I am completely lost for words by the article in today's Daily Mail which describes a beauty salon for girls under the age of thirteen and for girls as young as one year old.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001148/Trendy-Monkeys-Essex-beauty-salons-make-overs-spray-tans-girls-young-1.html
Thursday 9 June 2011
Wednesday 25 May 2011
Freedom of speech
Once again - long absence of posts.
I have read Kate McCann's book Madeleine recently and found it very interesting and well written. Naturally I posted a review of it on Amazon as I post reviews of nearly everything I read on there. I have also posted a review of it over at Jillysheep where it has attracted a thoroughly obnoxious comment - which I have left on there because it shows up the author of the comment in his true colours.
Anyone it seems who expresses any support or empathy whatsoever for the McCanns on any internet site will attract the attention of certain people who have their own agenda when it comes to this tragic case. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the McCanns and if two police forces could not find evidence to mount a prosecution then I'm not about to start pointing fingers. I'm for freedom of speech but in my opinion the freedom to express one's opinion does not include making criminal allegations against people.
A quick perusal of the reviews of Madeleine on Amazon will reveal some very aggressive and vitriolic comments against anyone expressing the slightest support for the McCanns or even taking a neutral stance. Many have been deleted by Amazon and rightly so in my opinion as they were libellous.
This tragic case has shown up so many people as being lacking in compassion. This is a lynch mob mentality which makes me ashamed to be living in the same country as this heartless bunch of people.
I have read Kate McCann's book Madeleine recently and found it very interesting and well written. Naturally I posted a review of it on Amazon as I post reviews of nearly everything I read on there. I have also posted a review of it over at Jillysheep where it has attracted a thoroughly obnoxious comment - which I have left on there because it shows up the author of the comment in his true colours.
Anyone it seems who expresses any support or empathy whatsoever for the McCanns on any internet site will attract the attention of certain people who have their own agenda when it comes to this tragic case. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the McCanns and if two police forces could not find evidence to mount a prosecution then I'm not about to start pointing fingers. I'm for freedom of speech but in my opinion the freedom to express one's opinion does not include making criminal allegations against people.
A quick perusal of the reviews of Madeleine on Amazon will reveal some very aggressive and vitriolic comments against anyone expressing the slightest support for the McCanns or even taking a neutral stance. Many have been deleted by Amazon and rightly so in my opinion as they were libellous.
This tragic case has shown up so many people as being lacking in compassion. This is a lynch mob mentality which makes me ashamed to be living in the same country as this heartless bunch of people.
Friday 4 March 2011
Appearances or something else?
What attracts you to other people? Is it appearances, the way they dress, their face, the way they speak, the clothes they wear? For me - and I'm beginning to think I'm in a minority of one here - it is far more than that. I am attracted to people I can talk to and who understand where I'm coming from. That does not mean I have to agree with them all the time - just can I hold a conversation with them. Personality as well - can they laugh at themselves - do they have a good understanding of how they tick.
I would almost say appearances are irrelevant to me as I never seem to agree with the majority about which celebrity is sexually attractive. I can't understand what people see on George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom etc. Now Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Hugh Grant I find attractive and I always used to like George Peppard. But again I can't rave about them and I could only get really interested in them if I could hold a conversation with them.
Is it perhaps an age thing? I don't know. My other half is always asking me what attracted me to him over 20 years ago now and I keep saying it wasn't anything physical - just his personality and the fact I could talk to him. He says he wouldn't be with me if he hadn't thought I looked beautiful. If I'd been ugly however well we got on he wouldn't have been interested.
Someone started a discussion on a forum about a woman on television saying he was distracted by her appearance and couldn't concentrate on what she was saying. I took issue with that and said it was how the person did her job that mattered not appearances. I was called everything under the sun including a plug ugly feminist and a lesbian. I also said a handsome man would not distract me in the same way though clearly I can only speak for myself!
Everyone seemed to be saying that I was wrong to criticise those who focus on appearance and that everyone does it. But not everyone does do it. I know some men - and yes I'm generalising here - are only interested in what a woman looks like and nothing else. There are also women who do the same. But just because there are many people who think like that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean you're bigoted if you happen to think it's wrong to insist that a woman's appearance is the most important thing about her.
I would almost say appearances are irrelevant to me as I never seem to agree with the majority about which celebrity is sexually attractive. I can't understand what people see on George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom etc. Now Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Hugh Grant I find attractive and I always used to like George Peppard. But again I can't rave about them and I could only get really interested in them if I could hold a conversation with them.
