In response to the question directed towards Margaret Atwood "You talk in your book about the link between debt and sin. Why do we feel shame about financial hardship?" (Globe and Mail, Sept 26. 2008), Atwood says she thinks "the stigma comes from wanting people to think better of you than your actions might actually warrant." It seems to me this is a rather elitist attitude.
Our society is founded on money, and those without are shamed, whether or not they have done anything to deserve it. If one is a global corporation, of course, or The Arts, then the apparent reasons for 'financial hardship' may not always be seen as being mainly due to their failings. I have nothing against Art and Culture, nor against keeping major corporations in business for the sake of maintaining some stability of economy, but I question Atwood's attitude and (lack of) knowledge of what it's like to be poor and where stigma comes from (other people and society itself, as it happens).
Arts and culture are not self-supporting, as we know. But there is no shame on their part, nor placed upon them, for not being able to earn their own way. Poor people often work like hell, for other people or in their own homes, with little recompense. Yet because they are not home-owners, or do not have the trappings of wealth, they are seen as less worthy. Shame on you, Margaret Atwood, for your attitude!
Atwood talks about the need to put more into technology, yet in another article (CBC, Sept 24, 2008), the controversial subject of funding of the Arts is taken up. But if all those talented workers in Arts and Culture were to experience financial hardship, perhaps some of the really bad attitudes towards the poor would change.
It seem to many people that there are plenty of jobs to go around if one has talent and the ability to do the work (even in Arts and culture, I wouldn't doubt) but the truth is there aren't enough decent jobs for people who deserve them and who could do them well. The threat of Culture cuts demonstrates this. I hope people can expand this line of reasoning to the general population, many of whom also are competent and able, but who may never get to do the work they wanted to do, and in fact may never again find employment.
Actors condemn Harper's culture cuts (see also 1015 comments by readers)
CBC News
September 24, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/09/24/artist-protests.html
Let's hope arts bashing just a pose (see also 38 comments)
By Martin Knelman
Toronto Star
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/507392 link no longer available
http://www.thestar.com/federalelection/article/507392--let-s-hope-arts-bashing-just-a-pose
Margaret Atwood's old-fashioned approach to debt
Sinclair Stewart, TORONTO
Globe and Mail
Sept 26, 2008, Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article712062.ece
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
28 September 2008
21 September 2008
Life at the top: Toronto and Hong Kong
The mention in this article of the "$25 million penthouse at One Bloor – which was sold to an unidentified Hong Kong buyer" (Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo, Sept 21, 2008) reminds me of my grandfather, John L McPherson, who lived in Hong Kong for 30 years and for some time lived in the most privileged area - on 'The Peak', at that time reserved for Europeans, mainly, I believe, not the Chinese. I realize there must have been some hostility about these circumstances, but I have often thought that at least my grandfather was trying to do something beneficial for Hong Kong, spending 30 years there building up the YMCA. I would ask, at this point, in what ways are the buyers of these expensive properties in Toronto planning to make a difference in the lives of the people of Toronto and, more widely, of Ontario.
J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905-1935
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/JLMcPhersonHKYMCA.html
Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo
By Tony Wong, Business reporter
TO Star
Sept 21, 2008
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503119
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905-1935
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/JLMcPhersonHKYMCA.html
Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo
By Tony Wong, Business reporter
TO Star
Sept 21, 2008
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503119
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
28 August 2008
Times Higher Education's Critique of Wikipedia
University Philosophy lecturer Martin Cohen (also editor of The Philosopher) is critical of Wikipedia, says the UK's Times Higher Education (supplement). I have submitted my own comment to THE, as follows.
I'm sure Wikipedia is no more a dubious source than academia itself. It just happens to be a different source, with overlap here and there. Each of these, if anyone wants to concentrate on them, are political in their agendas and approaches. Having academics write or rewrite Wikipedia articles would do little good, and for the most part would consist of academics using their power to keep other people down. Wikipedia is meant to give ordinary people opportunities to write, as I understand it - though no original research is allowed! This does create a problem, of course, for researchers external to universities, who are fully capable of producing new research but who are not integrated into the academic community and able to have their research given recognition through publication in academic journals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no place for such people either. It's good that academia has some competition, even though Wikipedia doesn't provide the entire solution.
Added Apr 24, 2012
My comment didn’t get published by Times Higher. I still stand by what I said, four years later, though my views are not typical of those in the university environment.
As earlier piece I wrote for my blog is on this same topic. See ‘Now that’s power,’ May 11, 2008, also with my recent thoughts on it.
Encyclopaedia Idiotica
By Martin Cohen
THE
28 August 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327
Now That’s Power! Wikipedia and Representation of Marc Lepine and the Montreal Massacre
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
May 11, 2008
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2008/05/now-thats-power-wikipedia-and.html
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
I'm sure Wikipedia is no more a dubious source than academia itself. It just happens to be a different source, with overlap here and there. Each of these, if anyone wants to concentrate on them, are political in their agendas and approaches. Having academics write or rewrite Wikipedia articles would do little good, and for the most part would consist of academics using their power to keep other people down. Wikipedia is meant to give ordinary people opportunities to write, as I understand it - though no original research is allowed! This does create a problem, of course, for researchers external to universities, who are fully capable of producing new research but who are not integrated into the academic community and able to have their research given recognition through publication in academic journals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no place for such people either. It's good that academia has some competition, even though Wikipedia doesn't provide the entire solution.
Added Apr 24, 2012
My comment didn’t get published by Times Higher. I still stand by what I said, four years later, though my views are not typical of those in the university environment.
As earlier piece I wrote for my blog is on this same topic. See ‘Now that’s power,’ May 11, 2008, also with my recent thoughts on it.
Encyclopaedia Idiotica
By Martin Cohen
THE
28 August 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327
Now That’s Power! Wikipedia and Representation of Marc Lepine and the Montreal Massacre
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
May 11, 2008
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2008/05/now-thats-power-wikipedia-and.html
Links updated Apr 24, 2012
11 May 2008
Now That’s Power! Wikipedia’s Representation of Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre
The following is my request on the Wikipedia Discussion page to have the wording changed in its article on Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. The response I got, see below, suggests that "might is right", I think. Just as women eons ago were considered not worthy of working alongside men, so, apparently, if those whose pens now hold the (al)mighty truth are permitted to have their way, Marc Lepine’s actions may justly be considered 'representative’ of wider societal violence against women simply because they (Wikipedia) say so.
Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women - may 11, 2008 – comment Sue McPherson suemcp001
The third paragraph of the article mentions some of the interpretations placed on this tragedy, the main one being that it was an ‘antifeminist attack’ and that it was ‘representative of wider societal violence against women.’ The problem is that these killings, done by one man against women he did not know, were not representative of most violence against women, and certainly should never have been made to ‘represent’ them. Most violence against women is committed within a personal relationship, one partner against the other. Other reasons – interpretations – are given in the article, but the real reason, that Marc Lépine killed because he was not permitted to do the engineering program he felt entitled to, because places were being taken up by women, neglected to be mentioned in this paragraph, or anywhere in the article. I have written more about this Wikipedia article and placed it on my website. See list of references.
Filed in Wikipedia discussion on article, Ecole Polytechnique Massacre Suemcp001 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre
The response to my comment, from ‘Bearcat,’ a moderator on Wikipedia, is as follows:Whether you like the general media interpretation or not, discussing and debating it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility. You can "respond" to our article on your website all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to provide what you want. If you don't like it, write a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail or the Montreal Gazette and get them to revise their understanding of what happened, because Wikipedia's role is to summarize what established media sources have already published about it. Putting together original research in a new way to question the existing interpretation of history is not only not our job, it's actually against the rules of the site. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved May 11, 2008, from the Discussion section of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre.
Added Apr 23, 2012
It is now 4 years later, since this happened, when I tried to have the Wikipedia articles about Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre written in a more objective manner, including varied points of view and not simply the main feminist one and the more traditionally accepted viewpoints blaming Lépine’s parents and his own psyche for his determination to kill feminists.
Despite my efforts, I was not able to reach someone who would stand up to the other contributors, or to the biases of the moderators on Wikipedia, who had the authority to make sure the article was constructed properly, according to Wikipedia’s own ideals based on public collaboration.
Over the last 4 years more has been added to the Wikipedia articles, going against the emphatic claim made by ‘Bearcat’ (see comment above) that Wikipedia uses “established” sources - not *interpreting events of that day - simply reporting the facts. Yet as we can see, in the main article about the Montreal Massacre (now called the Ecole Polytechnique massacre), has even referred to Marc Lepine’s mother as having “wondered if the attack was not directed at her, as some would have considered her a feminist since she was a single, working mother.” Lépine’s father has often been given as a reason for the killings, and here, even the mother’s own self-doubt has been used to draw her into the foray. Both of these reasons, and some of the others, seems incomprehensible, especially as Lépine himself gave the reason for the attacks – he had expected he would go to engineering School and take up this male-reserved career, only to discover that the daughters of middle class citizens were now taking places traditionally reserved for men.
