent for all internet needs.

Each time our smartphones magically ‘expire’ at the end of their contract period, we have to move all our contacts, our intimate conversations, our life, to the new device. It’s like moving home. You’re fond of it but it’s done its job, life goes on, you’ve been posted elsewhere. We leave a trail of used devices behind us like Hansel. For many, their phones hold ‘everything’, and we’re conditioned into believing in the natural order of decay from the inside out, from one of the items most central to our lives.

It is not strange then that a physical storage device like a wardrobe should be well and truly past its best in six years. What are clothes compared to your whole online life and contacts, after all? This disposability is quite apart from the whole issue of the seemingly insatiable craving for the latest everything – which is hardly a new human phenomenon but is being exploited to the max by the technology industry. Some of my kids have the odd obsession of going through the tins and boxes in the kitchen and checking the ‘best before’ dates on everything. If a carton of yoghurt has yesterday’s date on it, it’s virtually impossible to stop them disposing of it like toxic waste, at arm’s length. The notion that perhaps there are variables in the perishability of yoghurt, or that the manufacturers are not gifted with omniscient foresight, or that your nose and eyes might give you clues as to the health of the yoghurt in your fridge more immediate than the stamped date, is impossible to comprehend. Its viability has imploded as surely as a neutron star.

This mindset has much greater implications than simply on the consumer level. Everything is disposable. No-one even expects politicians to stick to the policies they made or promised – besides, who would remember anything from that long ago? Investment in infrastructure is pushed down the list of priorities, on national and corporate levels. Technology moves so fast that it’s almost impossible for a company to neither limp along with antiquated tools nor stagger under the financial and intellectual burden of constant updates. One of the few sectors engaged in empire-building is… information technology.

‘Memento mori’ and Ozymandias are all well, but this approaches insanity. The implications of this global conditioning are much more profound than would be apparent from first glance, and it grows by the day. It harmonizes with the flash-hysteria of peripheral news items, with the cult of celebrity, with the ever-shortening timelapses before a movie is ‘remade’. The new keeping-up-with-the-Joneses is how up-to-date politically ‘correct’ you can be, depending on what is in fashion, not on what makes sense or follows any logic. Opinions and views become some of the most disposable items, as well as the most incendiary.

What is the remedy? What the world looks like to teenagers and kids who have known nothing but this transitory existence, one can only guess at, but from the perception that clothes storage over a decade old is so unimaginable as to be relegated to the world of C.S. Lewis, we can start to glimpse the maelstrom of transience. The effects of the conditioning on economics, ecology and sustainability, business interactions, and social attitudes are relatively easy to track. The deeper impact on self-perception and sense of identity is less immediately visible. With such shadowy impermanence of the ego, entirely malleable according to what digital form it takes, where does the future of the modern human psyche lie?

0 Comments

Blah Blah Blah Johnny Depp

6/8/2016

0 Comments

Apparently Johnny Depp may or may not have been abusive towards his (female) partner. There’s rampant speculation over the matter. We’ve moved on from the immigration status of his dogs.

Columnists are bleeding words over the page by the thousands. Did he, or did he not? Who says he did? What did she? Is she a gold digger? Is even suggesting gold-digger status a crime toward all abused women? There’s a rampant overuse of the phrase ‘innocent until proved guilty’ but by now I’m not even sure who it’s meant to apply to: him, her, or a third party.

Why are we so eager to have an opinion on Johnny Depp’s romantic relationships, and theoretical rights and wrongs thereof? Whoever is to ‘blame’ or whatever the status is, I’m sure both parties are not going to end up too dreadfully off. They have lawyers a-plenty at their disposal. Let them get on with it. The public’s speculation does not one bit of good, though you’d think it does from the way columnists go on about it. ‘It’s an example.’ Is it? On hearsay and speculation?

It's precisely because there is NO consequence of the chatter. All sorts of proposals and theories can be bandied about with impunity, mostly in the delicious anonymity of the Net. Nothing need be done and there will be no repercussions. It’s a mix of window-shopping and soapboxing.

On the other hand, today I see in the (minor) news that Daesh in Mosul have burned 19 girls alive in steel cages because they refused to have sex with Daesh members. A smattering of comments, a few murmurs of how appalling it is. This, by contrast, is a situation that urgently needs broadcasting. Action. Public pressure. Right now, there are women (and humans in general) who have scant access to food, water or shelter, let alone lawyers, being set alight. I’d call that abuse. We are in a position to do something – be it vote, or organize aid packages, or send reporters, troops, medics.

But this is hard, and real. There’s no soft Deppish cushion, no background music of ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’. There’s just people burning alive. We don’t want to deal with that.