Is it perhaps an age thing? I don't know. My other half is always asking me what attracted me to him over 20 years ago now and I keep saying it wasn't anything physical - just his personality and the fact I could talk to him. He says he wouldn't be with me if he hadn't thought I looked beautiful. If I'd been ugly however well we got on he wouldn't have been interested.
Someone started a discussion on a forum about a woman on television saying he was distracted by her appearance and couldn't concentrate on what she was saying. I took issue with that and said it was how the person did her job that mattered not appearances. I was called everything under the sun including a plug ugly feminist and a lesbian. I also said a handsome man would not distract me in the same way though clearly I can only speak for myself!
Everyone seemed to be saying that I was wrong to criticise those who focus on appearance and that everyone does it. But not everyone does do it. I know some men - and yes I'm generalising here - are only interested in what a woman looks like and nothing else. There are also women who do the same. But just because there are many people who think like that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't mean you're bigoted if you happen to think it's wrong to insist that a woman's appearance is the most important thing about her.
Tuesday 21 September 2010
Lack of posting
Sorry for the long gap. I just got so fed up with seeing so much anti-women stuff wherever I went that I just couldn't find the energy to write anything. Now the computer has been re-loaded and I've lost my favourites list I don't think I shall be seeking out the men's rights sites any more. They just depress me. So I have stopped reading them - for the moment.
Instead I'm busy reading e-books because I've just bought an Amazon Kindle. Not too many feminist books available for it yet but I'm sure that will change! I am reading a great many of the free classics available such as Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot, etc etc. Free books are always a good thing.
I was thinking the other day about Jane Austen's attitude to marriage as demonstrated in her books. It seems clear to me that she thought the ideal marriage was one of equals - not necessarily in the financial sense - but in the sense of well matched characterwise. Emma and Mr Knightley don't always agree and Emma has no qualms about arguing with him. The same with Elizabeth and Darcy.
Nowehere in her books are there downtrodden women subservient to men - except to point up the moral as in Colonel Brandon't first love and her daughter. In fact it seems Jane Austen thought the idea that women should regard men as superior to their own sex was rather stupid. Was she ahead of her time? Maybe not as I think the idea of women playing a more equal part in society had started to emerge - most notably in Mary Wollstonecroft' Vindication of the Rights of Women published at the end of the 18th century. Talking of which - I'm off to find a free copy to download!
Instead I'm busy reading e-books because I've just bought an Amazon Kindle. Not too many feminist books available for it yet but I'm sure that will change! I am reading a great many of the free classics available such as Jane Austen, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot, etc etc. Free books are always a good thing.
I was thinking the other day about Jane Austen's attitude to marriage as demonstrated in her books. It seems clear to me that she thought the ideal marriage was one of equals - not necessarily in the financial sense - but in the sense of well matched characterwise. Emma and Mr Knightley don't always agree and Emma has no qualms about arguing with him. The same with Elizabeth and Darcy.
Nowehere in her books are there downtrodden women subservient to men - except to point up the moral as in Colonel Brandon't first love and her daughter. In fact it seems Jane Austen thought the idea that women should regard men as superior to their own sex was rather stupid. Was she ahead of her time? Maybe not as I think the idea of women playing a more equal part in society had started to emerge - most notably in Mary Wollstonecroft' Vindication of the Rights of Women published at the end of the 18th century. Talking of which - I'm off to find a free copy to download!
Sunday 22 August 2010
Women and drinking
I have done my share of drinking in the past but rarely drink very much at all now. This is partly because I never know when the other half might suddenly need driving to hospital and I really would hate to have to say sorry I've drunk too much. So my drinking is mainly confined to Christmas and a wine box which usually lasts me well into January. I do have the occasional vodka and tonic as well - when I remember to buy the tonic.
I don't understand the attraction of drinking to excess so that you're falling down drunk and have a hangover in the morning. I have had my share of hangovers and I basically don't like them - which is another reason for not drinking to excess. That said I really don't like to see anyone in public drunk - whether it's a man or a woman. I find it odd the the media only ever seem to concentrate on young women who get drunk. Don't men get drunk any more?
I came across this comment on a Daily Mail story about the ladette culture leading to promiscuity and abortions which had me laughing out loud - not probably the reaction the author intended:
Young unmarried women should not be allowed to purchase or consume alcohol when not under the supervision of a man. It has too much of a destructive influence on their brains which have developed through evolution to be suited to bringing up a family and making a home for their man, not engaging in the complexities of social networking. We need sensible moralistic laws to ban this behaviour.