Even though I state this clearly in my essays on the Montreal Massacre, and it is what Lépine himself said in his suicide note, the fact that women were taking jobs and university places traditionally held for men was not given as a reason for the killings in the Wikipedia articles, nor any reference has been given to my work or to the website in general on the Montreal Massacre that I began in 2005, while living in England.
The suicide letter is another matter, its very authenticity in question. Despite the event happening over 20 years ago, no image of the original suicide note has ever been published. The only copy available to the public, according to what has been said about it, is the illicit copy leaked to feminist journalist Francine Pelletier one year after the attacks. At some point a translation was made of the original letter, written in French by Lépine, but the name of the translator remains elusive. So does his or her skill. Only 4 years ago, the English translation of the suicide note was still taken as truth, as noted in the Wikipedia articles on that time. But his year, 2012, supposed errors in translation have been reported (see suicide letter, 2012).
The first corrected ‘error’ in the 2012 version (date retrieved), changes the meaning of the sentence written by Lépine. The new version of this sentence makes it take on a negative meaning, as follows: “They are so opportunistic they [do not] neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages.” But the question at this time concerns the authenticity of the letter itself, since its origin is in doubt. How do we know that the suicide letter we have taken as truth is actually the truth and not an interpretation put on it by someone copying out the words to pass onto Ms Pelletier? At what point do we, the public, get to see a real image of the letter, not a transcript, as composed by Marc Lépine (in French) on the morning of the day he died?
École Polytechnique massacre on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89Ecole_Polytechnique_massacre
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012
Marc Lepine on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lepine
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012
Marc Lépine’s suicide note
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Dec_WikiMarcLepineSuicideNote.doc
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012
Montreal Massacre website
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/index.html
Links updated Apr 23, 2012
Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women - may 11, 2008 – comment Sue McPherson suemcp001
The third paragraph of the article mentions some of the interpretations placed on this tragedy, the main one being that it was an ‘antifeminist attack’ and that it was ‘representative of wider societal violence against women.’ The problem is that these killings, done by one man against women he did not know, were not representative of most violence against women, and certainly should never have been made to ‘represent’ them. Most violence against women is committed within a personal relationship, one partner against the other. Other reasons – interpretations – are given in the article, but the real reason, that Marc Lépine killed because he was not permitted to do the engineering program he felt entitled to, because places were being taken up by women, neglected to be mentioned in this paragraph, or anywhere in the article. I have written more about this Wikipedia article and placed it on my website. See list of references.
Filed in Wikipedia discussion on article, Ecole Polytechnique Massacre Suemcp001 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre
The response to my comment, from ‘Bearcat,’ a moderator on Wikipedia, is as follows:Whether you like the general media interpretation or not, discussing and debating it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility. You can "respond" to our article on your website all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to provide what you want. If you don't like it, write a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail or the Montreal Gazette and get them to revise their understanding of what happened, because Wikipedia's role is to summarize what established media sources have already published about it. Putting together original research in a new way to question the existing interpretation of history is not only not our job, it's actually against the rules of the site. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved May 11, 2008, from the Discussion section of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre.
Added Apr 23, 2012
It is now 4 years later, since this happened, when I tried to have the Wikipedia articles about Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre written in a more objective manner, including varied points of view and not simply the main feminist one and the more traditionally accepted viewpoints blaming Lépine’s parents and his own psyche for his determination to kill feminists.
Despite my efforts, I was not able to reach someone who would stand up to the other contributors, or to the biases of the moderators on Wikipedia, who had the authority to make sure the article was constructed properly, according to Wikipedia’s own ideals based on public collaboration.
Over the last 4 years more has been added to the Wikipedia articles, going against the emphatic claim made by ‘Bearcat’ (see comment above) that Wikipedia uses “established” sources - not *interpreting events of that day - simply reporting the facts. Yet as we can see, in the main article about the Montreal Massacre (now called the Ecole Polytechnique massacre), has even referred to Marc Lepine’s mother as having “wondered if the attack was not directed at her, as some would have considered her a feminist since she was a single, working mother.” Lépine’s father has often been given as a reason for the killings, and here, even the mother’s own self-doubt has been used to draw her into the foray. Both of these reasons, and some of the others, seems incomprehensible, especially as Lépine himself gave the reason for the attacks – he had expected he would go to engineering School and take up this male-reserved career, only to discover that the daughters of middle class citizens were now taking places traditionally reserved for men.
Even though I state this clearly in my essays on the Montreal Massacre, and it is what Lépine himself said in his suicide note, the fact that women were taking jobs and university places traditionally held for men was not given as a reason for the killings in the Wikipedia articles, nor any reference has been given to my work or to the website in general on the Montreal Massacre that I began in 2005, while living in England.
The suicide letter is another matter, its very authenticity in question. Despite the event happening over 20 years ago, no image of the original suicide note has ever been published. The only copy available to the public, according to what has been said about it, is the illicit copy leaked to feminist journalist Francine Pelletier one year after the attacks. At some point a translation was made of the original letter, written in French by Lépine, but the name of the translator remains elusive. So does his or her skill. Only 4 years ago, the English translation of the suicide note was still taken as truth, as noted in the Wikipedia articles on that time. But his year, 2012, supposed errors in translation have been reported (see suicide letter, 2012).
The first corrected ‘error’ in the 2012 version (date retrieved), changes the meaning of the sentence written by Lépine. The new version of this sentence makes it take on a negative meaning, as follows: “They are so opportunistic they [do not] neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages.” But the question at this time concerns the authenticity of the letter itself, since its origin is in doubt. How do we know that the suicide letter we have taken as truth is actually the truth and not an interpretation put on it by someone copying out the words to pass onto Ms Pelletier? At what point do we, the public, get to see a real image of the letter, not a transcript, as composed by Marc Lépine (in French) on the morning of the day he died?
École Polytechnique massacre on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89Ecole_Polytechnique_massacre
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012
Marc Lepine on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lepine
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012
Marc Lépine’s suicide note
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Dec_WikiMarcLepineSuicideNote.doc
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012
Montreal Massacre website
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/index.html
Links updated Apr 23, 2012
2 May 2008
British comedian Johnny Vegas accused of crossing the line sexually
Johnny Vegas caused a furor the other day when he apparently went over the line in his stage show, leading to discomfort among the audience and to the woman he invited onto the stage. Bruce Dessau has commented on the behaviour, Evening Standard Apr 29, and part of my response is directed towards this: http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html .
I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.
Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?
I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?
Added Apr 20, 2012
Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:
* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.
My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.
But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.
On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?
Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc
Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html
Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy
Links updated Apr 20, 2012
I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.
Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?
I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?
Added Apr 20, 2012
Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:
* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.
My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.
But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.
On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?
Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc
Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html
Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy
Links updated Apr 20, 2012
7 December 2007
Public displays of private matters - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore
I agree that the issue now is whether or not it is appropriate for politicians to be checking out pictures of their girlfriends, half-naked, while at work, or pictures of any women. It is so easy to claim the offensive pics are 'legitimate.' Does the label 'soft porn' not apply if the man is in a relationship with the female posing scantily-clad? Why would the writer of this article consider it sanctimonius to prefer that members of parliament keep their minds focused on official matters being dealt with rather than on pictures of scantily-clad women whoever she was. Does this have something to do with current norms by which sex is seen as right and normal and cool, while anything objecting to time and place might be considered old-fashioned, and unsexy? I'm not sure that the motive of the offending MP, James Moore, is relevant (see question asked by writer of the article). When sex is introduced into the public arena in the workplace, and so easily dismissed as possibly being problematic, the question we must ask is why the writer of an article such as this thinks its okay for an MP to be viewing pictures of scantily-clad women on the job. Is it because it's his right? And if it is his right, what else does he have the right to, while on the job.
Irene Mathyssen, NDP MP, raised this matter after inadvertently seeing the images of a scantily clad woman, full-screen, on Moore's laptop computer during a parliamentary session. She thought afterwards that it would have been better if she had approached him first about this behaviour, which she saw as inappropriate, instead of passing the information along and having it end up in public. I don't know how many women have tried to resolve difficulties personally, only to have the individual back off and refuse to communicate, but it has hapened to me, and in a way that has come to ruin my life. Mathyssen is lucky she has the backing of her organization. It is likely that a woman on her own wouldn't stand a chance of having a man attempt to resolve such a problem otherwise.
Added Apr 2012
The phrase “No sex please, [fill in the blank]” (see Sudbury Star, 2003) is a joke, and using it as the title of a news article makes a joke of the issue being discussed. No sex please … we’re Canadian …we’re British …we’re sweaty …we’re babyboomers … we’re married, are just some of the ways it is used in the news.
