Shan Morgain

Christmas is jolly - isn't it?

2010-12-23T08:01:00.002Z

Apparently 51% of Americans think of Christmas as Christian. I'm really surprised. But then away from the coastal cities America is quite an oldfashioned place and still very dominated by Christianity.

Quite simply there's nothing Christian about Christmas except the name. The date, the birth of the Son, the maiden Mother, the Star, the Magi, shepherds, angels, stable/ cave, the animals ... all of it is Pagan. So are Tree, gifts and feasting.
It's fine for Christians to share though. there's plenty for everyone.

It always amuses me the fuss every year about Christmas being "commercial."
This is the Earth quarter of the year. It's all about material survival. So we eat, drink, and are merry because very soon the death rate will peak. Some of those faces around the jolly table won't be there when Spring comes. Making a big display of how strong, vigorous, rich and well fed we are is a great way to reassure ourselves against the coming strain on our bodies.

Gift giving is also an exchange of bonds, about survival. Those we exchange gifts with now are those who we hope to call upon if things go badly wrong in the coming months.

So raise a glass. Smell the piney aroma of the Tree. Eat a treat ... and another. Let the shiny wrappings litter the floor for the cats to chase and crackle.
For tomorrow is another day.

......................
Ignore READ MORE link.

Changing the World

2010-12-21T17:44:00.002Z

An Australian journo has written a delightful (though disapproving) account of Assange's quasi-religious charisma. (Brendan O'Neill, The Australian)This was something I was already observing with interest too so I thank Mr. O'Neill for collecting the data so industriously.

Oxford English Dictionary: CHARISMA n. compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others: ...from Greek kharisma, from kharis 'favour, grace' (OED online)

The Australian article however mistakenly writes as if Assange does his work alone. He doesn't. Wikileaks was actually more active while he was helpless in solitary confinement.

Assange has explained his personality cult very neatly. “It is my role to be the lightning rod," Assange said. "That is a difficult role. On the other hand, I get undue credit."
(Oct. 2010 CNN)

Agreed Assange has a quasi-religious messianic image but I would say this operates with both his admirers and his attackers. To one side he is a rescuing angelic force to the other a destructive demonic force.

Mr. O'Neill declares "Strikingly, it shows how utterly degraded the idea of truth has become."

Indeed so. For Assange admirers the political process you recommend "political engagement, public debate and critical thinking" have failed. These have little or no influence on the ruling class of each nation.
Instead we have deadly secrets like war crimes, lies about WMD, and enquiries or consultations that merely serve to distract or whitewash. Western societies are more unequal than ever especially the USA and UK.
As a result those who support justice, fairness, equality, who were in despair at the destruction of all these values, now find a blazing inspiration in Assange and Wikileaks.

Should Assange be assassinated as some American leaders have demanded, his messianic myth will never die but grow to haunt Governments for centuries. But if he lives he remains a mighty rallying call. What a dilemma for the ruling classes.
Later edit: Assange has referred today to being a messiah without dying. He says this is a positive way to do it! (BBC interview Humphreys)

On the other side they see him as demonic. A techno-wizard superman villain who suddenly whips his cloak aside to reveal their nastiness. How scary. They got used to neatly hiding their foul doings and suddenly it’s not so easy.

The ruling class for now and some time to come is under pressure to take responsibility for what they have done.
When that includes 20,000 ordinary people including children, killed illegally in war crimes, it is difficult to see the downside. Except for the rich ruling class.

Who have not yet managed to point to one death caused by Wikileaks’ exposures.

I'll end this with an excerpt from the BBC interview.

Q: You want to change the world?

JA: Absolutely. The world has a lot of problems and they need to be reformed. And we only live once. Every person who has some ability to do something about it, if they are a person of good character, has the duty to try and fix the problems in the environment which they're in.

That is a value, that, yes, comes partly from my temperament. There is also a value that comes from my father, which is that capable, generous men don't create victims, they try and save people from becoming victims. That is what they are tasked to do. If they do not do that they are not worthy of respect or they are not capable.

Health - or a new trainset?

2010-12-20T03:51:00.002Z

The NHS is facing cuts of £20n billion.

Pain clinics are closing. Hip and joint ops are cut. Diagnostics cut so you find out too late what's wrong. Women are giving birth on the floor or alone, screaming in pain and at risk.

The new high speed rail ink London Birmingham will cost £17 billion.
That's its estimated cost so it will come out more in the end.

The train will save just 30 mins journey time.
Only it won't, because you'll arrive at a new station outside the centre of Birmingham and have to get a shuttle into the centre.
Green benefit is uncertain or negligible.

Which would you rather have - one high speed train connection or thousands of hip replacements, pain clinics, diagnostics and nurses?

Remember those who decide these cuts don't use the NHS. Ministers and MPs have private medicine paid for by our taxes in their pay packets.

Our taxes also pay to train most of the doctors, nurses and other staff in private hospitals. Private hospitals should pay an extra income tax by the employer on all their staff, to go straight into training NHS nurses doctors etc.

But do think about how we'll benefit from a shiny new train with so many more people being crippled and in great pain. The two projects cost around the same.

The Boys and the Banks

2010-12-20T00:11:00.003Z

The Telegraph is worried that we're bashing our banks instead of backing them as we should.

I'm truly amazed. We ARE "backing" the banks. Isn't that what this massive billions of pounds bailout is?
Aren't we going to be paying this off for the next 5 years minimum, but more like a decade - so as to support the banks?

The case for regulating the banks is ... that if they don't offer investors a safe and stable system they won't get investment. No one wants to put their money in an organisation that might any minute crash into rescue mode by its government.

