Tuesday, 8 March 2011

Happy International Womens Day!

Sorry its a bit late (it should still be women's day for those of you to the West of me) I was celebrating Shrove Tuesday (pancake day) with my relatives to mark the annual fast where not really religious though they are Catholic Irish so a lot of the customs rubbed off, this year I am giving up lager.

Anyway heres a quick post to celebrate the centenary of international womens day. To clarify in case the video confuses, I agree with the sentiment and it is a good thing that we have at least one day where the issue and discrimination affecting women past and present is guaranteed attention and discussion, I just don't see why it should stop at 00:00 the next morning. I mean I think its good that Daniel Craig is prepared to risk even more ridicule from fringe arseholes by coming out in support of women's rights, but is 007 in drag really the best way to get across a reminder that despite the hard work of Feminists and Socialists ( Keir Hardie and The Labour party was the first British political party to back universal suffrage rather then the Sexist and classist policies of their Liberal and Conservative counterparts including a number of women's suffrage groups tied to them) women even in the "civilised" liberal west still face a lot of abuse both personal and systematic?

Anyway hope everyone had a good womens/pancake day and that Daniel Craig was at least able to raise a bit of awareness whilst giving the internet loonies a bit of a chuckle.


  1. Ah, but where is the international men's day? And the international gay and lesbian day. And don't forget a special day for each race, culture, and religion.

    The point of it is, it's sexist if women have their own day and men don't ;) I'm all for equality, but it starts and ends with the removal of special treatment for anyone, and every day is international anyone's day. Until that point in time, the problem will remain, and special events only breed resentment, which goes nowhere toward solving the problem.

  2. "but where is the international men's day?" Try every other day of the year, seriously outside of soap opera's and "womens magazines" mens issues and concerns get much more attention and are treated as if they are more important automatically.

    "gay and lesbian day" there working on it, until then each nation has its own "pride day".
    "pecial day for each race, culture, and religion." Err each race culture and religion already has its special days, you may not be aware of it but in most nations in the West special holidays receive government sanction and support like for example the US presidents Rammadan speech.

    "own day and men don't" I'm sorry but thats just absurd, all societies are geared towards men and have little in the way of "man hating" discrimination as such every day is Man's day just like every day is ethnic majority day, or dominant religion day, you don't need anything like an annual reminder because society is already built up to address most of your needs.

    "special treatment for anyone," So you like equality yet hate a gesture that helps to remind people of the inequalities facing that group? yeah thats where equality starts and ends, not with equal pay for equal work or ending the practice of using pregnancy as an excuse to fire employee's, nope we need to take away this small gesture.

    "the problem will remain," Sorry but that is just not true, we've had womens day for a hundred years are you seriously suggesting that patriarchy didn't exist before that?
    "only breed resentment" Only from section who are resentful of its spirit, no offence but your argument sounds a lot like how closest racists complain how they're being oppressed because they can't use racial slurs any more.
    "which goes nowhere toward solving the problem." Except history has shown that women's conditions and rights have improved since this day was set up.

  3. You totally missed the tongue and cheek thing there, didn't you? :P

    That's okay, it's the interwebs. I never said I hated it, I just don't believe in it. That said, from a human rights standpoint, I'm a socialist. I believe everyone needs to be treated with the same respect, regardless of what they do, and I believe everyone needs to have an equal chance in society. And the laws must address everyone equally, as must the work place (and pay grades). For me, this is where equality starts and ends.

    Special days don't solve the problem. Education (i.e., social engineering) does. While these special days may aid the social engineering process, once things become close to equalised, you either have to create an international men's day or scrap the international women's day, either by repurposing it or removing it altogether. Otherwise you still don't have equality.

    I follow your blog because I actually do like your ideas. Sure, I take the piss out of some of them, but I take the piss out of my own, too. I'm clearly not as educated (sometimes even get things confused, like the Indian Rebellion in the 19th century), but there are some things (many, actually) that can be resolved by common sense, and it doesn't hurt to express those ideas and extrapolate on them.

    That said, I need to drop some commentary on you: For someone so liberal and all about human rights, you seem very hostile. You need to be more tolerant of all ideas, not just those from the "left".

    Don't get bent out of shape because someone fires off some gentle humour and provides a simple counterpoint for the vast argument that is gender equality - let alone social equality for all - and how the whole thing is being mishandled. Maybe that's a valid argument that should be opened for discussion?