It’s so easy for people to say this incident was a non-issue, that it should never have been raised, that to have done so was “obnoxiously sanctimonius” – ie. coming from a sense of superiority or high-mindedness in sexual matters, and in a high-handed manner. However, the MP sitting in a session of parliament with his computer screen set at an angle so it was visible to members seated behind him was an unnecessary distraction, to say the least. More was said about it at the time, leading to the incident being dismissed with a ‘full’ apology from the MP who had brought it to the attention of the House.
And who should the Sudbury Star have apologized to? Certainly not to MP James Moore, whose reputation they protected by making a joke out of the incident. There were no repercussions that we know of - no jobs lost and no new regulations about parliament members’ permitted viewing during parliamentary sessions. Members should have some sense about what behaviours are acceptable and what may not be, in certain places at particular times, such as in the House of Commons during a parliamentary session. There’s a time and place for everything, and it is usually left to the judgement of the parliamentary politicians to determine that, as individuals.
Why Ms Mathyssen responded the way she did, by raising the matter without addressing it in private first, or to someone in authority, I don’t know, but the incident occurred close to the Dec 6 commemoration of the Montreal Massacre, and the hype associated with that can lead to increased sensitivity to women’s issues. Even though Marc Lepine’s acts of violence had nothing to do with intimate relationships, the other side of it - the White Ribbon campaign - suggests that men work together “to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment” (White Ribbon Campaign, 2012). Sexism is part of that, though often considered to be of milder consequence, if any.
A month or so ago, I was carrying out my routine task of rolling the garbage bin out to be picked up the next day, whereupon I noticed a fairly large picture on the inside of the window of a car, directly in front of me as I reached the sidewalk. It was of a scantily-clad woman, posing in a sexually suggestive manner. There was no information on what it was advertising, and no name or phone number. I don’t know how common this is, but there it was! It only happened once, and I have not seen it since, in fact, I haven’t seen anything remotely similar on a car window before, or since then.
In ‘Tempest in a laptop,’ Moore is said to have made accusations against Mathyssen on his website, claiming,, “This was a baseless personal attack, and I am disappointed she resorted to such an outrageous tactic to score a headline." That’s as bad as the original accusation made by Mathyssen, in its tone and substance. He is accusing her of making the accusation about soft porn on his laptop to get at him personally, for no reason that he can see, except to be able to make headlines in the news. Obviously, he was “rattled,” but was he as rattled as Mathyssen when she decided to make public his apparent display of sexual images?
According to Allan Woods of the Toronto Star, “MPs are protected from legal action for anything that they say in the House based on the principle of parliamentary privilege.” But in this case, Mathyssen repeated her allegations against Moore to reporters afterwards, while Moore also overstepped legal boundaries by placing his defamatory comments onto his website. It seems as though they were both at fault. It wasn’t the law Mathyssen was afraid of, was it, that led her to apologize. Could it have been the threat of loss of career, for speaking out against behaviour that for men might well be seen as normal?
The phrase ‘tempest in a laptop’ is a play on words of the phrase tempest in a teapot, referring to a big fuss over a minor matter, similar in effect to the joking, demeaning title of the article ‘No sex please, we’re Canadian.’
Allan Woods continues to distort the event in his ‘Tempest’ article, writing that while telling reporters about it, “the image of the scantily clad woman she had described to her fellow MPs turned into "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." Sometimes it takes a while to come up with the right words to best explain the situation. “Scantily-clad” could mean images from the underwear section in the Sears catalogue. But we all know the difference between that and the kind of sexually suggestive images that are implied by the terms "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." And, by the way, the image stuck on the inside of the window of the vehicle I mentioned outside where I live was of a woman scantily clad, but of the Playboy type, not Sears catalogue. It was small, too – the article of clothing work by the woman in the image - not the picture itself.
Both of these people - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore - made mistakes in judgement, but only one of them had to apologize, coming across as the guilty party. So was this an error on her part in “jumping to conclusions,” as Woods says in his opening sentence, or was her lack of judgement more to do with expecting this kind of behaviour among MPs, or any men in the workplace, to ever end. If it did end, if men stopped looking, what could we surmise from that?
The problem returns again to one of time and place. Where should such behaviours be tolerated, or accepted as humorous, or seen as normal, and when? It then depends on the person him or herself to decide and act accordingly.
No sex please, we're Canadian
Sudbury Star
7 Dec 2007
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&action=svdMsg&&archive=true#threads
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&archive=true
Mathyssen stands by her complaint
By Chip Martin
London Free Press (Sun Media File)
Dec 7, 2007
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/Mathyssenstandsby.doc
NDP MP sorry for 'scantily clad woman' attack
The Canadian Press
CTV
Dec 7, 2007
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20071206/NDP_apology_071207/
Tempest in a laptop 'Porn' furor grips MPs
By Allan Woods
Toronto Star
Dec 6, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/283086--porn-furor-grips-mps
White Ribbon Campaign
Online site
2012
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/about_us/#1
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
Irene Mathyssen, NDP MP, raised this matter after inadvertently seeing the images of a scantily clad woman, full-screen, on Moore's laptop computer during a parliamentary session. She thought afterwards that it would have been better if she had approached him first about this behaviour, which she saw as inappropriate, instead of passing the information along and having it end up in public. I don't know how many women have tried to resolve difficulties personally, only to have the individual back off and refuse to communicate, but it has hapened to me, and in a way that has come to ruin my life. Mathyssen is lucky she has the backing of her organization. It is likely that a woman on her own wouldn't stand a chance of having a man attempt to resolve such a problem otherwise.
Added Apr 2012
The phrase “No sex please, [fill in the blank]” (see Sudbury Star, 2003) is a joke, and using it as the title of a news article makes a joke of the issue being discussed. No sex please … we’re Canadian …we’re British …we’re sweaty …we’re babyboomers … we’re married, are just some of the ways it is used in the news.
It’s so easy for people to say this incident was a non-issue, that it should never have been raised, that to have done so was “obnoxiously sanctimonius” – ie. coming from a sense of superiority or high-mindedness in sexual matters, and in a high-handed manner. However, the MP sitting in a session of parliament with his computer screen set at an angle so it was visible to members seated behind him was an unnecessary distraction, to say the least. More was said about it at the time, leading to the incident being dismissed with a ‘full’ apology from the MP who had brought it to the attention of the House.
And who should the Sudbury Star have apologized to? Certainly not to MP James Moore, whose reputation they protected by making a joke out of the incident. There were no repercussions that we know of - no jobs lost and no new regulations about parliament members’ permitted viewing during parliamentary sessions. Members should have some sense about what behaviours are acceptable and what may not be, in certain places at particular times, such as in the House of Commons during a parliamentary session. There’s a time and place for everything, and it is usually left to the judgement of the parliamentary politicians to determine that, as individuals.
Why Ms Mathyssen responded the way she did, by raising the matter without addressing it in private first, or to someone in authority, I don’t know, but the incident occurred close to the Dec 6 commemoration of the Montreal Massacre, and the hype associated with that can lead to increased sensitivity to women’s issues. Even though Marc Lepine’s acts of violence had nothing to do with intimate relationships, the other side of it - the White Ribbon campaign - suggests that men work together “to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment” (White Ribbon Campaign, 2012). Sexism is part of that, though often considered to be of milder consequence, if any.
A month or so ago, I was carrying out my routine task of rolling the garbage bin out to be picked up the next day, whereupon I noticed a fairly large picture on the inside of the window of a car, directly in front of me as I reached the sidewalk. It was of a scantily-clad woman, posing in a sexually suggestive manner. There was no information on what it was advertising, and no name or phone number. I don’t know how common this is, but there it was! It only happened once, and I have not seen it since, in fact, I haven’t seen anything remotely similar on a car window before, or since then.
In ‘Tempest in a laptop,’ Moore is said to have made accusations against Mathyssen on his website, claiming,, “This was a baseless personal attack, and I am disappointed she resorted to such an outrageous tactic to score a headline." That’s as bad as the original accusation made by Mathyssen, in its tone and substance. He is accusing her of making the accusation about soft porn on his laptop to get at him personally, for no reason that he can see, except to be able to make headlines in the news. Obviously, he was “rattled,” but was he as rattled as Mathyssen when she decided to make public his apparent display of sexual images?
According to Allan Woods of the Toronto Star, “MPs are protected from legal action for anything that they say in the House based on the principle of parliamentary privilege.” But in this case, Mathyssen repeated her allegations against Moore to reporters afterwards, while Moore also overstepped legal boundaries by placing his defamatory comments onto his website. It seems as though they were both at fault. It wasn’t the law Mathyssen was afraid of, was it, that led her to apologize. Could it have been the threat of loss of career, for speaking out against behaviour that for men might well be seen as normal?