The banks messed up our economy. Now I don't actually blame them for that so don't all yell at me as a bank basher. Like any other company a bank is about making money.
But the trouble is if all the banks are left to do that in the short term it can wreck the economy in the long term, as just happened. Short term self interest is not enough but in the heat of competition that is exactly what dominates.

So something else has to come into play and the only other component in the economy powerful enough to tweak the banks is government.
This is what we had pre-Thatcher and it worked very well indeed. Then the lady let the boys out to play with no rules in the playground.

I wouldn't worry about the banks threats to move top staff elsewhere. They will have great difficulty going anywhere that might attract them. Who wants a bunch of boyos who's messed up?
Of course they might find a home in some nasty little third rate dictatorship but I doubt that's what they want after playing the game in London.

Oh dear are they hiring 7,000 staff abroad? Hadn't you heard that's what they are doing anyway? It's called call centres, and outsourcing. Welcome to globalisation.

Poor diddums is there a nasty "spiteful 50p top tax rate"?
Well it might be a good idea if the top rate tax payers actually PAID their tax. Then there might be less hacking at the NHS, or higher tuition fees and so on - and less prospect of riots in the streets.

After all having to use gulags to control public protests, and running violence levels unsafe for visitors isn't good for business dontcha know!

As for bonuses shouldn't the banks be putting this extra money aside in case things go poopy again? Mama Government isn't made of money you know and she's about bankrupted by the last cleanup job she did for you when you browned your trousers.

Thank heavens for A. Merkel, German banks with good sense and EU mechanisms to enforce it. Angie baby is just not going to stand for any more nonsense and neither are her people. Since they're the only ones left with any money in the game you better listen to what the lady wants.
Which is regulation.

Telegraph article here

Rape and responsibility

2010-12-19T21:42:00.004Z

Erik on his blog Aktivarum asks some useful questions.

I had said there:
“The whole point of rape is that the person raped is controlled.”

Erik asked:
How do you know this?

Erik I’m a woman coming to the end of a long life. Like most women I have coped with attempted rape in my time. The aim of rape activity was to control my choice, to block off my ability to say No.

I do not say that someone being rough is a rapist. As long as there is enough restraint on the force used for the other partner to say No/ or move away and be left alone, it’s not rape.

If you take the component of force or control out of a rape situation it is no longer rape. Control defines rape as rape.

Erik said:
“For instance when a guy with bad hangover wakes up in the same bed as a really ugly woman whose name he doesn't know…. Society doesn't call it rape.”

That’s true and it’s a good example. I could use an easy feminist dismissal and say why is the woman judged on her appearance?
This is valid, but it has two answers.
One is that with someone we barely know it has to be a case of judgement on appearances. Maybe if this man spent a few hours more with her he might discover her briliance, her wit, her kindness - or her good cooking! Though giving that time would make it harder to get away if he didn't discover something to compensate.

Yes compensate. For although I agree with feminism I don't want women or anyone else to be judged wholly on appearances, the reality is that that is what we do. As animals, and as civilised complex humans.
I judge men by appearances too of course. Over my life I chose my lovers in a sort of sex market where I made bids on lovers I wanted. As on Ebay I have to match what I want with my own resources - and in the sex market my resources include my appearance.
This is another whole topic so for now enough to say that I have no objection to being a body and judged as one. I do think that women are far too heavily seen as bodies and little more than that.

To return to Erik's question then -
“For instance when a guy with bad hangover wakes up in the same bed as a really ugly woman whose name he doesn't know…. Society doesn't call it rape.”

I would answer the same way that I look at the case of a drunken woman, out of control, who gets raped.
Society has generally said that this is her fault and she cannot claim rape. Very recently there is debate about this, where some assert that a man must not take advantage of a very drunk women, so it is rape.
I say that it is a situation created jointly. Both are at fault.
A woman is stupid to an extreme if she gets very drunk so that she erases her ability to stay in control EXCEPT when among a safe group of friends, or a trusted lover.
But a man is a rapist if he takes advantage of her.

Perhaps we need a new crime of “failure to exercise due caution.” This would apply not only to rape but also bag snatching, car theft, burglary, personal assault. We would have certain clear conditions where we understand that the victim is cooperating and even provoking potential crime.

In fact we do have this concept in insurance claims. If I leave my car unlocked, even more in certain ‘rough’ locations, I am partly responsible for a theft. If the car is found with no sign of forced entry I’m going to have difficulty making an insurance claim.

I would like a strong message to go out to young women that being alone with any man at all you do not know well, is unsafe. A legal offence would help.

You need to know where the door is, check regularly your access to your exit is not blocked, and check who is nearby if you need to yell for help. This is not silly or neurotic and it need not be dramatic any more than looking both ways before crossing the road is silly, neurotic or dramatic. It’s just routine common sense.
Unfortunately any suggestion that men should be regarded as anything except shining princes, causes hysteria.

Men are even more unsafe if you are intoxicated, or wearing clothes that expose your cleavage, central body or upper thighs. These are more conditions that a woman can use to protect herself. Neglecting them causes risk.

This analysis is the basis of the frequently misunderstood Radical Feminist cry “All men are rapists.” In reality they are not, but from a woman’s point of view we cannot know for sure about any individual man. Until it is too late.

If we are to take responsibility for our own safety and not be silly girls who expect men to be always nice and sweet, we must protect ourselves by being careful – of all men you don’t know very well indeed. He could be your rapist if you yourself don’t take reasonable precautions.
Girls should be taught by family, school and by legal code to use the protections available to them, because we cannot know if a man can be trusted until we know him very well indeed.