  4. "You totally missed the tongue and cheek thing there, didn't you?" Yeah it is kind of hard in fact its actually impossible to read emotional intent from text outside of narrated novels e.g.*he typed whilst swallowing the bile that was climbing up his throat* So, sorry but yeah I wasn't getting that vibe at all from you. Though on reflection its probably because I'm used to hearing similar guff from people who are NOT joking when they say that. So sorry for the misunderstanding.

    "I follow your blog because I actually do like your ideas" Cheers.

    "For someone so liberal and all about human rights, you seem very hostile." Ah perhaps I should explain, my style of debate is actually one of those cultural things, you see in the (many) parts where I grew up the way you solved a dispute is essentially say what you feel and mean, if you think something is infeasible or absurd or rather "daft" you come out and say it the other person is supposed to reciprocate and that way we strip away the layers and get to the core of the argument with the "winner" being the one with the most coherent argument and you don't waste time and words on whats seen as fluff.

    That has its strengths and it has weaknesses I'm not saying its the best method I know its shit to be on the receiving end of it believe me, its just the one I use/trapped in.
    In short there is no ill will intended (usually), it does however come across as that at times and again I'm sorry for the misunderstanding I should be more aware of it in future you are right that (guess there really is a first time for everything) only joking. :)

  5. Well, I don't need to tell you that no matter where you go, civil rights in the world are disappearing altogether. I think this is because somehow the old patriarchal system is gaining strength. This is probably because what we view as democracy is becoming a joke of the concept.

    I'm going to come across as being a neo-con for a second here, but when I'm done my train of thought, maybe you'll appreciate it.
    We (the west) have too much freedom as a culture. We have so much freedom that we're prisoners. The reason why is because freedom is a lie. We've been shackled by what we would call liberal ideals, but are in fact there to break our spirits. The best example ever is the "zero tolerance" programs in school , because they've done nothing to aid "victims" of bullying. I put "victims" in quotes because the system has made kids victims by not letting them be kids. The right to bear arms in the U.S. is another one; it gives people the false assumption that because they arm themselves and have the alleged right to revolt that the government won't take their freedoms away. And yet the Patriot Act - a legalised constitutional violation - was passed into law.

    On the other hand, you have gay marriage being legalised. Why not rewrite the concept of marriage if this issue is so important?

    And so we have a nother problem - legal buractacy. This prevents equality from actually happening because it's used to impede the important cases that may set the final precedent.

    Furthermore, we still look at crimes against women as crimes against women and not crimes against people. I'm all for embracing diversity, but you can't segregate the law even in words alone, because it does create a belief of difference, and every person needs to be handled the same way.

    I think that's also part of the problem in that in the eyes of the law, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. There should be no distinction, period. Unless it's a pet, you're dealing with people. Excluding the family dogs and cats, of course :P

  6. "I'm going to come across as being a neo-con for a second here, but when I'm done my train of thought, maybe you'll appreciate it.
    We (the west) have too much freedom as a culture. We have so much freedom that we're prisoners. The reason why is because freedom is a lie." Actually Marx and many others held similar views "the elected government is just a committee for the affairs of the Bourgeoisie",

    The Neo-Cons believe in the Straussian idea that a myth (or an exaggeration) and repression are justified so long as the nation survives and the fundamental tenants of the society remain, you should see the power of nightmares for a better explanation of Strauss and the Neo con ideology.

    "is the "zero tolerance" programs in school" I don't know what they are, I've heard about them but since I'm not American I don't think we mean the same thing when we talk about zero tolerance in the UK and Europe. Do you have a more "global" example?

    And I don't mean to patronise but you should really rephrase your opening thoughts, "we have too much freedom..... freedom is a lie" is a major contradiction, I know thats your point but it comes across rather scrappy. I think what you mean to say is we have the idea of freedom but it is coupled with many exceptions and constraints that dilute and limit them correct?

    "There should be no distinction, period" Thats fine but going back to the original point that is not our reality, there is legal discrimination across the board for many groups in society that are not linked however tangentially to the "elite", minority groups, women, homosexuals, even certain age groups, and taking away what few avenues those concerned have for bringing that fact to attention for the sake of the wounded pride of the "privileged" group won't get us to equality and freedom any faster, if anything it will slide us back down.