The phrase ‘tempest in a laptop’ is a play on words of the phrase tempest in a teapot, referring to a big fuss over a minor matter, similar in effect to the joking, demeaning title of the article ‘No sex please, we’re Canadian.’
Allan Woods continues to distort the event in his ‘Tempest’ article, writing that while telling reporters about it, “the image of the scantily clad woman she had described to her fellow MPs turned into "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." Sometimes it takes a while to come up with the right words to best explain the situation. “Scantily-clad” could mean images from the underwear section in the Sears catalogue. But we all know the difference between that and the kind of sexually suggestive images that are implied by the terms "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." And, by the way, the image stuck on the inside of the window of the vehicle I mentioned outside where I live was of a woman scantily clad, but of the Playboy type, not Sears catalogue. It was small, too – the article of clothing work by the woman in the image - not the picture itself.
Both of these people - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore - made mistakes in judgement, but only one of them had to apologize, coming across as the guilty party. So was this an error on her part in “jumping to conclusions,” as Woods says in his opening sentence, or was her lack of judgement more to do with expecting this kind of behaviour among MPs, or any men in the workplace, to ever end. If it did end, if men stopped looking, what could we surmise from that?
The problem returns again to one of time and place. Where should such behaviours be tolerated, or accepted as humorous, or seen as normal, and when? It then depends on the person him or herself to decide and act accordingly.
No sex please, we're Canadian
Sudbury Star
7 Dec 2007
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&action=svdMsg&&archive=true#threads
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&archive=true
Mathyssen stands by her complaint
By Chip Martin
London Free Press (Sun Media File)
Dec 7, 2007
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/Mathyssenstandsby.doc
NDP MP sorry for 'scantily clad woman' attack
The Canadian Press
CTV
Dec 7, 2007
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20071206/NDP_apology_071207/
Tempest in a laptop 'Porn' furor grips MPs
By Allan Woods
Toronto Star
Dec 6, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/283086--porn-furor-grips-mps
White Ribbon Campaign
Online site
2012
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/about_us/#1
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
12 November 2007
Clinton: femininity, masculinity, and marriage
Some truth here, finally. It's not a welcome idea that women are able to achieve success because of the men they marry, but in Gary Younge's article in the Guardian (UK), author Suzanne Goldenberg quotes a female lawyer as saying about Hilary Clinton, "This is a woman who is where she is because of who she married". A lot of women, feminists included, aren't willing to admit that that is how they've managed to get ahead, in their own spheres of life, even though they are lesser in status than Clinton's. Marriage has always been, and always will be, the best resource a woman can have (the same goes for men). Thus, the essential ingredients for success, for Hilary Clinton and many other women, are indeed a combination of femininity, masculinity, and marriage. Read also essay on Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development. Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson was a wife and mother, a missionary, artist, author and suffragist. Born in England, in 1908 she went to Hong Kong. . .
All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Links updated Apr 19, 2012
11 March 2007
Pensioners' need for education
Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age shouldn't mean that the same treatment applies to all people regardless of age, though I would agree that older people should not be treated negatively simply on the basis of their age. They should not be treated any differently to younger people, in opportunities for education, or health care, for instance. On the other hand, age can be a factor in certain instances, such as preventing particular forms of cancer at certain times in the life cycle, or reproductive health at another time. Likewise, that applies to education. Doing away with age discrimination doesn't mean doing away with all awareness of age-related differences. Nor does it mean neglecting the differences among older people based on gender. Especially for the generation of baby-boomers now growing older, there are probably as many of them having difficulties making ends meet as there are the comfortably well-off. That said, I have difficulty with the idea that all older people need to continuously be the recipients of formal education. More of that can be left to the young, while other venues could be made available for senior citizens to follow up on the knowledge gained through life experience.
Colchester: Elderly hit by age rule
By Chris Wilkin
Essex County Standard
9 Mar 2007
http://www.essexcountystandard.co.uk/news/1248020.colchester_elderly_hit_by_age_rule/
Link checked Apr 17, 2012
Colchester: Elderly hit by age rule
By Chris Wilkin
Essex County Standard
9 Mar 2007
http://www.essexcountystandard.co.uk/news/1248020.colchester_elderly_hit_by_age_rule/
Link checked Apr 17, 2012
1 February 2007
Marriage and the Career Woman
There must be many reasons why women university graduates aren't marrying. That they can't find their intellectual equals isn't a very good reason, I should think. It's more about level of education, class membership, and potential for moving up in the world that matter. And there could well be many women who don't really want to marry at all, but would rather not state that publicly. How do women expect men to "rise to the challenge of feminism" when men feel threatened by them? Now that the truth is out, such women need to see that the answer is not that being 'like a man' is better than being 'like a woman,' but that there is a place in this world for different kinds of men and women, with different interests, and different capacities. This was a mistake to make being up there with the big guys the place to be, if women wanted to be seen as having worth. So now, as Boris Johnson says, instead of women at the bottom, it's some men and some women down there, while the rest live the 'good life.'
I'll tell you why women are running out of men to marry
Boris Johnson
Telegraph
Feb 1, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636932/Ill-tell-you-why-women-are-running-out-of-men-to-marry.html
Link updated Apr 19, 2012
I'll tell you why women are running out of men to marry
Boris Johnson
Telegraph
Feb 1, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3636932/Ill-tell-you-why-women-are-running-out-of-men-to-marry.html
Link updated Apr 19, 2012
22 January 2007
Teenagers vs older women: contraception, pregnancy and abortion
Re: Teenage pregnancy myth dismissed
BBC News Monday, 22 January 2007
Is it this newspaper article or the study itself, of this complex subject, that seems so dismissive of the way things are for women today, whether young or older. Surely this is only part of the problem, that teenage girls are becoming pregnant. What about the ones with unwanted pregnancies, or wanted ones, who decide not to terminate but go on to have the baby. And then, of course, did these researchers look at marital status. I'm not suggesting that all women need to have a husband in order to start a family (in today's world it is a choice that well-established women are free to make), but there may well be a difference in how an unwanted pregnancy develops, between single girls and married ones, as well as differences in ways of working through the problem. It's not all a question of getting "carried away in the moment," as Toni Belfield, of the sexual health charity FPA was reported as saying. I recall a book by Carol Gilligan, with the title In a Different Voice (1982) in which she discusses a study of college girls who become pregnant and are facing the dilemma of whether or not to have an abortion. The book may be a bit outdated for today's world. But making the problem of teen pregnancy into a clearcut issue, whereby wanted babies are carried full term while unwanted ones are aborted, seems dismissive of the process of decision-making that pregnant women must be having to go through, not to mention consideration of their socioeconomic circumstances.
Teenage pregnancy myth dismissed
BBC News
Jan 22, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6279601.stm
Link checked Apr 18, 2012
BBC News Monday, 22 January 2007
Is it this newspaper article or the study itself, of this complex subject, that seems so dismissive of the way things are for women today, whether young or older. Surely this is only part of the problem, that teenage girls are becoming pregnant. What about the ones with unwanted pregnancies, or wanted ones, who decide not to terminate but go on to have the baby. And then, of course, did these researchers look at marital status. I'm not suggesting that all women need to have a husband in order to start a family (in today's world it is a choice that well-established women are free to make), but there may well be a difference in how an unwanted pregnancy develops, between single girls and married ones, as well as differences in ways of working through the problem. It's not all a question of getting "carried away in the moment," as Toni Belfield, of the sexual health charity FPA was reported as saying. I recall a book by Carol Gilligan, with the title In a Different Voice (1982) in which she discusses a study of college girls who become pregnant and are facing the dilemma of whether or not to have an abortion. The book may be a bit outdated for today's world. But making the problem of teen pregnancy into a clearcut issue, whereby wanted babies are carried full term while unwanted ones are aborted, seems dismissive of the process of decision-making that pregnant women must be having to go through, not to mention consideration of their socioeconomic circumstances.
Teenage pregnancy myth dismissed
BBC News
Jan 22, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6279601.stm
Link checked Apr 18, 2012
6 January 2007
Femininity and Womanhood: the Ashley Treatment
In today's article in The Telegraph by Caroline Davies, "I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'" (06/01/07), young Katie's mother, in Britain, reflects on the situation of Ashley from Seattle, the nine-year old with the condition called 'static encephalopathy.'