But reasonable precautions – covering the central body, keeping a clear head, being within shouting distance of others, avoiding unsafe areas, even being elderly or ugly, or a child, or heavily pregnant, are not enough to protect us. Being uncovered, or drunk, drugged, alone and in certain risky places, all make it easier for a man to rape.
None of these things makes a man rape.
What makes him rape is his own defects. For that he is criminally responsible.

But it is still not quite that simple. If we made a victim crime of “failure to exercise due caution” we would need to make allowance for very young women because it takes time to learn the skill of drinking safely, retaining self control. Until 21 I do not think she can be held to be fully skilled about alcohol and if she can prove she only started drinking a short time ago, even older.
It also takes time to learn about unsafe places, and to become calmly aware of being alone with a man in a cautious way. It’s not easy to recognise that the perfectly nice person chatting with you is quite possibly listening for when the last person has left the office and you should now leave too, or else invite him to a public place where you are not alone and at risk. It’s even harder to do this analysis and not act stressed about it so you spoil a possibly very nice friendly situation.But that is what a sensible woman has to do. All part of adult social skills.

Comparing this analysis of double responsibility to the situation of drunken sex with an ugly woman is instructive.
There is a close similarity of the young man being too drunk to retain control and stay in command of his choices. Under my analysis he has not exercised due control and caution. So he carries his side of the responsibility.
Like the drunken girl, unable to deny or consent, who is raped, the drunk man with a lover he would not normally choose, is at risk of STD or AIDs if he was too drunk to use a condom.
He may feel a strong regret that this sex event happened. Interestingly, because he is used to the idea that he is responsible for what he does, he will most likely feel he has been a fool.

But does he feel profoundly shamed?
Does he remember this event for the rest of his life and suffer years of personal struggling to overcome its destructive effects on his overall self confidence? Some rape victims never do recover.
Will it make him afraid to go near another woman sexually for months? perhaps year? perhaps for life?
Will he need copious amounts of support from friends, family and ideally a good counsellor in order to recover from the experience?
Will he get pregnant? If he does might he have to bear the child because he cannot morally abort it?

I might be look at this partially blinded by a female perspective. Perhaps men DO suffer from extreme reactions that last for years or lifelong and devastate their lives if they drunkenly sleep with an ugly woman. I doubt it.
Why do I doubt it?
Well because I once long ago did just that. Afterwards what upset me was how to reject further advances without being nasty about it. But I never once felt raped, or dominated, or exploited. I felt totally responsible for what I did.

I felt ashamed yes but only of being stupid, and thoughtless so I caused hurt to another person. I didn’t feel shamed and sickened by being invaded in my most personal inner self. It didn’t weaken me and disrupt my ability in other areas of my life.
That’s the difference.

Radical Feminism

2010-12-19T21:30:00.002Z

Radical Feminism is a Marxist perspective? This couldn’t be more wrong. Heavens – is this the way things have been twisted for a later generation?

Radical Feminism simply asserts that I as a woman need to explore putting my own needs first – as a woman.
That’s it. Plain and simple.
It arose out of a rejection of Socialist Feminism ...
which at the time (1970s) was being trapped in the male trade unions’ demand that women “wait until after the revolution.” Some of us decided this was going to be a very long wait. We didn’t want to go on licking envelopes and certaiun parts of male activist bodies as our part in activism.
So we said No! we are going to put women’s issues at the top of the queue if we want.

Note Radical Feminism does not say that men’s needs do not matter, nor am I required to always put my needs, women’s needs first. I am just required to CONSIDER my needs/ women’s needs to see if it is my decision to put them first.

In fact I personally found that after several years of Radical Feminism, once I found my strength as a woman, it came naturally to recognise that men deserved equal consideration. But it was impossible to see that when I was weakened and up against a very patriarchal society as a young girl. In that condition all I saw was males blocking me or trying to use me on every side. I had to learn to be able to put myself first before I could support men as well.
Again Radical Feminism is about learning that women can, and often should, come first. Not every time, not unthinkingly, but as a very very important point to check.

I agree with those who say Radical Feminism is not “into fairness.” It is a medicinal antidote against the balance being set against us as women. The way to correct it is to push hard the other way.
I also agree with critics who say this is dangerous. If Radical Feminists do not truly access strength but instead get stuck in resentment and complaining then they are a pain to themselves and to others. Manhating is perfectly logical – so many men behave atrociously. But to get stuck in it poisons the woman and obviously is unfair to decent men.

As Radical Feminists our desire is power. With power comes a greater sense of safety and control. That in turn brings greater fairness and compassion to our thinking.

Radical Feminists never ignored biological issues. The opposite.
To us biology is extremely important. So much so that to me it is impossible for women and men to be completely equal – we are too different. In many situations yes it is equal, but when being female/ male – it is females that get pregnant, have abortions, give birth, breastfeed. These differences change our needs on each side.

With such very different needs we have inevitable conflict. We need to learn the other side, and try to balance the needs. In some cases though there is no real compromise e.g. abortion, which cannot be ‘fair’ to both.

Assange sex case full data

2010-12-19T18:28:00.008Z

The Guardian (UK) published full information on the exact basis of the Swedish sex charges against Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who has recently been released from solitary confinement in the UK.
Mr. Assange is still on tightly controlled bail in the UK pending possible extradition but until now no clear information has appeared about the basis of the charges. The account that follows is excerpted from the Swedish prosecutor's (leaked) records.
See the full Guardian account http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden Here I give the most pertinent excerpts plus a balanced gender analysis.

EXCERPTS
Miss A "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him ..."