Today one of my 11-year-olds came home saying they’d been studying history at school, and from the description it’s evidently a narrative about a WWII Jewish girl who ‘had to leave all her things, she had no possessions, she had to travel for months, she had no food, she was scared.’ Sounds familiar? While the Holocaust is not to be forgotten, I have yet to hear any of the kids come home with stories about our millions upon millions of modern-day refugees. The ones that are right here, right now. Along with the abused, voiceless men, women and children, who have no cameras pointing at them.

How harshly will the finger of history point at us?

0 Comments

Short Stories, Novels and CTC

4/6/2016

0 Comments

At the weekend I was at a talk hosted by some excellent crime writers at the Newcastle Writers Festival.

The discussion touched on the question of how short story writing skills and novel writing skills overlap. As usual, the point was raised that short stories ‘train’ you for novels, even though the skill set is quite different. Again, as usual, the merit of the short story in its own right, rather than as a lesser entity or poor relative of the novel, was highlighted.

What is strangely overlooked is which particular skill that short stories help with. Novels and short stories need completely different plotting and characterization, as well as different emphasis and rhythms. What they both require, but is much more obvious in a short story, is the lack of waffle and nonsense. Short stories are excellent for learning to Cut The Crap. People think they have ‘room’ to get out of doing CTC on their novels – they’re mistaken. Every word has to count, just as much as if you’re writing a 500 worder. That is the specific skill short stories are so good at honing. Long live the short story and the crapless book.

What are your Crap Cutting techniques? How drastic have you gone?

0 Comments

Turning Off The Taps

3/24/2016

0 Comments

After the terror attack in Brussels the other day, I glimpsed an internet meme with the Belgian flag and the text ‘NOW will you close your borders?’

This is peculiar. I don’t think the Brussels perpetrators have been entirely identified yet, but in the vast majority of cases, they’re nationals. Home grown. The Paris attack (which is thought to be closely related) was comprised of mostly Belgian and some French nationals. Sure, close the borders and keep them all in, we’d be doing the world a favour. Belgium is the world’s biggest exporter of Daesh converts, male and female. It comes from dissatisfaction, economic issues and lack of control and direction – no-one has ever denied this, including the mayor of Molenbeeck.

But media insists on portraying them as ‘other’. They’re not. They’re ‘us’.

The tactic of isolation, vilification and distancing of members of a society – scapegoating - is as old as society itself, and spans from the playground to the furthest reaches of politics. ‘She doesn’t wear the right shoes so we won’t play with her’. Even, ‘I don’t wear the right shoes so I can’t play with them.’ ‘They’re immigrants so they must be up to no good.’ ‘They’re non-Daesh so we must blow them up.’ Why is it that Hitler comes up so many times as a comparison with what goes on in the news these days? Daesh kills far more Muslims than any other religion. The group just likes killing; in fact it’s an excuse for it. Surely someone’s noticed?

People fear, and people need to belong. So you create barriers. As artificial as you like. They become real because of the need for a focus for the fear, the unknown, the uncertainty, the lack of self-confidence, the lack of happiness. That part at least is the same for the bombers and the border-shutters.

I was in a discussion about ‘Othello’ the other day. The race question came up. Honestly, to my reading, it isn’t a question of race, it’s a question of ‘other’. Anything unknown is ‘the devil’. Anything uncertain is ‘the devil’. It’s a map, with borders saying ‘here be dragons’, with imaginative pictures. Othello himself, in his uncertainty and suffocated self-loathing, burns immediately at Iago’s prompts and needs no further ‘proof’ than a handkerchief before killing his brand-new wife – because he can’t believe she’d be faithful to him. It has nothing to do with reality. Why has nothing changed?

The world is very small. We grow Daesh supporters in Europe like kiwi fruit – under cover, in hothouses. We export arms to the terrorists, support one side against another, accuse, vilify, obfuscate, until no-one knows who’s fighting whom but everyone’s in a mighty great rage and ready to slam the door on everyone and everything. It’s like the pro-gun lady in the States who recently got shot in the back by her 4-year-old – and is still pro-gun. It’s all home grown. Not just home-grown to the West, mind. Most cultures tend to their own gardens of hate and violence. They can’t possibly be surprised when the pit-bull puppy turns into the beast it was trained to be and bites back.

One thing is certain. Closing borders to stop terrorists entering is about as sensible as ladling water from your bath onto the floor to stop it from overflowing. You need to turn the tap off.

0 Comments

Say What Now?

2/17/2016

0 Comments

We need to draw the line between ‘offence’ and ‘hatred’. ‘Hatred’ implies or incites others to agree that the people with the beliefs and systems in question are inferior to you and/or others. It is a situation founded on persuasion by sentiment rather than reality.

We also need to distinguish ‘hatred’ from ‘condemnation’. There are infinite aspects various sections of society do indeed consider unacceptable, the degrees and aspects of which fuel – if indirectly - most conflict in the world. We can’t go into it in a blog post.