So men have a monopoly on wisdom do they? This is the sort of patriarchal attitude which feminism was set up to challenge - it seems women are still not capable to thinking for themselves - well not according to some men who might find themselves more at home in a previous century. As someone once wrote on a similar story - 'The Dark Ages just rang - they want their attitudes back.'
I don't understand the attraction of drinking to excess so that you're falling down drunk and have a hangover in the morning. I have had my share of hangovers and I basically don't like them - which is another reason for not drinking to excess. That said I really don't like to see anyone in public drunk - whether it's a man or a woman. I find it odd the the media only ever seem to concentrate on young women who get drunk. Don't men get drunk any more?
I came across this comment on a Daily Mail story about the ladette culture leading to promiscuity and abortions which had me laughing out loud - not probably the reaction the author intended:
Young unmarried women should not be allowed to purchase or consume alcohol when not under the supervision of a man. It has too much of a destructive influence on their brains which have developed through evolution to be suited to bringing up a family and making a home for their man, not engaging in the complexities of social networking. We need sensible moralistic laws to ban this behaviour.
So men have a monopoly on wisdom do they? This is the sort of patriarchal attitude which feminism was set up to challenge - it seems women are still not capable to thinking for themselves - well not according to some men who might find themselves more at home in a previous century. As someone once wrote on a similar story - 'The Dark Ages just rang - they want their attitudes back.'
Friday 13 August 2010
Fat women are easy lays
I read an article on the Daily Mail's website yesterday about several women who were prepared to say how many lovers they'd had. One of them was still a virgin from choice and another had had fifty lovers. To me all the article demonstrated was that everyone's an individual. There were photos of all the women featured and they varied from skinny to pleasantly plump - well that was my opinion anyway. None was outstandingly beautiful by current standards. It was the comments which had me screaming at my computer monitor and foaming at the mouth.
The lady who had had fifty lovers was the pleasantly plump one and the one who seemed to be enjoying life the most and who had made a success of her career and was relatively recently married. But the comments from men and women were mainly along the lines of: fat women are easy lays because otherwise they wouldn't get anyone; it's a well known fact that fat women are promiscuous; can't imagine why anyone would want to sleep with her - they must have all been drunk etc etc.
Identifying the stereotypes and pre-conceptions:
The lady who had had fifty lovers was the pleasantly plump one and the one who seemed to be enjoying life the most and who had made a success of her career and was relatively recently married. But the comments from men and women were mainly along the lines of: fat women are easy lays because otherwise they wouldn't get anyone; it's a well known fact that fat women are promiscuous; can't imagine why anyone would want to sleep with her - they must have all been drunk etc etc.
Identifying the stereotypes and pre-conceptions:
- Fat women sleep with anyone who asks them
- Fat women are desperate to get a man
- Men don't fancy fat women
- All women lie about sex
- All women are desperate to have a man in their lives
I've never been skinny. I've always had at least one man in my life since I was about 17 - and often more than one. In total I reckon I've had 14 lovers and unless my current partner dies before I do I'm unlikely to have any more. I've probably turned down at least as many. I've never really tried to attract anyone to me and I've certainly never gone out looking for men. So I'm sorry but I don't fit into any of those stereotypes/pre-conceptions and I doubt if most women do.
And finally - there were far too many people commenting that women should be virgins when they marry but men should have as much experience as they can before marriage. There was also a joker claiming he'd had sex with 1000 women - what's the male version of slut anyone?!!
Sunday 8 August 2010
Respect
I've just skimmed through an article on this site www.henrymakow.com and come across this written by someone who lives in Denmark.
'Gender role confusion is rampant: particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own step son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational [and] show no respect for the masculine at all. He says he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever meeting one'.
So this guy thinks there should be gender roles - why? What is wrong with men doing traditional women's jobs or vice versa? Why shouldn't women argue? If men say something women don't agree with are women supposed to just accept it because the man is always right? In my book respect has to be earned, it should not be granted just because a man is a man or a woman is a woman.
'Gender role confusion is rampant: particularly in young men and teenage boys. My own step son has confided in me many times that he just doesn't understand what girls expect of him. He tells me they are impossibly argumentative, confrontational [and] show no respect for the masculine at all. He says he would like to meet a nice girl and settle down, but he cannot imagine ever meeting one'.
So this guy thinks there should be gender roles - why? What is wrong with men doing traditional women's jobs or vice versa? Why shouldn't women argue? If men say something women don't agree with are women supposed to just accept it because the man is always right? In my book respect has to be earned, it should not be granted just because a man is a man or a woman is a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