"[S]he had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs.
" Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom "
[Miss A also alleges he somehow deliberately tore the condom.]
Miss A held a party for him on that evening "
Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.
"According to her statement ... "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night.

Miss A did what many of us women do far too often by cooperating with sex which was not 100% welcome. We women do that when we don't fully want it because
a) we have not freed ourselves from the idea we ought to do as he wishes; or
b) we are deeply reluctant to rouse male anger once sex has got going; or
c) because we are simply having mixed feelings of like/ not like.

This is a difficult area but ultimately it's up to us women to learn to be more assertive. Unless we are definitely under threat and too intimidated to speak or move away, we should do just that. If we are intimidated into silence we need to get away from the man completely, which only leaves the case of compliance in fear of our life or injury then or later, to count as rape.

That she temporarily had her legs pinned is worth consideration but extremely ambiguous. It could have been horseplay, or pushiness by the man. Miss A later used the word "violent" to a friend about it. Chatting with a friend is not like legal court evidence so it was a loosely used word. It is certainly too strong a word for something that apparently left no injury.

The crucial item here is that the man stopped before the forcefulness went too far. After both expressed their differences he did as she wished.

Allowing the man to stay in her flat with her for the rest of the week, but without sex, suggests Miss A did in fact retain control of her situation, and was not living at the mercy of a rapist. The later part of the account then makes it clear that what she really wanted was for him to leave, but she did not say so.
Most women will find such insensitivity familiar and infuriating while most men will find it a normal misunderstanding, Assange did not pick up on her wishes telepathicaly.

Miss W had a lover unwilling to use a condom. Ungentlemanly but then many men are.
She couldn't be bothered to insist on a condom in the morning when she was by her own statement "half-asleep." If she couldn't be bothered she can hardly complain later.
Possibly again those difficult mixed feelings muddled things.

It was up to her to insist on her own wishes. It is not up to another person to obey us in our wishes every time and give us a gift wrapped (sex) package of exactly what we want. They have wishes of their own and differences in desire need constant negotiation.

We women must be more assertive about what we want - and more honest with ourselves about our mixed feelings. We cannot rely on others to protect us with gentlemanly polite behaviour levels, especially if we don't know each other well. If we are half reluctant half involved it its up to us to choose the half we act on.

One problem seems to be that the man concerned appears to have been totally focused on the political activism to at first realise that he had offended the women.
It is understandable that this was hurtful and annoying to them. It's an uncomfortable stereotype that a woman is waits on the side until the man has time and attention for her. Byron proclaimed "Man's love is of man's life a thing apart,: 'Tis woman's whole existence" but that was 200 years ago. Westernised people have assumed different attitudes lately.

On his part, much preoccupied, Assange quickly assumed their uproar was a CIA "honeypot" trap. This was a reasonable assumption, something predictable in the life he was then living politically. He has said that he and his organisation is under constant attack to the point where 85% of their budget goes on the attack problems, whether hacking or legally. Many commentators have since agreed with him that this Swedish case is politically driven.

He seems therefore not to have taken the women's complaints seriously even when the prosecutor's office first became involved (although he did do what was legally required of him). It is regrettable but understandable that he brushed the women's complaints aside. In his view he had not been violent or dominating.

He had argued, been pushy and persuasive, but in the end each time the woman insisted, he'd done as she wished. When she didn't insist he did as he preferred.
Therein lies the lesson.

There is no rape here and no assault. There may be a combination of a pushy man reluctant to wear a condom, who did it only when the woman pushed him to; and on the other hand women who were not strong enough and insistent enough to make it clear to him what they wanted, every time. Being aggrieved that they were somewhat like groupies, and he was far more interested in his work than in them, could not have helped.

Negotiating, "sorting it out" can be a bit rough and requires a lot of insisting unless we deal with weak people (who then get back at us indirectly). Deal with it.

Based on an article first submitted to OpEd News shortly after the Guardian data was freshly released Dec. 17: submission is now out of time limit.

Hanged Man

2010-05-08T13:36:00.004+01:00

Britain has (thankfully) got into a hung parliament. I have prayed for this for months. Single party rule has created the mess we're in over two parties regimes. They just cannot be trusted to do what they want alone. They will have to be curbed by cooperative working.

Now people are talking about a "moral right to govern" or pointing at a simple majority of numbers, as if Cameron Tory should form a government. Neither are allowed under constitutional law.
Brown is being vilified as he he is wrongfully "clinging on to power." But Brown is not doing anything except his duty according to the law.
My notes record what I have learned of the options.

A simple majority CANNOT be enough to govern. If it were we could have 5 or 6 parties with their numbers clustering together and the one getting 5 more than the others forming a government. Senseless.
Nor can we have a small majority such as Cameron's. The other two parties would band together and block whatever he wanted to do. Again not a runner.

Legally Cameron has no right to form a Government. A simple majority is not an overall majority, otherwise known as a parliamentary majority. That is a majority of over half the total of MPs - that is, 326.
Cameron got less than that so he has no mandate to govern, and no legal position to do so.
He can only do it under an agreement with another party.

Legally Brown has the right to form a Government right now. He doesn't have to wait while Cameron talks to Clegg. He could talk to Clegg himself right now as he has a legally superior right to govern over Cameron. Constitutional rules give him that right as the existing PM.
That's because, if no party gets an overall majority (326 MPs or more) the EXISTING Prime Minister has the right to form a government however s/he can.