I can understand the problem of size and weight, but I would be concerned about the idea of giving a hysterectomy for the reasons presented in the article. Okay, so Katie wouldn't understand what was happening when she menstruated, but she would get used to it, just as a person gets used to other bodily functions. Was it not also uncomfortable and a nuisance when her baby teeth started coming out and new teeth began growing in? Surely the indignity of going to a dentist, or other medical interventions, are something the health care provider or caregiver has to come to terms with. Pain at this time of the month, during menstruation, isn't something all girls experience, so I wonder if the parents/caregivers' know for sure this something she will always experience. I can understand a hysterectomy being performed for the sake of convenience, since menstruation is a nuisance, but I question the reasons given here for having it done. It doesn't seem entirely rational or even fair in some ways, and might be detrimental to the way such a normal happening could be viewed by girls growing up who are reading about this. Is life better when one can remain a child and not have to experience the annoyances and challenges that 'growing up' present? In part this is about quality of life and the experience of life. If one is having to live a restricted life, is it preferable to remain a child forever or to experience something of what it means to be a woman? I have refrained from making any comments about sexuality, though an implied consequence of the proposed hysterectomy and possible hormone treatment would be to have sexuality no longer an issue.
I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'
By Caroline Davies
Telegraph
6 January, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538671/I-want-my-girl-to-have-the-Ashley-treatment.html
Link updated April 18, 2012
I can understand the problem of size and weight, but I would be concerned about the idea of giving a hysterectomy for the reasons presented in the article. Okay, so Katie wouldn't understand what was happening when she menstruated, but she would get used to it, just as a person gets used to other bodily functions. Was it not also uncomfortable and a nuisance when her baby teeth started coming out and new teeth began growing in? Surely the indignity of going to a dentist, or other medical interventions, are something the health care provider or caregiver has to come to terms with. Pain at this time of the month, during menstruation, isn't something all girls experience, so I wonder if the parents/caregivers' know for sure this something she will always experience. I can understand a hysterectomy being performed for the sake of convenience, since menstruation is a nuisance, but I question the reasons given here for having it done. It doesn't seem entirely rational or even fair in some ways, and might be detrimental to the way such a normal happening could be viewed by girls growing up who are reading about this. Is life better when one can remain a child and not have to experience the annoyances and challenges that 'growing up' present? In part this is about quality of life and the experience of life. If one is having to live a restricted life, is it preferable to remain a child forever or to experience something of what it means to be a woman? I have refrained from making any comments about sexuality, though an implied consequence of the proposed hysterectomy and possible hormone treatment would be to have sexuality no longer an issue.
I want my girl to have the 'Ashley treatment'
By Caroline Davies
Telegraph
6 January, 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538671/I-want-my-girl-to-have-the-Ashley-treatment.html
Link updated April 18, 2012
11 November 2006
And the aim of this campaign is . . . surely not promiscuity
Re: Condom call for young 'on pull'. BBC News. 11 Nov 2006.
While I agree that advocating the use of condoms is a wise measure, especially to prevent stds, the way this is being gone about in this BBC article is questionable. There are new sexual freedoms in society today that just weren't there 30 years ago. Although this article claims not to be advocating promiscuity, it also says,
"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom among this age group as familiar as carrying a mobile phone, lipstick or putting on a seat-belt."
So there is a dual message here, not just about STIs and condoms, but about sex itself.
If that isn't encouraging promiscuity, then what is? Practically all young people carry a mobile phone, and I would imagine most young women wear lipstick when they go clubbing. Surely, encouraging all young men and women of that age group to always carry condoms, just as they always carry their phone, could be seen as encouraging them to be promiscuous. The message is that they carry condoms EVERYWHERE, as they woud a mobile phone, and not just when they are out clubbing The wording creates an association between lipstick and sex, and between cellphones and sex, familiar objects in our world, not just when people go clubbing, but ALL THE TIME.
The following statement is from the article: "This is not about encouraging promiscuity, but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky, so always use one." But that does not reflect what is actually being told to young people in the rest of the article.
The aim of this article would actually seem to be to get young people to carry condoms as they would some of the most familar and well-used items they have (regardless of whether they expect or would choose to be sexually active, and regardless of whether they are going clubbing or going to work). Carry your condoms as you would your mobile phone, is the message it is giving out.
So how about this line instead:
*"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom for some men and women in this age group as familiar as eating cereal for breakfast. "*
Using this analogy might help lessen the idea that all women and men are as eager and willing to engage in sex as they are to talk on their cellphone, and might help in lessening pregnancies that come about from some kinds of sexual encounters.
Condom call for young 'on pull' BBC News 11 Nov 06
Young adults are to be urged to carry condoms when they are out "on the pull", as part of a government sexual health campaign.
It will focus on 18 to 24-year-olds. Just 20% of people in this age group say they carry condoms on a night out. continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6132822.stm
Link updated April 18, 2012
While I agree that advocating the use of condoms is a wise measure, especially to prevent stds, the way this is being gone about in this BBC article is questionable. There are new sexual freedoms in society today that just weren't there 30 years ago. Although this article claims not to be advocating promiscuity, it also says,
"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom among this age group as familiar as carrying a mobile phone, lipstick or putting on a seat-belt."
So there is a dual message here, not just about STIs and condoms, but about sex itself.
If that isn't encouraging promiscuity, then what is? Practically all young people carry a mobile phone, and I would imagine most young women wear lipstick when they go clubbing. Surely, encouraging all young men and women of that age group to always carry condoms, just as they always carry their phone, could be seen as encouraging them to be promiscuous. The message is that they carry condoms EVERYWHERE, as they woud a mobile phone, and not just when they are out clubbing The wording creates an association between lipstick and sex, and between cellphones and sex, familiar objects in our world, not just when people go clubbing, but ALL THE TIME.
The following statement is from the article: "This is not about encouraging promiscuity, but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky, so always use one." But that does not reflect what is actually being told to young people in the rest of the article.
The aim of this article would actually seem to be to get young people to carry condoms as they would some of the most familar and well-used items they have (regardless of whether they expect or would choose to be sexually active, and regardless of whether they are going clubbing or going to work). Carry your condoms as you would your mobile phone, is the message it is giving out.
So how about this line instead:
*"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom for some men and women in this age group as familiar as eating cereal for breakfast. "*
Using this analogy might help lessen the idea that all women and men are as eager and willing to engage in sex as they are to talk on their cellphone, and might help in lessening pregnancies that come about from some kinds of sexual encounters.
Condom call for young 'on pull' BBC News 11 Nov 06
Young adults are to be urged to carry condoms when they are out "on the pull", as part of a government sexual health campaign.
It will focus on 18 to 24-year-olds. Just 20% of people in this age group say they carry condoms on a night out. continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6132822.stm
Link updated April 18, 2012
4 September 2006
9/11 Alternative Theories - response to Lev Grossman
Lev Grossman, author of Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away (CNN/Time.com), forgot to mention money as a reason from demolishing the world trade center buildings, ie. if the government were actually involved. This is problematic when someone tells people to forget what they are seeing, or what is missing, but to go with "the official reason" only. Take one or the other, they are saying, and make it the official explanation that gets accepted as the one and only truth.
Is there anything wrong with asking questions, with just wanting to know what might have happened? The way this writer puts it it's something only odd people who would want to do. I think that the idea that there were facts without analysis or documentation in the alternative version is a problem the makers of such alternative versions of 9/11 blame on the govt, not the other way around, as this man is. Again, it's a matter of who has the authority and resources get analyses (such as on thermate) done?
I believe also it's about time they stopped calling them "conspiracy theories," a term that might lead people to reject writers or film-makers who present alternative views. The world is extremely complex, usually with many strands of 'truth' embedded in any narrative of an event. Simplifying it by coming up with a fact-based notion reduced to a single 'cause' isn't usually the way things work in real life. Usually, many people and many different threads are bound up in any simple notion of the truth, in a way that ignores vital missing evidence and theoretical explanations. When people's stories and visual evidence is dismissed and downplayed by the authorities gathering evidence, there is a tendency to let it go, to say it doesn't matter. It's only one persons' word. But if that is done time and time again, then there can be a great deal of truth left undiscovered.
It's not surprising that the people who made the film Loose Change did it on a shoe-string budget. That's what happens when those with the resources to get something done properly want to make sure one's work is marginalised and not taken seriously. People should pay attention to their instincts and thoughts on this matter, and question what is being said, officially, and reconsider their own beliefs and the truth of 9/11.
Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away
By Lev Grossman
Time magazine
Sept 3, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html
Link updated April 18, 2012
Is there anything wrong with asking questions, with just wanting to know what might have happened? The way this writer puts it it's something only odd people who would want to do. I think that the idea that there were facts without analysis or documentation in the alternative version is a problem the makers of such alternative versions of 9/11 blame on the govt, not the other way around, as this man is. Again, it's a matter of who has the authority and resources get analyses (such as on thermate) done?
I believe also it's about time they stopped calling them "conspiracy theories," a term that might lead people to reject writers or film-makers who present alternative views. The world is extremely complex, usually with many strands of 'truth' embedded in any narrative of an event. Simplifying it by coming up with a fact-based notion reduced to a single 'cause' isn't usually the way things work in real life. Usually, many people and many different threads are bound up in any simple notion of the truth, in a way that ignores vital missing evidence and theoretical explanations. When people's stories and visual evidence is dismissed and downplayed by the authorities gathering evidence, there is a tendency to let it go, to say it doesn't matter. It's only one persons' word. But if that is done time and time again, then there can be a great deal of truth left undiscovered.