  7. A more global example of "zero tolerance" can be found not in our schools but out in the real world. Laws that inhibit self-defense and the ability for people to solve their problems as individuals. I"m not talking about drunken street brawls, obviously. But in our more litigous society, you can't defend yourself against anyone that means you harm without suffering severe penalties - either by national or civil law. This includes someone trying to kill you, a person who has broken into your home, or even an assault on the street.

    Another good example would be any nation that makes it illegal to own a firearm in any way, shape or form for self defence. Let alone hunting.

    One of the problems we have in society towards women, especially in the west, is that we view women as delicate. And yet Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher were educated thugs. Indira Ghandi was assassinated if I remember correctly, but did whatever she could to maintain the caste system, and Kim Campbell here in Canada really didn't have much of a chance to do any damage, but she would have if she could. Just like every other high-ranking politician regardless of gender.

    Not that you would want to put that on a sign; I think that would just feed the jerkbags much needed ammunition for their own campaigns. But it certainly shows that women are anything but delicate.

    I think as a culture, we have a responsibility to eliminate that stereotype, especially since it's based on what the Roman Catholic Church expected for women two millenia ago and not actual observed behaviour, unlike many cultural stereotypes that exist.

  8. Yes but the question is how? its all well and good coming up with a political shopping list but with no plan of action its all for nought. This is the reason womens day and black history month, Gay pride and the like exist and many activists sweated so hard to create them, to ensure that future generations have at least some time guaranteed to be devoted to advancing the cause rather then having to continually start from scratch. The trick is not to tear down previous successes but to build on them, the old stereotype of the women too stupid to be trusted with a job had to be dismantled by constant prove to the contrary. The same with ethnic and religious slurs and caricatures.

    By not defending the gains of previous comrades we make the work of the bigots and oligarchs to maintain the status quo much easier.

    The feminists socialists and civil equality advocates never meant for these things to be the end but another step on the journey. This is why these "events" have my full support even though I'm not female black or gay, and why I strongly believe everyone who believes in "progress" should do too.

  9. Well, the first step is completely eliminating anything remotely church-and-state, and make it illegal for any party to push a religiously-driven agenda.

    You have to clip the balls from religion first, because it is, as Marx put it (I think he's a hack, but he has some good quotes), "the crutch of the masses." This is because it's the first form of social engineering anyone ever receives; you want to change society, you have to change the way it's educated, which is something I stressed a couple times, actually.

    After you hobble the power of organised religion, the next step is to completely remove it from the education system.

    Then you change the laws to reflect the new social ideals, and you make it plain as possible so that there can't be any loopholes to take advantage of.

    After creating these social equity laws, your nation will need to dismantle any social programs that exist to aid specific races and cultures, as those types of programs are racist to begin with as they favour specific groups. This would include race- and culture-based scholarships (That would be an American and Canadian thing), religious scholarships handed down by government organisations and all affirmative action plans (which are, to be blunt, pointless and offensive).

    Then you start making examples of violators by levying crippling fines (a large percentage of the company value, say 30 - 50 percent) against the first employers to violate these laws, not only to set a precedence that it won't be tolerated, but that punishment will be severe.

    After you deal with the douches carrying the money bags, you set your focus on the general population. This step will be mostly moot because most people are generally good, which is why it should be left for last.

  10. I'm sorry but you really need to get off this "cultural policies are racist" white mans hurt pride train of thought.

    They aren't, they are corrective policies attempting to correct past mistakes whose damage is being felt to this day. Cultural programs are designed to and will end on there own wants the damage has been healed, and the culture or community is strong enough to stand on its own again.

    I can tell by your writing that your part of your nations majority group and have never experienced systematic discrimination of your very identity and existence, if you had you would not so easily equate, linguistics courses and arts and crafts projects with corporate and religious oligarchies.

  11. I'm not talking about linguistic policies and arts and crafts projects, I'm talking about gift opportunities designed with specific groups in mind. That's not right, morally or ethically. I never did believe that the world was fair and just, but I do believe that in order for everyone to be treated the same, the ground rules must be the same for everyone.

    But these corrective attempts to correct the wrongs of the past are a bandaid solution designed to NOT have to deal with the core issue. A perfect example are the native reservations in Canada and the United States. And if you want a REAL minority group, they would be it.

    They have bajillions of opportunities becauseof their genetics - but only if you're male. Women who leave the reserve lose it all. And many of those opportuinites are unjust, like exclusive privelege to open casinos.

    It's not about what group I'm from, it's seeing the bigger picture of why these policies exist.