Hatred is NOT:

Finding flaws with the belief/system
Not identifying with or believing or siding with the system
Not understanding the system

As for the term ‘offence’, it’s completely ambiguous and needs to be discarded. I can take offence at your putting the toilet paper roll on the holder in a manner I’m not used to, but that’s entirely my bag and nothing to do with your committing some terrible crime. ‘Offence’ is a crock of shit.

If I walk into a place of worship, I do so on sufferance, under the understanding I will obey whatever customs are demanded in that situation. If I enter a country I agree to abide by the laws it imposes, for the duration I am there. Neither of these mean that I cannot either disagree with the customs or laws or raise my voice to change them. You can believe yourself to be a fairy and ride an imaginary unicorn down the high street while dressed in a tutu and I will consider the world a richer place for it. But you try making me wear tutus or insist unicorns are the only mode of transport and we have a problem. If you block off the street for unicorn dance practice, we have a problem. Siphon off government funds for unicorn enrichment classes, create segregated areas where unicorn owners only can enjoy special privileges, start imprisoning anyone who suggests the whole unicorn craze is a bit silly, and we have a problem. In fact, I might rather start disliking unicorns altogether. Which opens up another whole kettle of fish. Fish? Who’s disrespecting fish now?

Currently the Australian Christian Lobby is calling for a suspension of Australian anti-discrimination laws to be able to ‘argue’ the case against legalization of same sex marriage in Australia. Apparently their reasoning is ‘not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millennia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.’ Now, call me old-fashioned, but the argument that something is because that’s just the way it is done is generally given up as a method of crowd control by parents of anyone over 18 months old. There is no theoretical or statistical argument against same sex marriage. It’s even easier for Australia because the path has already been paved by more freedom-loving countries and there are indeed no adverse effects. The fabric of society has not been ripped apart. No water is held, no fucks are given. That unicorn needs to keep to its own side of the road.

0 Comments

World Peace

2/10/2016

0 Comments

‘Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right.’

‘Course it doesn’t. In today’s news (they call it ‘news’ because now it’s semi-official, not because it’s new) Syria’s government is reported to be carrying out what’s being termed ‘extermination’ of prisoners. It’s a convenient trick for government if they can pull it off. The Holocaust isn’t some distant memory. It’s happening right now, all over the world.

Anything from this, to tax exemptions for companies that fund governments, to nonsensical education systems (or worse, non-existent ones), to preferential (or detrimental) treatment due to race, religion, name or merely looks. The world is a-whirl with so much clamour and insanity one would have to develop tunnel vision to focus on a single aspect to address. No wonder people suffer donor fatigue and turn off all the news in favour of a comedy program. It’s too depressing.

Why does it all happen? We all know there’s enough food and clothing and fuel to go round. We know there’s the wherewithal to cure diseases, live in complete peace. Two main causes:

People are greedy, violent assholes.
Others many not be but get vindictive and/or confused.

And there we have it. All we need to do is cure those two factors and we have world peace.

Ok so how do you cure the first category? Hm. Difficult. Almost everything boils down to greed, because without that, there would be no violence either. If the concept of taking something by force were eradicated from the human psyche, we’d be half way there. If the endless, futile search for self-justification through material acquisitions and dominion over others were erased as well, we’d be completely in the clear.

Would the drive for discovery and invention be quelled, hampering human progress? We haven’t had the chance to explore this avenue, but I’d say, no. There are countless inventions out there today that would be of enormous benefit to humanity but can’t get backing because they don’t fit into the Greed and Power scenario. Take thorium reactors. Nuclear reactors that use thorium instead of uranium or plutonium. Thorium availability: everywhere. Would never run out. Cost: literally dirt cheap. Less than my garden mulch for the actual thorium. Waste: recyclable and infinitely less dangerous. Meltdown: impossible. Hang on, why don’t we use them? Because thorium can’t be made into bombs. That’s the only reason. So we hang out with ridiculous uranium and plutonium instead. Duh.

The second category (of being vindictive or confused) will automatically evaporate with the eradication of greed and the passage of time – and if we apply the ‘be decent’ rule to these, nothing bad will happen in the meantime.

So somehow, we have to teach ourselves and our children that getting an expensive car or the latest iphone doesn’t make you a better person. Neither does becoming Chair of the Board, or the School Captain. Neither do excellent exam results, or a promotion. A lot of these things wouldn’t make you a worse person, but not better, either. Being decent to people and nature, does.

I know, it’s a tough gig on a society that’s essentially built on the Roman concept of ‘If you lose or are proved wrong it’s such dishonour you might as well fall on your sword’. Screw that though. World peace beckons.

0 Comments

Against A Sea Of Troubles

2/3/2016

0 Comments

I learned a new term the other day. ‘Kin keeping.’ For those of you not in the know, apparently this is anything from remembering (and doing something about) birthdays other than that of your immediate family nucleus to tying up lunchboxes in pretty ways with notes in them. Phoning people, keeping in touch, hosting parties that (it seems) you don’t really want but feel obliged to throw. Here’s an article.
This particular article is interesting because it unwittingly demonstrates within its own writing the attitude many have towards this concept.