That Brown has not forced the issue is very much to his credit. He can have a much needed break while Cameron tries to win Clegg over. Which is vanishingly unlikely as

a) the Tories will not permit a PR referendum.
Unless they felt confident they could rig it by heavy advertising, manipulation of the media (which they could do) they face suicide as a party if PR goes through. Under current voting rules it's twisted to give a Tory majority which they would lose forever under PR.

b) there is a vast gap between Tory and Liberal financial policy. Liberals will never accept hitting the poor and helping the rich. Their policies are the reverse which Tories will never accept either.
Also Cable wont accept less than the Chancellor's job. (Sec to the Treasury as offered by Cable is a powerless place which would simply gag him.)

THREE QUESTIONS: From Mushrooms to the Nature of Religion

2010-04-20T00:04:00.003+01:00

Psilocybin, or hallucinogenic mushroom, can give a genuine and life changing religious experience. This article is not all about drug based spirituality, but its thinking develops from the implications of psychedelics.

That psychedelic spirituality is genuine is a startling statement coming from a professional Christian authority. Mark Galli deserves all credit for his integrity in publicising the new interest emerging by science in hallucinogenics.

From there he examines three functions of religion. or as I put it, three useful questions we can ask about any religion, cult or tradition. This powerful triad gives us a definition or profile of the faith under scrutiny, in a nutshell.

Galli summarises the findings of a Johns Hopkins study in which a chronic depressive, at low ebb due to cancer, chemotherapy and other external factors that made life worthless to him, rediscovered a profound sense of meaning after taking a psilocybin mushroom.

Researchers from around the world are gathering this week in San Jose, Calif., for the largest conference on psychedelic science held in the United States in four decades. They plan to discuss studies of psychedelics for treating depression in cancer patients, obsessive-compulsive disorder, end-of-life anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and addiction to drugs or alcohol.

The results so far are encouraging. However the scientists participating make cautious comments, clearly wishing to distance themselves from the uncontrolled personal experimentation of the 60s and 70s. Participants are not only monitored carefully by human observation while placed in peaceful, gentle surroundings, but their brains are also scanned to study effects and alert to warning signs of distress.

Most of the participants report the experience as one of the top most meaningful personal events in their lives. Their reports mirrored closely the accounts of religious mystical experiences: a deep oneness, a lack of ego, a lack of the need to control others, instead an attunement with them. Researchers are reporting some success in using psilocybin to ease the anxiety of patients with terminal illnesses.

This strongly resembles the early work of Dr. Timothy Leary of 60s and 70s fame. It also resembles the teachings of many shamanic traditions, so much so that it is even irritating to see persons in white coats doing a gosh wow! type of research as if they are actually discovering something. But it is nonetheless a sign of progress. As one of the researchers says “Thanks to changes over the last 40 years in the social acceptance of the hospice movement and yoga and meditation, our culture is much more receptive now, and we’re showing that these drugs can provide benefits that current treatments can’t.”

So good, great, let’s hope that a saner approach to spirituality and drugs develops, especially as all those working in the field of illegal drugs are virtually unanimous that the so-called “war on drugs” is not only useless but actively damaging to our society. We use drugs to heal our illnesses of body and mind, so why do we divide off some of them and make them illegal? It only creates funding for crime, and contributes mightily to a huge industry of destructive porn and prostitution.

Returning to Galli his courage does not falter in exploring the implications of drug based mysticism for an established religion. As he does so he uses a powerful analysis of what religion is about.

As he says, if mystical experience of the Divine can be gifted by a mushroom, then Christianity, and by implication, no religion, can claim it’s “the one” which can bring us to the Divine. Ecstasy, or the quiet oneness of prayer or meditation, are experiences on offer with or without religious structures like church, temple or ritual. Or as Pagans would put it, the sacred is anywhere and everywhere.

Galli continues by observing that another great teaching of Christianity, to find the Divine in “deeds not creeds” is not unique to his faith. With honourable generosity he recognises that Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and “others” live moral lives. As he puts it “You don't need revelation to figure out that adultery, stealing, and murder are really bad ideas, and that there is something noble about caring for other human beings.” We might add perhaps you don’t need a vision of unity but it certainly helps.

Pagans are not mentioned even though in Britain we number as many as the Hindus he places first on his list. Presumably we come under that blurred “others.” But we shall not pout at being slighted. He is after all an establishment Christian writing within the churches hierarchies. He would have difficulty getting published if he included trance drugs AND Pagans in one article!

What I like very much and find most useful is Galli’s three categories of what religion is about. Firstly the mystical experience of the Divine. Secondly a personal morality which emerges from the mystical experience of unity with others. Pagans would enlarge this to include “all our relations” the tree. stone, star and animal cousins in the great Family of Life, the Web.

Thirdly a mythos, a story, a Way to go into a relationship with the Divine that partners the formless profundity of the direct mystical experience. Once we leave that state we cannot retain its immensity so we need our Stories to companion and support our journeys.

For Galli this is the Story of the Divine Son who came to visit humanity and awaits a visit from us. Pagans would point to other faiths which have given us similar Stories: Inanna, Isis, Cybele, Astarte, Mithras, Odin, Esus, Brighde, Aradia. We also gladly honour other kinds of Stories like Lucifer Lord of Light; Rhiannon Lady of the Sun; Sulis the Healer, all the Ancestors, or the Guardians of Place, and so on.

I might quibble with a detail of Galli’s article here and there. His concept of religious experience is startlingly limited to Sunday worship. He says “If religious experience is something that a drug can induce even more easily than spiritual ritual and disciplines, it may be time, for example, to rethink what many churches are trying to do on Sunday morning: create a memorable "worship experience." “ Again we need to remember that he is speaking from within church hierarchy which needs to assert a need for churches and priests: a lot of salaries depend on it.