It's not surprising that the people who made the film Loose Change did it on a shoe-string budget. That's what happens when those with the resources to get something done properly want to make sure one's work is marginalised and not taken seriously. People should pay attention to their instincts and thoughts on this matter, and question what is being said, officially, and reconsider their own beliefs and the truth of 9/11.
Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away
By Lev Grossman
Time magazine
Sept 3, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html
Link updated April 18, 2012
7 August 2006
Montreal Massacre
6th December 1989
One has only to do an internet search on the phrase "Montreal Massacre" to come up with many different articles and letters addressing this event in Canada's history. In 1989 a young man entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, armed with a semi-automatic rifle. In one classroom he separated the male students from the women and started shooting, moving on from there down the halls. By the time he was done shooting that December day, 14 women lay dead, 12 of them engineering students.
Most of the writing on this topic has been done from the perspective of the obvious victims - the women who were killed. But the reasons why Marc Lepine did what he did have never been permitted to come to light, or if they have been, were quickly dismissed. As time goes on, I wonder if I am experiencing something of what Marc Lepine went through. Or are we really expected to believe that he never tried to contact feminists, tried to talk to them, to get them to see his perspective, to realize the effect feminism was having on Canadian society?
As a man, a rather traditional man with both French-Canadian and, on his father's side, Algerian Muslim roots, he discovered that the place that had traditionally been men's - in male-dominated fields in university and careers out in the world - were being shared with women, no longer being men's alone. For this to happen, some men would lose out. And Lepine, age 25, was one of them. Without the help of parents, and not being middle class, and not holding the same values of many others of his age, Marc Lepine, born Gamil Gharbi, was at a disadvantage when it came to being accepted at engineering school.
See the Montreal Massacre website: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/ for essays, articles and commentary.
If you would like to have a comment or essay, etc included in the website please contact me.
Updated Apr 18, 2006
One has only to do an internet search on the phrase "Montreal Massacre" to come up with many different articles and letters addressing this event in Canada's history. In 1989 a young man entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, armed with a semi-automatic rifle. In one classroom he separated the male students from the women and started shooting, moving on from there down the halls. By the time he was done shooting that December day, 14 women lay dead, 12 of them engineering students.
Most of the writing on this topic has been done from the perspective of the obvious victims - the women who were killed. But the reasons why Marc Lepine did what he did have never been permitted to come to light, or if they have been, were quickly dismissed. As time goes on, I wonder if I am experiencing something of what Marc Lepine went through. Or are we really expected to believe that he never tried to contact feminists, tried to talk to them, to get them to see his perspective, to realize the effect feminism was having on Canadian society?
As a man, a rather traditional man with both French-Canadian and, on his father's side, Algerian Muslim roots, he discovered that the place that had traditionally been men's - in male-dominated fields in university and careers out in the world - were being shared with women, no longer being men's alone. For this to happen, some men would lose out. And Lepine, age 25, was one of them. Without the help of parents, and not being middle class, and not holding the same values of many others of his age, Marc Lepine, born Gamil Gharbi, was at a disadvantage when it came to being accepted at engineering school.
See the Montreal Massacre website: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/ for essays, articles and commentary.
If you would like to have a comment or essay, etc included in the website please contact me.
Updated Apr 18, 2006
13 April 2006
Working Girls: sister thesis sells us short
In 'Sister' Thesis Sells Us Short (TO Star, Apr 8, 2006), Jennifer Wells comments on Professor Alison Wolf's article Working Girls (Prospect, Apr issue, 2006.) Briefly mentioning the first point Professor Wolf makes in her article, Jennifer Wells reiterates the generally-known fact that women never were viewed as a homogenous group under feminism, turning to the unspoken notion of the goal of equality between the sexes, one must assume, to uphold her point. But, as Wolf claims, at one time women did have a more-or-less shared experience of life-as second-class citizens-and in that sense would have shared a sisterhood. In today's world, however, the lived experience of an increasing number of women is very different than the second-class experience, and different from the way most women once lived.
The emphasis in Wells's response is on female altruism, which Wolf sees as currently in decline. Many women of earlier eras really did see their lives in the service of others as vocations, as the natural order of things or because of their religious values. Any notion that they were second-class citizens may not have even entered their minds. Feminists have often complained that men were androcentric in their views of women's lives; in the same way, women of today might well have difficulty understanding the lives of women who came before, or of women unlike themselves. But this is the way it was, for many women, and for some, still is.
Working women's concerns in today's world often ends at the immediate family, as Wells herself has noticed, others outside of that small sphere being out of their realm of responsibility and altruism as working women - independent, with families. On this issue I think Wolf is for the most part right; female altruism has changed. In a society that claims to value individualism, and in which religious values are in decline, what seems to matter most is no longer one's neighbours or even one's country, or doing the right thing, but putting the family first.
Wells has yet to come to see how the idea of work has affected our lives, as women, in recent decades. Work - especially paid work - is a major source of a person's identity. It always was, for men, and feminism has made it so for women, in fact, has practically made it a requirement for women. Wells is critical of Wolf, seeing work not as self-actualisation but as "busyness," a slight on the very real power that having a career has on a person's ability to speak and be heard, to be granted recognition, and have one's views validated. Self-actualisation, in a way, is being able to put into practice what one believes is best. For many women, work is simply "busyness," but it may be that they are not working in the field that suits them best.
Wells raises one final point, though not on Wolf's third point, a concern with women's growing disincentives to bear children. Wells tells us that women talk about wanting to give back in some way, when they are older. But after years of proving themselves on the job, is volunteering really what the majority of working women of today will want to do in their later years? Even on that front there is competition. And ageism is another factor. Sometimes when individuals appear to have withdrawn it is in part due to being pushed.
For women who have chosen to pursue a career, and who find recognition and a certain sense of fulfilment through doing so, there may be benefits for themselves and their families, whether chosen or blood-related. But I'm not sure that society on the whole will benefit. It may be that some women have chosen work and family, and will stand to benefit, but at what cost to society, never mind the sisterhood? Women, and men, whose life experience falls outside of the ideal of having it all, may be left with less, or even nothing. In the long term, if there are greater benefits for some women and men, more than likely there will be greater losses for others.
`Sister' thesis sells us short
By Jennifer Wells
Toronto Star
Apr 8, 2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2006_Apr_SisterThesisSellsUsShort.doc
Working girls
By Alison Wolf
Prospect magazine
April, 2006 — Issue 121 (now listed as Apr 23, 2006)
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7398
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/04/rise-of-professional-women-decline-female-altriusm/
Added Apr 18, 2012
Blame the neoliberals – a reply to Alison Wolf
By Rosemary Crompton
Prospect magazine
May 20, 2006 — Issue 122
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/05/blametheneoliberals/
Response to Wells on Wolf (short version of blog entry)
By Sue McPherson
Submitted to TO Star
Apr 13, 2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2006_Apr_ShortResponseToWellsOnWolf.doc
Sisterhood reborn - a reply to Alison Wolf
By Pat Thane
Prospect magazine
May 20, 2006 — Issue 122
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/05/sisterhoodreborn/
Links updated Apr 18, 2012
The emphasis in Wells's response is on female altruism, which Wolf sees as currently in decline. Many women of earlier eras really did see their lives in the service of others as vocations, as the natural order of things or because of their religious values. Any notion that they were second-class citizens may not have even entered their minds. Feminists have often complained that men were androcentric in their views of women's lives; in the same way, women of today might well have difficulty understanding the lives of women who came before, or of women unlike themselves. But this is the way it was, for many women, and for some, still is.
Working women's concerns in today's world often ends at the immediate family, as Wells herself has noticed, others outside of that small sphere being out of their realm of responsibility and altruism as working women - independent, with families. On this issue I think Wolf is for the most part right; female altruism has changed. In a society that claims to value individualism, and in which religious values are in decline, what seems to matter most is no longer one's neighbours or even one's country, or doing the right thing, but putting the family first.
Wells has yet to come to see how the idea of work has affected our lives, as women, in recent decades. Work - especially paid work - is a major source of a person's identity. It always was, for men, and feminism has made it so for women, in fact, has practically made it a requirement for women. Wells is critical of Wolf, seeing work not as self-actualisation but as "busyness," a slight on the very real power that having a career has on a person's ability to speak and be heard, to be granted recognition, and have one's views validated. Self-actualisation, in a way, is being able to put into practice what one believes is best. For many women, work is simply "busyness," but it may be that they are not working in the field that suits them best.
Wells raises one final point, though not on Wolf's third point, a concern with women's growing disincentives to bear children. Wells tells us that women talk about wanting to give back in some way, when they are older. But after years of proving themselves on the job, is volunteering really what the majority of working women of today will want to do in their later years? Even on that front there is competition. And ageism is another factor. Sometimes when individuals appear to have withdrawn it is in part due to being pushed.