Men are ‘bad’ at it, women are ‘good’.
Men are (therefore?) not expected to do it. Women are.
It is an onerous task, and largely ‘unrewarded’. The tasked women feel put-upon.
The tasks in question are seemingly social and enjoyable, but are actually a burden.

It is unclear whether the people carrying out the tasks (women, in this case) want to stop doing this work, or simply want more recognition. It seems illogical that you would want to keep sending Aunt Maude thank-you notes for the hand-knitted sweaters you don’t really like. If you’re not thankful, don’t send the note, and perhaps she’ll stop sending sweaters. Besides, it’s insincere. If you’re thankful then writing the note should be a pleasure.

Here’s another short article which touches on the benefits of kin keeping. The benefits are apparently that other people get to enjoy things, or feel included and valued. Not the kin keeper.

Now this doesn’t make much sense. Sending Grandma a birthday present in the name of her son when he has no idea what’s going on and cares less about Grandma’s birthday than where his next meal is coming from, is deceiving both Grandma and her son. If he doesn’t care, shouldn’t she know he doesn’t care? Or is the cover-up an act of family bonding that shores up fragments against ruin? Heaping resentment on the two ignorant parties seems the icing on the tip of the illogicality cake.

Why does this have anything to do with the world of writing?

Writers constantly bemoan their lack of time. If I had 48 hours to each day I wouldn’t come close to performing all the tasks I’d like to. And I don’t even have a day job to keep me in tea and toast. Lack of time (in writers) is chiefly ascribed to two factors:

Too busy
Procrastination

If we’re frightfully honest, procrastination is frequently at the bottom of the ‘too busy’ issue. Sure, you’re too busy peeling potatoes for the family’s favourite mashed potato and home-made meat pie to type out that story. But suppose you didn’t make the pie. Suppose you sit and type first, and do the pie later if you have the time. Perhaps someone else could make it. Or they could eat something different. Maybe they’ll appreciate the pie more when you eventually have the time to bake it. If you’re looking for appreciation, perhaps they’ll be more impressed with your story getting into print than they would with a pie. Perhaps they won’t. But at least you’ll have your story done.

Another way of saying this is: prioritize. What is the most important thing? If it’s playing with your kids, keep that as a priority. If it’s the vegetable garden, tend that. And if it’s writing, do the writing first.

Ah but you say, I have to. It’s true, we complicate our lives in all sorts of ways. Time-pressed writers have to assess what really matters to them and gradually streamline their lifestyle to accommodate top-priorities only. Other items, be it family functions, birthdays, clean houses, mowed lawns, taxi duties – all these get assessed and possibly jettisoned. You can’t sail a boat with all that cargo and act surprised when it gets swamped. It’s doomed to failure.

One tactic that many successful and prolific writers employ is stunningly simple. Office hours. Almost always in the morning. No distractions, no interruptions. Not if someone’s having a heart attack. Someone else can deal with it.

I’ve tried this occasionally and it works like a magic wand. Not only that, but by definition it elevates your writing to Top Priority status. Psychologically that sends the message to you (and probably to your significant others) that it matters. It has value. This leads to better writing, as your focus increases for this ‘important’ task. This leads to more motivation. Leads to easier prioritization.

So what’s stopped me from carrying on this routine ad infinitum? I would say ‘guilt’. At ignoring the needs of others. But dig deeper and it’s probably not entirely the case. Are we really concerned, or are we using the excuse to slack off our writing? Does it coincide with a difficult patch? A sluggish moment in our imagination? If this is the case, the answer is certainly to slog it out. Keep fingers to keyboard and if you’re worth your salt, something will come. You’ll never get back to peak form if you quit every time the going gets tough, and you’ll certainly never get better.

The situation is no different from physical training and performance. All those sports brands exhortations to ‘just do it’? They were actually talking about writing.

0 Comments

An Acceptability Of Insults

1/30/2016

0 Comments

Europeans heap insults upon each other. Let’s focus on the French for a moment.
‘He lies like a French bulletin.’ Dutch saying
‘A fighting Frenchman runs away from even a she-goat.’ Russian saying
‘The French do everything; they know nothing.’ Italian saying
And of course ‘dirty cheese-eating surrender monkeys’. This list could extend down the page. Add the rest of Europe and surrounds and you’ve got yourself a novella. Heap in the rest of the Caucasian-mix areas and it’s grown into a dictionary. Not to mention the additional volumes of insults the rest of the world heaps upon their neighbours and themselves, often colourful and imaginative beyond belief.