It would be well if the emerging Pagan temple building projects were to stay aware of this issue. We must never, never lose the radical understanding that experience of the Divine lies all around us in toilets, rubbish heaps, washing up bowls, babies’ tummy rumbles, tree roots, sunsets and sex. It’s not to be found in any better way through those who hold certificates or in buildings used as ritual spaces over time.

Though that’s a very important quibble I am happy to return to Galli’s three way examination of religion, so Celtic in its triad. In asking what is THIS religion, THIS faith about? we have three useful questions.

How does it help us encounter the Divine as a real Other, a living relationship with the unity of life?

How does it help us grasp a morality to guide us to make that unity more of an everyday reality, living in awareness of others’ needs in relation to ours?

What Stories does it offer us that help us stay in touch with the first two?

………………………………………………………………

“The End of Christianity as We Know It”
Mark Galli | posted 4/15/2010 09:10AM
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/aprilweb-only/25-41.0.html
Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today, and author of “A Great and Terrible Love: A Spiritual Journey into the Attributes of God” (Baker).

Psychedelic Science in the 21st Century. April 15-18, 2010 • San Jose, California
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/12psychedelics.html

Goddess, feminist, women-only

2010-04-01T00:15:00.008+01:00

A post about the Goddess movement. About manhating. About what others think about women-only Goddessing (or feminism) and the particular case of transgender women.

Quotes are from this page by a Goddess priestess, except where I show I'm quoting Robin Morgan.

"The Goddess movement, as I would define it, focuses on an awareness of the primordial creation force which is found within ourselves and in the world around us. We call this force the Goddess, …”
Mostly YES but why limit the Goddess to the Creation theolgy? That leads to dualism. Goddess as immanent is so much greater, more whole, radically different from the supernatural boss figure (in drag).

“… I believe is inherent in the Goddess movement is the idea that most modern religions are primarily intended to bring power and profit to some corrupt ruling elite. At best they are misguided, and at worst, they are nothing more than patriarchal systems of domination and control. “

If that is true it is remarkably ignorant and limited. While much of Christianity is bound up with corruption, terrorisation and control, there is much that is not: house church for example or some Celtic church traditions. Buddhism is sexist in the final analysis but not cruelly so, and much of it affords a substantial degree of female freedom. Liberal Islam is almost as as aghast by what we hate about women’s suppression as we are.

“.. there was a much more natural and genuine form of spirituality which existed long before people began to seek power and profit through religion. … offer great hope”

OH YES.

“"women only" … discrimination … a serious problem”

OH DEAR.

“Unfortunately, Goddess groups which are not open to men have already made a very bad impression on the general public.”

Yes but why? Why are a minority of women who get together to do their own thing seen as such a threat? Why is “women together” seen as dangerous? Why is this immediately described by outsiders as manhating – on very little evidence?
The majority of women-only work is peaceful and frankly not interested in men as part of the group. Members may or may not have much to do with men. that’s not the point.
But for men, who typically find it very tough to be treated as irrelevant! not their usual experience, this IS the point. Understandable they find it uncomfortable and in the case of weak stunted men, enraging.

I am one of the lucky few who shares my life with a strong, caring man who wouldn’t dream of criticising me when I want to be women-only. I know he’d be very shocked to read that a Goddess woman criticised women-only work and assumed it was about manhating. (I include his reaction not as central to a debate between women, but as an interesting additional point.)

So let’s now look at manhating. Perfectly sensible. A natural response to a world where far too many men hate women. Why shouldn’t we hate them in return? If you’ve suffered at their hands right on. If you care deeply about those who have suffered at men’s hands, right on.

Why do we have to be NICE? That’s part of the whole oppression feminine insy pinsy sweetie pie footbinding put on women for centuries. Strong women don’t need to be NICE - unless we genuinely feel it.

Yes liberation will in the end include us all. Yes there are men who care, who help, who have reworked themselves into maturity. Goddess bless them I say.
But I will not accept any feminist or Goddess thought police telling me or other women we have no right to hate, nor that it has no place among us. Hate is strong. Hate is healing. Hate rebalances.

I would not support the torture or murder of men to punish them, for two reasons.
They are children of the Goddess too. Whatever a man has done to outrage a woman or women he was once an innocent baby. Somewhere deep buried that original Child is still there. It may tragically be too far buried beneath his damaged distorted adult self so that all we can do is quarantine him. But for the sake of what he once was I do not support torture or killing him.
Secondly being civilised means not killing the killers, not torturing the torturers, unless we're in the heat of immediate reaction.. We don’t build peace by using (extreme) violence. A measured dose of discipline to curb a dangerous person, yes, or to protect others. But in a civilised society we examine even that to see if restraint or discipline is tipping over into unnecessary violence.
I think women do need to think seriously about how we are going to wield authority over dangerous men. The world cannot be safe and sane until we do.

But hate? yes at times I do and I strongly support others who feel it too.
Robin Morgan my beloved mentor elder sister helps out here.
“I hate not men but what they do.”

To my memory there was a great deal achieved by strong separatist women holding apart, being angry, hating.
I actually SAW men working it out. Oooh er ... If I don’t treat my lady better – she might go and join THEM.
Fear in moderate doses is educational.

“Many feminist groups have made it clear that they don't regard transgender women as genuine women,”

Good. I’m glad this is clear that “some” feminist groups take this position.
So it is clear that some don’t. Which means there are places for transgender women to go. So, no problem.

Or yes there is. Two problems.

Before looking at these two problems I feel I should “come out” as one of those who does not accept a transgender woman as a full woman. Yells of horror from the gallery? no I will not be silenced. I don’t.