For women who have chosen to pursue a career, and who find recognition and a certain sense of fulfilment through doing so, there may be benefits for themselves and their families, whether chosen or blood-related. But I'm not sure that society on the whole will benefit. It may be that some women have chosen work and family, and will stand to benefit, but at what cost to society, never mind the sisterhood? Women, and men, whose life experience falls outside of the ideal of having it all, may be left with less, or even nothing. In the long term, if there are greater benefits for some women and men, more than likely there will be greater losses for others.
`Sister' thesis sells us short
By Jennifer Wells
Toronto Star
Apr 8, 2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2006_Apr_SisterThesisSellsUsShort.doc
Working girls
By Alison Wolf
Prospect magazine
April, 2006 — Issue 121 (now listed as Apr 23, 2006)
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7398
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/04/rise-of-professional-women-decline-female-altriusm/
Added Apr 18, 2012
Blame the neoliberals – a reply to Alison Wolf
By Rosemary Crompton
Prospect magazine
May 20, 2006 — Issue 122
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/05/blametheneoliberals/
Response to Wells on Wolf (short version of blog entry)
By Sue McPherson
Submitted to TO Star
Apr 13, 2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2006_Apr_ShortResponseToWellsOnWolf.doc
Sisterhood reborn - a reply to Alison Wolf
By Pat Thane
Prospect magazine
May 20, 2006 — Issue 122
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/05/sisterhoodreborn/
Links updated Apr 18, 2012
31 January 2006
Celebrity Big Brother's Banker Game
Britain’s 2006 Celebrity Big Brother TV programme (4th) (UK)
The last session of Celebrity Big Brother ended on Friday, January 27, with Essex girl Chantelle Houghton being voted the winner. But several days before this happy ending, the house was in turmoil. Big Brother had set up a game to be played - the Banker Game - which would involve intrigue, betrayal, and deception.
Unwittingly, Preston and Chantelle came to be the head bankers, through answering the telephone that had been placed in the room, and being invited to take on this task. Along with their responsibility, of buying shares on the stock market, came a secret status of membership in a private social club, unknown to the rest of the housemates, who were ‘just a bunch of bankers’.
On different occasions, the two headed off through the dining room to the Private Members’ Club, to partake of champagne, chocolate, cigars, and scrumptious food. They were not permitted to share this secret, however, and hiding it became increasingly difficult as the other housemates became suspicious. But they not only had the luxury of their existence, they also had the responsibility of getting the housemates to perform two tasks successfully, in order to win a decent amount of food, drink, and cigarettes. The alternative would mean the housemates would be restricted in what they could have. Thus, Chantelle and Preston had to ensure that the housemates completed the tasks successfully.
But there was another side to Big Brother’s scheming. The housemates had been informed that they must lose the tasks the head bankers set for them in order to win the larger amount of food and treats. Furthermore, they were not permitted to tell Chantelle and Prescott. So while the two head bankers tried their best to get the housemates to complete the tasks, the housemates were attempting to undermine the efforts of the two, so that they could fail, thus win. The gameplaying that ensued, the contradictions leading to frustration, with each side working towards a different agenda, with Big Brother exerting its power to create even further havoc in the play, was captivating entertainment.
All this was the result of an ingenious setup by Big Brother. In this microcosm of our daily world, first came the withholding of information - the secrets - then the suspicion, the guilt, and the apparently contradictory agendas. Tensions building, secrets divulged, frustration and disbelief at the betrayals followed, while defensive behaviour and anger towards perceived wrongdoers had the House in turmoil. The housemates did win the extra large supplies, but in the final run of things, was that what really mattered? They were all working towards the same goal - more food and goodies, even though they didn’t seem to see that in the heat of accusations and defensive outbursts. This, indeed, was Big Brother, the way we understand he would be, and is.
Links updated April 2012
Added April 16, 2012
Videos of 2006 Celebrity Big Brother UK:
Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFvKZSU9hqA CBB 2006 highlights
Bankers private members club (15 Pt 2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjFiGNJonxs&feature=relmfu
Further tasks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjYIVxl7mN0&feature=relmfu
Housemates: see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Big_Brother_2006_(UK)
Chantelle Houghton (winner) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantelle_Houghton
Michael Barrymore (runner-up) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0058214/bio
Dennis Rodman http://www.dennisrodman.com/
Faria Alam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faria_Alam
George Galloway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
Jodie Marsh http://www.jodiemarshtv.com/
Andrew Major (Maggot) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_(rapper)
Pete Burns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Burns
Preston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Preston_(singer)
Rula Lenska
http://www.rulalenska.co.uk/Rula_Lenska/The_Official_Rula_Lenska_Website.html
Traci Bingham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Bingham
Guests
Jimmy Saville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile
Richard and Judy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_and_Judy
See also: Big Brother Celebrity George Galloway MP, Jan 13, 2006: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/01/big-brother-celebrity-george-galloway.html
The last session of Celebrity Big Brother ended on Friday, January 27, with Essex girl Chantelle Houghton being voted the winner. But several days before this happy ending, the house was in turmoil. Big Brother had set up a game to be played - the Banker Game - which would involve intrigue, betrayal, and deception.
Unwittingly, Preston and Chantelle came to be the head bankers, through answering the telephone that had been placed in the room, and being invited to take on this task. Along with their responsibility, of buying shares on the stock market, came a secret status of membership in a private social club, unknown to the rest of the housemates, who were ‘just a bunch of bankers’.
On different occasions, the two headed off through the dining room to the Private Members’ Club, to partake of champagne, chocolate, cigars, and scrumptious food. They were not permitted to share this secret, however, and hiding it became increasingly difficult as the other housemates became suspicious. But they not only had the luxury of their existence, they also had the responsibility of getting the housemates to perform two tasks successfully, in order to win a decent amount of food, drink, and cigarettes. The alternative would mean the housemates would be restricted in what they could have. Thus, Chantelle and Preston had to ensure that the housemates completed the tasks successfully.
But there was another side to Big Brother’s scheming. The housemates had been informed that they must lose the tasks the head bankers set for them in order to win the larger amount of food and treats. Furthermore, they were not permitted to tell Chantelle and Prescott. So while the two head bankers tried their best to get the housemates to complete the tasks, the housemates were attempting to undermine the efforts of the two, so that they could fail, thus win. The gameplaying that ensued, the contradictions leading to frustration, with each side working towards a different agenda, with Big Brother exerting its power to create even further havoc in the play, was captivating entertainment.
All this was the result of an ingenious setup by Big Brother. In this microcosm of our daily world, first came the withholding of information - the secrets - then the suspicion, the guilt, and the apparently contradictory agendas. Tensions building, secrets divulged, frustration and disbelief at the betrayals followed, while defensive behaviour and anger towards perceived wrongdoers had the House in turmoil. The housemates did win the extra large supplies, but in the final run of things, was that what really mattered? They were all working towards the same goal - more food and goodies, even though they didn’t seem to see that in the heat of accusations and defensive outbursts. This, indeed, was Big Brother, the way we understand he would be, and is.
Links updated April 2012
Added April 16, 2012
Videos of 2006 Celebrity Big Brother UK:
Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFvKZSU9hqA CBB 2006 highlights
Bankers private members club (15 Pt 2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjFiGNJonxs&feature=relmfu
Further tasks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjYIVxl7mN0&feature=relmfu
Housemates: see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Big_Brother_2006_(UK)
Chantelle Houghton (winner) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantelle_Houghton
Michael Barrymore (runner-up) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0058214/bio
Dennis Rodman http://www.dennisrodman.com/
Faria Alam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faria_Alam
George Galloway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
Jodie Marsh http://www.jodiemarshtv.com/
Andrew Major (Maggot) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_(rapper)
Pete Burns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Burns
Preston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Preston_(singer)
Rula Lenska
http://www.rulalenska.co.uk/Rula_Lenska/The_Official_Rula_Lenska_Website.html
Traci Bingham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Bingham
Guests
Jimmy Saville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile
Richard and Judy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_and_Judy
See also: Big Brother Celebrity George Galloway MP, Jan 13, 2006: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/01/big-brother-celebrity-george-galloway.html
13 January 2006
Big Brother Celebrity George Galloway MP
Britain’s 2006 Celebrity Big Brother TV programme (4th) (UK)
George Galloway is causing quite a stir in Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 4. He entered the house, along with ten others, on the evening of thursday, January 5th. It was Day 8, a week later, on Jan 12, when, apparently following Big Brother’s orders, Galloway crawled up to actress Rula Lenska, while on prime-time television, pretending to be a cat lapping up imaginary milk from her cupped hands. This controversial display might have seemed erotic to some viewers; to others, it might have been considered disgusting or offensive. Either way, it couldn't be considered a worthy depiction of a cat lapping milk. But one has to admit, these antics do place him squarely into the realm of performance Big Brother seems to prefer; it is, after, all, people relating to one another in the diverse ways they do that makes it interesting. We would have to assume that this performance was spontaneous, and that Ruth Lenska was not responsible for the actions of George Galloway. In other words, it was not planned between the two of them. Galloway is already in trouble, for not being there for his constituents, although his office is still open.