The typical example is syphilis. The British call it the French Pox. The French called it the Neapolitan disease or the Spanish disease. The Russians called it the Polish disease. The Polish and the Persians called it the Turkish disease, the Turkish called it the Christian disease. The Tahitians called it the British disease. To Indians it was the Portuguese disease, to Japanese the Chinese pox. Everyone blames this virulent STD on whoever they dislike the most – usually their neighbours.

Why do we insult people and racial stereotypes? There’s another volume. Creating unity against an ‘other’ that might otherwise be nebulous, elevating known mores against perceived inferiority (the freak-show factor), or simply making some nonsensical sense in an insane world. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the process, it’s obviously some sort of universal safety-valve. Comedians and satirists are at the forefront of this process, and it’s a dangerous line to tread, as we remember vividly from Charlie Hebdo and the numerous bloggers who have been imprisoned, whipped and executed for utterances most of us would think not even controversial, let alone a crime.

So why, today, can you call a Frenchman ‘filthy’ and have it considered a ribbing joke, but call a Mexican or a Bangladeshi the same you’ll be outcast forever?

Perhaps we shouldn’t call anyone ‘filthy’. Generalizations and stereotypes are what they are: grossly inaccurate and unfair, but they serve some purpose. The benefits and detractions of racial and cultural slander are for this discussion an irrelevance. If you’re allowed to insult one race, you can insult another. Segregation of insultability is an absolute anathema to equality and freedom of expression. It destroys the cultural safety valve. It leads to monstrosities like Donald Trump.

0 Comments

Joining The Dots

12/21/2015

0 Comments

How is a piece of fiction like an impressionist painting?

Answer: very.

In the picture here we don’t see much in the way of detail. In fact, tests show that even in real life, with our naked eyes to naked scene, we don’t really take in much of what’s there. Our brains can’t cope with it, so they do a processing job for us. Sometimes they leap to the most amazing conclusions and (as we know from courts of law) cause us to swear we’ve seen a blue cap when in fact we saw a red cap. Or no cap. Or in fact no person underneath the cap at all. Sometimes, though, those leapt-to conclusions are stunningly accurate. Sometimes we call that sort of conclusion a ‘sixth sense’.

Suppose a person stops you on the street to ask for directions. You don’t know anything about them but you’ll immediately start building an imaginary portfolio for them from their age, sex, clothing, accent, mannerisms – even their smell. The exchange might last no more than 15 seconds but by then you’ve jumped to all sorts of conclusions whether you intended to or not. It’s just what we do.

Why, then, do characters in stories have to be introduced like vintage cheeses, with a history of what milk they were made from and where the cows pastured, along with details of their storage facility and what their peak lifespan is likely to be?

I postulate, they do not. In the face of this I’m well aware that many readers crave this introduction, and have a sense of being ripped off if they don’t get it. Others are happier to watch and wait.

Which are you?

0 Comments

Twisted Knickers

12/8/2015

0 Comments

Things happening these days:

A college apologizes for hosting a Mexican themed dining night.
A Canadian college cancels its yoga classes because they might be ‘culturally insensitive’.

These acts are conducted under the umbrella of fighting ‘cultural appropriation’.

Now, the term ‘cultural appropriation’ has a fatal flaw. Its definition currently stands that the negative connotations of the act are only applicable in the case of a dominant culture utilizing any trappings of a less dominant one. To simplify in most cases, anything a white-skinned person does might be said to be cultural appropriation. But nothing a non-white does can, because in most cases they’ve been oppressed.

The notion that one life, or one opinion, one culture or one skin colour is somehow on a different exemption-level to another is fundamentally WRONG. You wouldn’t think that would be so hard to grasp, after all these years. And the irony that this very tenet is the value supposedly being defended would be funny if it weren’t tragic.

Some who tout the virtues of fighting cultural appropriation are superficially well-meaning. Don’t make fun of people or belittle them. Fair enough. That's just a rule in life, though, called 'being decent', and hardly needs categorizing any further. Here’s a fairly well-reasoned ‘for’ article. However, the problem is still this fundamental knickers-in-a-twist state of insisting that the oppressed (past or present) are on a different moral plane than the oppressors, and different laws apply.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Apart from this obvious imbalance, there are two major problems.

Take it to its logical conclusion. We’ll say because of the ‘oppressed/oppressor’ rule, it’s fine for Indians to wear suits, for Mexicans to use electricity, for Africans to use penicillin and for an Aboriginal Australian to play Bach. Even for them to play Bach liturgical pieces. (Ooh, see all the religious appropriation there? Might be termed blasphemy, desecration. But no, we’ll use the oppressed/oppressor rule.)

But how about Indians eating chilies? Or potatoes? Or tomatoes? Or corn products? Oops. Or non-Africans drinking coffee? In fact let’s leave the entire food issue alone because most of the globe would starve immediately. Or how about countries that are both oppressed and oppressors at various times? Can a Mongolian learn Karate without offending anyone? How about two oppressive cultures appropriating from each other? May an English person wear Lederhosen? Is it OK for the Portuguese to eat Danish pastries?