I would go out of my way to support their rights to fair and decent treatment. I would defend a transgender woman being bullied – if she needed me to. But that doesn’t mean I HAVE TO accept her as a woman.
I will also call her a woman, as a courtesy, as ‘she’ or ‘her.’ etc. Politeness is a civilised grease that eases our connections and as such I value it highly.

But just like a transvestite, or an effeminate gay man, this is not being a woman. Being a woman is about being a PERSON shaped by FEMALE experience.

Female experience means being a little girl, relating to others as a little girl with all the power and vulnerability that involves. It means approaching puberty via menstruation, early, late, or painfully finding it doesn’t happen as expected. The growth of breasts, early, late, or adapting to something not working right in a female body. All the complex weaving of female hormones as we grow up mixed with deeply conditioned stereotyped feminine trappings going baxck to being a tiny baby. The massive issue of mothering, of living in fear of pregnancy or yearning for it. The pain if it is found to be not possible, or for a few the relief.

None of this happens for transgenders as it does for "born women." They are not women but men who have adopted some of the physical characteristics of women. That is different.

I could not possibly share women’s space and open out my inner feelings as a woman in that space if it included a transgender. It wouldn’t be women’s space – to me.

I am glad there are women’s spaces that are not so restrictive. I'm glad transgenders have women's space to go. But I do not see why I or other women MUST accept a restriction on how WE can be fully women, in order to include someone on a profound level with us. That is forced spirituality and a horror.

Taking this to an extreme what if all women-only groups refused access to transgenders? Or all women-only groups a particular transgender can get to? Well then there would have to be special groups for transgender women. There's always online options too.
But this extreme argument is pretty artificial. Goddessry and feminism - contrary to the critics view of them - are robustly independent so groups are not uniform, following party lines. Well some are but there are plenty of others. So the variety is likely to provide an accepting group.
Last resort for the lonely transgender is - start one! It's no more than many born-women have to do if what they want is not available to them. Nowadays there are plenty of books with loads of ideas on what to do to get going.

Back to the two problems I mentioned of women-only space that excludes transgenders.
One is that it is hurtful for transgender women to feel excluded. That’s especially hard in a society that already hurts them so much.
So OK we accept that, face it, work with it.
It doesn’t have to mean we hurriedly tidy it out the way. Forcing women to accept a transgender among them in their most sensitive personal sharing times, hurts THEM. So why select who is best to hurt? Why is the outsider, the newcomer, more important than the womwen who have created the group for what they want of it?
I do think keeping the dialogue going is important and shows respect for transgenders. So we can better understand each other, too. But understanding doesn't mean feeling that we are born-women have to fall over backwards to be a service system for what transgenders need. We MUST break out of always putting others first if we are to be fully human and not female slaves. (See Valerie Saiving's excellent analysis.)

Second problem is excluding transgenders plays into the hands of those only too eager to put us down. You see they’ll say, these radical sisters are harsh, narrowminded, cruel and nasty. Not POLITICALLY CORRECT. Oops oh dear bring on a trolley full of wittery feminine apologies and we’ll buckle down to being good ittle girlies and toe the line. I DON'T think.

We’re the women that men warned us about! (Robin Morgan again).
Nowadays it’s not just men of course who warn us about becoming one of “those women.”
Bitch they say. Slut they say. Hag they say. Monster Fat Old Worthless Dangerous Evil Witch BadMother DumbBlonde Manhater … all this hurls at us to push us back in line. To make us be the good girls who beg for approval. Who act NICE.
So play together NICELY girlies and share the sandpit with the nice transgenders who are so cute and sweet how can you resist them poor things?

No thanks. A woman’s right to choose includes who I choose to accept as a woman.
Not on the big things like jobs, medical treatment, freedom from harassment and violence. But in the personal area of who I choose to share MYSELF with.

Which to me means I will defend transgenders politically and socially against injustice that bars them from getting what they need. But getting needs met doesn’t involve the right to join any private group you want. It has to balance against the members of that private group and what THEY want.
Otherwise the next thing is we have to include is transvestites, or effeminate men. Which might be fine with some but not with others. I don’t expect to be included in a group that only wants black women, or only wants seriously disabled women, or only wants young women, or only bisexuals. I accept their right to exclude me so why is it so awful to exclude transgenders?

We have to be free to create our safe spiritual PRIVATE spaces around OUR needs. That must not be dictated by anything except OUR needs.

Romeo and Juliet: Zeffirelli's passion

2010-02-21T01:16:00.004Z

I adored Romeo and Juliet (Zeffirelli 1968) when I saw it all those years ago.
In fact when I watched it last night (2010) on DVD I realised I must have seen it several times as many of the scenes were so familiar. But I hadn't seen it again for at least 30 years so I came to it with fresh eyes.

When I first saw it I was young and passionately swept up in the two lovers, so beautiful, so sexual, so irresistible.
This time I still reverberated to their love, but the most powerful impact was the gangs of idle, dangerous young noblemen. They spread across the screen. They appeared very soon as the film opened, and recurred with mounting violence.

Discussing it afterwards with my husband this problem of young male violence was, we agreed, central to the purpose of the play. It was also clear to a critical eye, that the Prince was weak. For all his pomp, his curvetting about on his lordly horse, his blaring voice making threats, he does nothing effective to control the violence.
This we thought was partly because the English view of Renaissance Italy at the time was just that: violent, colourful and treacherous.

But Shakespeare was also a Tudor writer and the Tudor dynasty derived their stability from the people's deep aversion to any return to civil war, feuding or internal violence. Shakespeare was at the time of writing Romeo and Juliet, the Queen's loyal man. So his play supported the conservative view that a strong "prince" (monarch) was better than the dangers of violent division. Better Elizabeth's strength, even though it meant a near-dictatorship – secret police, torture and disappearances. The alternative was riot in the streets, and widespread bloodshed as in the Wars of the Roses.