As an MP, he has taken liberties, apparently, abandoning them while he goes off for up to three weeks to be with celebrities of various kinds, all willingly exposing their personalities, including quirks and flaws, in front of the camera. For these individuals to be together for up to three weeks, never knowing whether they will be voted out during the next round (by each other and the public) or be required to stay, is just part of the indignity of the situation.
Galloway doesn’t deserve either to be seen as a laughing stock or granted respect for his cat-antics. He is simply doing what a man does. George Galloway is the first member of Parliament - the Respect party - to take part in Celebrity Big Brother.
Added April 16, 2012
Videos
George Galloway plays the role of a cat (original) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU
george galloway being a cat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-D5XoNWFSQ
For more on the other housemates, see
Celebrity Big Brother’s Banker Game
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 31, 2006
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/02/celebrity-big-brothers-banker-game.html
George Galloway is causing quite a stir in Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 4. He entered the house, along with ten others, on the evening of thursday, January 5th. It was Day 8, a week later, on Jan 12, when, apparently following Big Brother’s orders, Galloway crawled up to actress Rula Lenska, while on prime-time television, pretending to be a cat lapping up imaginary milk from her cupped hands. This controversial display might have seemed erotic to some viewers; to others, it might have been considered disgusting or offensive. Either way, it couldn't be considered a worthy depiction of a cat lapping milk. But one has to admit, these antics do place him squarely into the realm of performance Big Brother seems to prefer; it is, after, all, people relating to one another in the diverse ways they do that makes it interesting. We would have to assume that this performance was spontaneous, and that Ruth Lenska was not responsible for the actions of George Galloway. In other words, it was not planned between the two of them. Galloway is already in trouble, for not being there for his constituents, although his office is still open.
As an MP, he has taken liberties, apparently, abandoning them while he goes off for up to three weeks to be with celebrities of various kinds, all willingly exposing their personalities, including quirks and flaws, in front of the camera. For these individuals to be together for up to three weeks, never knowing whether they will be voted out during the next round (by each other and the public) or be required to stay, is just part of the indignity of the situation.
Galloway doesn’t deserve either to be seen as a laughing stock or granted respect for his cat-antics. He is simply doing what a man does. George Galloway is the first member of Parliament - the Respect party - to take part in Celebrity Big Brother.
Added April 16, 2012
Videos
George Galloway plays the role of a cat (original) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU
george galloway being a cat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-D5XoNWFSQ
For more on the other housemates, see
Celebrity Big Brother’s Banker Game
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 31, 2006
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/02/celebrity-big-brothers-banker-game.html
19 December 2005
Terrorism and Murder in Canada and Britain: why no public investigations?
Not all suicide bombers are the same, but we did have such people in England, their roots being in Islam. That they were British citizens made matters more difficult to understand, than if they were from outside Britain. I can’t say if they all felt the same about it, but one possibility was that some of them didn’t feel a part of Britain, their values being different - their attitudes towards women, sexual freedom, etc., and on the other side, the attitudes of the British towards them - excluding them from participating fully. Briefly there had been mention of referring to them as Asian-Brits (as they would in the US use the term African-American to combine two nationalites or racial identities) but I haven’t heard more about it. I gather they found meaning in their religion.
Recently a young black man, Anthony Walker, was murdered - an axe landed in his head, in England. It was stated repeatedly by his family and the police that he was killed because of the colour of his skin, in which case I would suggest that anyone wearing black had better be extremely careful in that neighbourhood, since there are possibly quite a few people around who don’t like the colour black, or dark brown, and as we can see, reactions can be fierce.
There seems to be little effort to get to root causes, and while there may be little connection between suicide bombers and that individual killing, in each case, as far as I can see, no investigations were made into the real reasons these situations came about. In the first, re the suicide bombers, the police have announced that no investigation will be carried out into how it all happened. In the second, the fact that this young black man ‘had it all,’ from the appearance of things, including a white girlfriend, weren’t seen as relevant. It was just the colour of his skin that counted. So as long as things continue in this manner, with no investigations into the root causes, nothing will change.
Someone has asked, Why aren’t they being listened to before such things happen? Well, the same thing happened with Marc Lepine, who has been called by at least one person as Canada’s first Muslim terrorist. But it was a class issue too, and Lepine had his ambitions thwarted probably because he didn’t have the right support (proper family background, for one thing). There was nowhere for him to turn. If he had been middle class he probably would have had more support. Also, he was trained in the sciences and wouldn’t have had an understanding of the social forces that acted against him. He held Muslim ideals, but women of the day (1989) were just seeking out their own power (to decide over abortion for instance), so it was probably difficult for him to meet the traditional girl of his dreams. Lepine didn’t matter because there are likely quite a few like him, seeking to go farther in life, career-wise. That he was so frustrated that he decided to shoot women in the engineering school in Montreal is exceptional, but if he really were that capable, and he knew it, and he wanted to get his point across, how could he have done it. The police there prematurely ended their investigation too.
People and governments wonder how to stop terrorism and seemingly senseless murders. Preventing investigations from taking place is hardly the way to go about it. That should be a first step. Making that knowledge available to ordinary people is a second step. Encouraging them to use more up-to-date ways of interpreting such knowledge, so they are better able to comprehend the world around them, would be a third. Instead of relying on the government to stop terrorism and horrendous acts of violence, the people could do more on their part, not by using force but by beginning with the fundamental issues, which seem not to be understood.
Recently a young black man, Anthony Walker, was murdered - an axe landed in his head, in England. It was stated repeatedly by his family and the police that he was killed because of the colour of his skin, in which case I would suggest that anyone wearing black had better be extremely careful in that neighbourhood, since there are possibly quite a few people around who don’t like the colour black, or dark brown, and as we can see, reactions can be fierce.
There seems to be little effort to get to root causes, and while there may be little connection between suicide bombers and that individual killing, in each case, as far as I can see, no investigations were made into the real reasons these situations came about. In the first, re the suicide bombers, the police have announced that no investigation will be carried out into how it all happened. In the second, the fact that this young black man ‘had it all,’ from the appearance of things, including a white girlfriend, weren’t seen as relevant. It was just the colour of his skin that counted. So as long as things continue in this manner, with no investigations into the root causes, nothing will change.
Someone has asked, Why aren’t they being listened to before such things happen? Well, the same thing happened with Marc Lepine, who has been called by at least one person as Canada’s first Muslim terrorist. But it was a class issue too, and Lepine had his ambitions thwarted probably because he didn’t have the right support (proper family background, for one thing). There was nowhere for him to turn. If he had been middle class he probably would have had more support. Also, he was trained in the sciences and wouldn’t have had an understanding of the social forces that acted against him. He held Muslim ideals, but women of the day (1989) were just seeking out their own power (to decide over abortion for instance), so it was probably difficult for him to meet the traditional girl of his dreams. Lepine didn’t matter because there are likely quite a few like him, seeking to go farther in life, career-wise. That he was so frustrated that he decided to shoot women in the engineering school in Montreal is exceptional, but if he really were that capable, and he knew it, and he wanted to get his point across, how could he have done it. The police there prematurely ended their investigation too.
People and governments wonder how to stop terrorism and seemingly senseless murders. Preventing investigations from taking place is hardly the way to go about it. That should be a first step. Making that knowledge available to ordinary people is a second step. Encouraging them to use more up-to-date ways of interpreting such knowledge, so they are better able to comprehend the world around them, would be a third. Instead of relying on the government to stop terrorism and horrendous acts of violence, the people could do more on their part, not by using force but by beginning with the fundamental issues, which seem not to be understood.
5 December 2005
Montreal Massacre -- more than violence against women
On December 6, 1989, a 25 year-old man walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and shot to death 14 women, wounding 13 others. The Montreal Massacre was an appalling tragedy which has now taken its place in Canadian history, remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women. The lives of the women who died are remembered with sadness and pride. The realization of this injustice, that ruined the lives and promise these women had to offer that can never be recovered, will not go away.The gunman, Marc Lepine, a Quebecker born Gamil Gharbi in 1964, is not thought of by people so much any more, old memories portraying him as inhuman, a representation that is met by many with revulsion.
The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.
Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.
Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.
However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.
Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.
Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.
This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/
To read more:
Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html
Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc
Links updated April 16, 2012
The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.
Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.
Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.
However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.
Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.
Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.
This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/
To read more:
Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html
Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc
Links updated April 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)