    They give an unfair advantage in one way for the purpose of keeping those people down.

    Looking at it like a mixed family might be a simple, but possibly appropriate example.

    You and your wife have adopted a black kid, an hispanic kid and you have your own white kid. You lavish love on all of them relatively equally, but come adulthood time, you find jobs for the hispanic and black child wh supposedly don't have as many opportunities. You then pay for their post-secondary education. The white kid has to fight for all of these things.

    Thirty years down the road, the white kid is a CEO (who's turned his or her parents out of their home)and the minority children work management jobs at Walmart. Why? Because they didn't have to fight for their jobs, they didn't have to fight for school funding. They're perfectly capable, but they're subconsciously happy with mediocrity because having the big stuff covered by mom and dad (e.g. the system) will do that. Thus maintaining the status quo.

    Shitty metaphor, but there is a point.

    It's basic observed human psychology. If you have the important stuff handed to you, you'll squander your potential, and the proof is all around; Look at kids who had everything handed to them all their lives, and inherit the family business. Or worse, CEO's by inheritance. Board Chairmen by inheritance. Political dynasties. Warren Buffet saw it, and was openly criticised for not giving all his money to his kids when he goes.

    This is why the problems continue and get worse and that's why many special programs for minorities need to have the plug pulled on them because they make the problem worse in the long run. You have to solve the problem in the mind; band-aid solutions will not do that, and that applies to ALL social functions that give a huge edge aimed at helping not only minorites but women as well.

    You need to hurt the perpetrators, not make victims.

  12. I'm sorry but your talking out of your arse if you think ethnics and women have it easy in are society. your argument are simply applicable to the real world. You think the reservations a policy designed to make the US and Canada look benevolent while committing genocide and mass territorial expansion are prove of privilege? Yeah there doing so well that there have to choose between gambling loopholes and making there culture a laughing stock or dignified poverty. Those spoiled Injuns!

    Sorry mate but from your comments you ain't a socialist your just angry at the status quo and are latching on to any "radical" label to focus your anger. And are bizarrely resenting the victims for taking what few alternatives exist to continued total oppression.

  13. I guess I wish that in terms of how people are treated, I wish North America views people as I do; just judge them on their merits - not where they come from, their skin colour or the god(s) they do or don't believe in, gender, sexual orientation or even patriotism. Although nationalism is a turn off. It spurred people to kill 3 or 4 million of my mother's people and another 5 or 6 million minorities and political dissidents in a little country called Germany about 60 years ago.

    The greatest failings of our "liberalised" society is that we have not maintained it. Nor have we, the voters, been very good at exercising anything resembling quality control; I mean, look how polarised it is. So we elect crooked assholes into governemnts and all of our real porblems are resolved with band-aid solutions and nothing gets done. As a result, education systems have broken down; this is the first line of defense against ignornace in general. This is caused by many, many issues: Split public eduction systems - like in Canada, deliberate cuts, program changes geared specifically toward business (which actually should solve more problems in terms of discrimination than create any), lack of parental interaction - which is as much the system's fault as society's, and anunwillingness to integrate the core cultures of the given nation into the education system; if Canada had as much Aboriginal, Quebecois and Acadian culture put into EVERY provincial education system as the world wars and the U.N., we would be an infinitely better society and a respectable culture as a whole.

    A second problem that exists is the law. It's an ass. Yeah, it's a cliché, but it's true, especially in Canada. It has too many loopholes and it isn't really clear enough. This is all-around, so these issues need to be fixed.

    Mandatory education courses also need to be created for adults, especially parents. This goes without saying. And finally, religion needs to change. The Vatican is a farce (I realise you're from the UK but you probably agree with me on this issue). Women need to be able to rise in the hierarchy to Pope, and not by means of cross-dressing. Gays need to be accepted. 2 billion people are catholic; if the Church did a 180 on these issues, it would go a LONG way. Too bad a right-winger is in charge.

  14. What the hell are you on about now?

    Let me re-stress for the FINAL time if you want to outline your views in general take it to your own space please. I have literally no idea what your overall "theme" of your last comment is. You don't like minorities, you don't like politicians and you don't like religion good for you, a shame it has sod all to do with the actual blog post.


Search This Blog

#blog-pager { display: block !important; float: none!important; } .blog-pager-older-link, .home-link, .blog-pager-newer-link { background-color: #FFFFFF!important; }