The second issue is that the very act of cherry-picking a few victims, such as the ludicrous shutting down of yoga classes, serves as a meaningless salve to the dominant culture’s conscience. Shutting down yoga will do nothing to enhance the lives of yogis or practitioners in India. But it’s too hard for Canadians to stop buying cut-price t-shirts made in Indian sweat-shops by underage workers who die under piles of rubble when the sub-standard uninsured factory collapses onto them. It’s too hard to pay a fair price for what countries still rape off each other. But it’s easy to shut down a yoga class and feel good about having bullied someone into something. It’s easy to ignore the fact that all it’s done is make a few more Canadians a bit more stressed and made society a bit more scared, a bit more xenophobic, a bit more likely to bow to public pressure in the face of overwhelming moral evidence to the contrary – that’s easy to ignore.

So who should we blame? Because we love the blame game. ‘Not I, said the cat.’ Should we blame the twisted-knickers brigade, of either well-intentioned or the plain bullying variety? Should we blame the catering company who host Mexican fiesta days, without the credentials of Mexican heritage?

No. We should blame ourselves. You, the reader, who has taken the trouble to read nearly 600 words on the subject. We let this happen. We allow deans of universities to be forced to resign because they refused to suspend students who hosted a Mexican party. We allow black students to expel whites from demonstrations supposedly against racism. We don’t stand up to it because we’re shit scared of being called racist.

Where does this supposed colour/race separation even come from these days? Who in a crowd of a thousand people can claim ‘pure’ descent from anywhere? No-one I know is pure anything. Where are these arbitrary lines drawn? If you’re expelling ‘white’ people, what percentage shade of mocha does your skin have to be to be exempt? Are we talking genotype or phenotype? Mixed-race siblings from the same parents can have completely different skin colours. Do we treat them equally or do we expel the one with the lighter skin? Do we ask for proof: birth certificates of the relevant ethnicity you’re claiming? DNA testing?

Or do we just go back to the principle that everyone is equal, which is what we were fighting for in the first place?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. Heard that one before?

0 Comments

Tarnished Records

9/22/2015

2 Comments

The world needs all sorts. If someone wants to lie, cheat and steal, others can object and impose consequences till they’re blue in the face but it’s still the liar’s, the cheater’s, the stealer’s choice to carry out said actions. Unless we reach the scary world of Minority Report where un-crimes are punished, we all have the choice to act. ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ are after all notoriously subjective notions. Impact on society and society’s response to that impact is the crucial point.

Now, in view of centuries of women struggling for social equality, consider the following.

Whatever your gender, it’s your choice if you want to be materialistic, lazy, uncaring, shallow, sponging, sadistic, narcissistic, insecure, antisocial, under-educated, unthinking over-privileged irresponsible prat. You are completely free to be that.

However, social equality cannot be attained with such action in the midst. Punishment and consequences for actions that are detrimental to society are by their nature incompatible with equality. Yet we have no mechanism except this to try to combat detrimental action choices.

Another way of saying this is that everyone ends up getting tarred with the same brush. Which is a very objectionable sort of egalitarianism.

So, here’s the deal. If you want to use sex to sponge off your partner you’re free to do so but you don’t have access to the good jobs or the equal pay others have been fighting for. If you hoot at ‘celebrities’ who’ve either got fat or thin or wore the right/wrong clothes, that’s your choice. Enjoy. But you’re not entitled to counselling when you’re suicidal about being rejected by your peers because you’re wearing the wrong jeans or your toenails were painted the wrong colour.

Let’s call these people who destroy everything feminists have been fighting for by a term other than ‘Woman’. You can’t campaign for ‘women’s rights’ when they are in the mix. Let’s call them a different name altogether. Nothing derogatory; that wouldn’t be fair. Just different. Say, ‘Eve’. If you choose to be an Eve, you stay in the Middle Ages. If you don’t, you move on. I’d suggest that men can be Eves too, as long as they meet the behavioural criteria. Same rules apply.

So now you have three choices. Are you a Man, Woman or Eve? Think hard.

2 Comments

An Indolence Of Opinions

9/6/2015

0 Comments

‘No matter who you vote for, the government always seems to get in.’

You’re watching a video. You see a picture of a black-skinned child in ragged clothes, followed by footage of a combine harvester in a massive field of wheat, followed by a picture of a traffic jam. The sound is off. What do you think?

You might surmise it’s about the impact of bio-fuels on global hunger. You might even take it as further proof that the problem is on the rise. You might think it’s about famine relief and issues with logistics. You flick the television off because you’ve got other things to get on with but you take your impression with you, and never find out it was about education in sub-Saharan Africa being sponsored by a bread producer in Johannesburg. Meanwhile your initial prejudices, whatever they were, have been strengthened, with further live-footage ‘proof’.

‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

But is this the only reason governments and bodies of power across the globe hide, obfuscate, deny, fudge and bury glaring inconsistencies in policies to be implemented? Is this why spin-doctors are some of the most powerful and influential people around, the more so in countries where people-power supposedly has a firmer hold?

A few months ago, Washington passed a bill banning states from requiring labeling on GMO products. This was touted (by the U.S. House) as ‘the first step along the way toward getting a sound policy for agricultural biotechnology in the U.S.’. Since when has not labeling foods been sound agricultural policy? How can anyone not speaking from within the confines of a straitjacket come out with this?

No doubt, partly because of pay-outs somewhere along the line. Probably at multiple places. But it’s also because millions of consumers have thrown up automatic and gut-reaction defenses to flickering images of Big Pharma killing bees, pumping unknown toxins into mass-produced crops, engineering bread that will sell your soul to the Devil and come to life and eat you in the night. They don’t have the time or the will to consider that whether you breed an organism the ‘natural’ way or you mix it up in a test tube you’re still doing the same thing.

Sure, cock-ups happen. Quite recently a herd of cows had to be put down because someone took it into their heads to create a breed that was naturally vicious. Not GMO, just plain old farming. These things went roaming the paddock like a pack of uddered Velociraptors, completely out of control. Why would anyone do such a thing? Who knows. Not coming out of a test tube doesn’t make the cows any better. The obverse is also true. But because so many people start foaming at the mouth and speaking in tongues when confronted by the GMO label, the government wants to get rid of it. Bribery, nepotism, vote rigging, fraud, scamming, global market domineering and statistic butchering occur across all fields, whether they’re engineered or home-grown.

The effect of half-arsed and scaremongering ‘investigations’ is actually to help hide issues. It doesn’t expose, it doesn’t rectify, it doesn’t address. It creates even more inconsistencies. It pushes the price of registering a new GMO product to such stratospheric heights that by definition only the biggest companies can control production. They reap profits that might otherwise be distributed more equitably. It’s a self-fulfilling cycle, repeated ad nauseam.

‘Democracy is government by discussion, but it’s only effective if you can stop people talking.’

More flickering-image-no-facts-sad-music videos came up during a recent ‘discussion’ with some Nearest and Dearest. Oh dear, we’re into vaccines. Gut-reaction on all sides, with anti-vaxxers wringing hands at Big Pharma and pro-vaxxers armed to the teeth ready to shoot all anti-vaxxers on sight. Everyone grabbing the nearest statistic or the most sad-faced ‘victim’ and hurling it with abandon at the opposite camp. If there are any neutral parties they’re felt out by each side and tested for ripeness, sometimes forced into declaring allegiances.

In a corner of the battlefield, an on-screen government representative is caught red-handed burying pertinent facts. The usual bluster ensues but there’s no denying it. The issues are eventually taken up and investigated, but whatever the outcome, it will at most result in a modification in administration or a further caveat attached to the drug. So why would the government hide it? Because of the inevitable ensuing mud-bath, obviously.

The law of consumerism is that production follows demand. We can’t moan about television being filled with crap if we consent to watch it. We can’t complain about our children being ignorant if we don’t educate them. We can’t bemoan a knee-jerking and obfuscating government that doesn’t bother to look at the real issues if we lead the way ourselves in our daily lives. Violent societies have violent governments, indolent societies indolent heads, and corrupt societies corrupt leaders. Quite often all of the above together. What a combo.

Certain Biblical sayings about sowing and reaping spring to mind.

The remedy and answer to everything? Apart from 42?

Elvis says: ‘A little less conversation, a little more action please.’ The Dalai Lama says, ‘When you listen, you may learn something.’ Those two, and 42. That should do the trick.

0 Comments

Are You Thinking What I’m Thinking?

9/1/2015

1 Comment

Discovering the fact that Tibetan women often take two or three husbands, frequently brothers as a sort of job lot, is surprising. (It’s called fraternal polyandry, by the way.) That’s understandable. It’s a remote area of the world, so obviously, things might be different. Discovering that teenage girls, right here, right under my nose, consider being ‘tall’ as simply the worst thing that could befall them, is stunning.

We’re talking average sized girls. We’re dealing with a situation where being in the back row of the school photo because the teacher’s arranged you in height order and exposed you for the gigantic freak you are is a nightmare you’ll never live down.

What happened?

Being ‘tall’ (read: not short) is ugly and bad.

Standards of beauty fluctuate notoriously between eras and locations. We all know that. But one thing we haven’t seen until now is the emaciated model of perfection. Women and girls with their knees buckling under them, posing as if they’re too weak to even stand, let alone act. Certainly not offer any resistance. We haven’t seen starvation to the point of destroying tissue and organs – until now. It’s been going on since the 60s, essentially worsening with time.

Why?

Consider the 60s. A blossoming of feminism. ‘Liberation’. Consider the intervening years until the present. Still massive inequality between the sexes but power, privileges and potential our mothers and grandmothers could never have imagined. Wonderful! Carry on the good fight! But can everyone deal with it?

What happens to all the unemployed Prince Charmings?

Sometimes, they get scared. Then Sleeping Beauty sees them backing away and says No, wait, I feel a migraine coming on, I’d better lie down. Prince Charming approaches with trepidation and starts with the wake-up-kiss routine. Beauty sits up and says Ooh lovely, I’m fine let’s go for a jog, Charming says holy moly hang on I’d need to take my armour off or I won’t be able to keep up with you. Beauty says, Oh, never mind then, darling.

After a bunch of exchanges like this, Charming starts to think Hey up, actually Beauty looked pretty good when she tried on my armour and she’s not half bad at fixing the tower walls. This lying about on her bed is kind of comfy too. But he doesn’t actually say this to Beauty, and when visitors come in they both leap into position, him with his visor down and her on the bed (flowing dress fetchingly arranged).

Meanwhile Beauty reckons re-pointing the tower bricks is all well and good but Charming probably doesn’t find it attractive, so she’d better stop. She re-applies mascara and swoons.

They carry on in this manner and end up hating each other’s guts for no reason they can pinpoint and blame each other for everything under the sun.

This is why teenage girls want to be short. They don’t want to make themselves unattractive by presenting as too powerful. They want to be starved and helpless and offer no resistance at all, and encourage all the Charmings to an easy picking. And it kind of works.

The problem is that we forget: EVERYONE needs looking after. We can take turns. We don’t have to allocate tasks by gender, as we did in the 50s. It always ends up being unfair – to both sexes. Charmings are very good at amusing toddlers and Beauties make mean electricians. And vice versa.

Which brings me neatly to the case of the Pakistani doctors.

70% of students qualifying as doctors in Pakistan are female. They’re more studious – simply a case of the better candidates winning. But very few of them go on to practice. Instead they use their qualifications as bait to attract a man, chuck it all in and become housewives. So the government sees a huge waste of resources (true) and wants to limit the number of females going in to study medicine. JUST A MINUTE THERE.

A quota on candidates? How about encouraging them to stay on and practice? Why would you take the path that throws away a portion of the workforce that has proven itself superior?

That’s a question for the Pakistani government and society to sort out. But perhaps the most shocking thing for me was the final question the (female) BBC interviewer asked the (female) medical students. ‘If you had to choose between a practice and a family, which would you go for?’ All of the interviewees said ‘family’.

When did she last ask a male medical student which one he’ll choose, a practice or a family?

1 Comment

Elements Of Style

8/3/2015

1 Comment

A seminar came up at my local writers’ centre on style. Writing style, obviously - I think at this stage of my life it’s too late to do anything about my sense of fashion.

My gut reaction was, Well I already have a fairly distinct writing voice, is it worth my while? Followed by an immediate mental rebuke saying Are you crazy, you mean to say you know everything there is to know about style?

Style is an incredibly complex issue which melds the building blocks of writing into a whole. It says something more than the content and appeals to a targeted audience; not that dissimilar to couture, I suppose. Diction, tone, sentence structure, voice: all of these go into the pot. If one element jars with another the outcome is unbalanced, at best resulting in comedy, at worst in complete confusion.

Fair enough, so as writers we’re to decide where to pigeonhole ourselves, hone our voice and style and market and brand our little hearts out. But why do so many writers have more than one voice? Surely that’s an exercise in overcapitalizing. A crime writer wanting to branch out into children’s writing will most likely come up with a fresh pen name, a new image, new website, new following and clientele, new everything to go with the new voice needed for such a switch. Not only that, but readers are partisan. They’ll buy a book from an author they know but will think very hard before they fork out for work by a name they’ve never heard of. Perfect point in question would be J.K. Rowling’s publication of The Cuckoo’s Calling under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith, which sold somewhere between 500 and 1500 copies before the connection was leaked, after which sales jumped 4000% within days. Wouldn’t it be easier and more economical to stick with the initial investment?

Of course it would. The problem is we get bored. Sticking solely to one voice or style is a bit like the ‘impossible and ridiculous’ questions my kids pose to me sometimes. ‘If you had to eat one meal for the rest of your life, what would it be?’ Substitute ‘play one sport’, ‘wear one colour’, ‘go to one beach’ or (more strangely) ‘be one fruit’. They chide me when I remonstrate: I’m not going to do that, why would you even contemplate it? No, but if you had to choose! They insist. This is the choice we’re so often supposed to make as writers. Now, I like pasta with a good sauce but I’ll be jiggered if I eat it every day of my life. Call me uncommitted, but I’ll keep wriggling out of that pigeonhole. And I’ll definitely try to get to that seminar.

(First published on Writers Abroad blog, March 2015)

1 Comment

<<Previous

Archives