So I do not agree with this reviewer Dennis Grunes that the theme of anti-violence is not sustained by Zeffirelli. It was to me overwhelmingly clear.
http://grunes.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/romeo-and-juliet-franco-zeffirelli-1968/#comment-5385
The review has more justice in accusing Zeffirelli of sugarcoating Romeo. Yes he is a flowerchild but I see this as the natural view in 1968, not necessarily a crass exploitation of youth culture by Zeffirelli. That WAS the icon of our times back then.
I was interested that Romeo's killing of Juliet's other suitor was excised. But the adjustment to Romeo's conflict with Thibault more than balances this out, as Romeo's savagery is quite obvious.

Like this reviewer Dennis Grunes I do not share the dominant view that Zeffirelli portrayed his youngsters as in rebellion against "the establisment" or "the system." Certainly they were horrified at the arranged marriage proposal, but Juliet before falling in love with Romeo is not averse to it in her family’s plans for her future. It is not the adults' arrangement as a custom the lovers’ reject, but simply Juliet's marriage to anyone else but Romeo.

In this they stand centrally in the tradition of Romance which opposes arranged marriage in the individual case of a heroine and hero, but not necessarily as an institution. (If an arrangement is carefully made and allows the pair to meet and be attracted, Romance would not object.)

But there is nonetheless some exploitation in the film. Lawrence Whiting has spoken on record as objecting to the dawn bed scene. I recall Olivia Hussay at the time speaking unhappily about it too which sounded to me as if Zeffirelli pushed them into it. Certainly the quick flash of Olivia's nipples seems crude and unnecessary, actually startling and distracting; as does the camera focus on Leonard's bottom. But if these items had been left out I think a scene of sexuality and nakedness, enfolded in a soft linen draped sanctuary bed, fits very well with the passionate innocence of the lovers.

As a detail I liked the Capulet parental marriage strain. It was a deft use of cinema imagery to amplify the text. It enriched the drama without overloading it with subplot.
Another detail I liked was the excellent costumes together with the actors' seeming habitual comfort in them. That is quite rare in a historical film where actors often look most uncomfortable! Olivia Hussay has mentioned that she was tightly laced and very hot in the Italian summer.
Yet another praiseworthy item was a graceful and believable interpretation of mediaeval dances. Thee whole atmosphere of the ball was well realised with very human anxiety by Lady Capulet as organiser, the excitement of the marraccas handed out etc.

The reviewer says things "just happen" such as the Friar's message arriving too slowly to tell Romeo what is going on so he will know Juliet is not really dead. But the written play, preferred by the reviewer, has a plague intervene to prevent the message arriving. I do not see how a plague is less random than a slow donkey. Both act as the accidental but natural agencies of a merciless Fate.

Mercutio curses "both your houses" - with plague and the link to what pivots the tragedy is therefore lost. It was Zeffirelli's choice to leave out any supernatural consequences but I think this works well. Mercutio's curse is a distraction and a muddling of the doom that develops from the violence of those dangerously feuding, idle young men. This is the dire warning of the play which a curse would obscure, as if the ultimate tragedy of the lovers’ death happened only because Mercutio drew down magic on them. Instead Zeffirelly leaves the purity of violence as the cause of doom.

Over all I found the key theme to be a beautification AND a strong warning against passionate impulse. Again and again the young people react without thoughtfulness, with abandon and passion.
Boys set up a fight for the hell of it then feel, significantly, horrified to see that they have caused a death. They play, and playtime turns lethal, still a theme today.
The lovers yearn together, embracing as they explicitly throw aside the danger they run if found together.
Romeo bounds off to hunt Thibault down in an excess of fury, never thinking what this might do to his chances with Juliet.
Juliet, though slightly more controlled than Romeo as she holds out for marriage, pushes him to arrange a secret marriage with no thought for how this could work out.
Later when the Friar offers her a dangerous drug she instantly reaches for it in urgent passion for an impulsive solution.
I did like the reviewer’s point very much that the Friar too is impulsively childlike. He takes almost no time to reflect: he glances at his herbs and in seconds plunges the child Juliet into a harebrained scheme. Later when it has gione wrong he runs away like a small child, wailing.
Shakespeare was perhaps plugging into the Elizabethan ideology of Catholics as no fit priestly guides.

In sum Zeffirelli offers us both the beauty of passion and its ugliness.
The film is lush, vivid with throbbing reds and golds within and luxuriant gardens without. Olivia's sweeping hair and rich curves beside Leonard's winsome body evoke the beauty of passionate sexuality. The young men fight in the streets with faces alight with excited playfulness, alive in the moment, and nothing else.

But young men die of their delight. Sso do the lovers. Agony as the price of passion is shown as a warning. The Prince, symbolic as the head/ Head of State, is weak, unable to control the passions at war in the body politic.
Nonetheless although this is all there, where Romeo and Juliet is flawed is in the absence of a rational voice to contrast a cooler point of view. The portrait of passion is too finely balanced in its light and dark, so much so that it is easy to be swept up, as I once was, in the glory of it, and even include the death scenes in that glory. They died young but lived fully is a poisonous creed. Why not live longer and live even more fully?

Shakespeare might have written within the Greek tradition that honoured restraint and self control. The Symposium, examining Love, held romantic love up to ridicule.
But if so, if passion is to be seen as the exquisitely bottled poison it can be, the play, and the much later film, needed a commentary or cautionary character to put the other point of view: that caution, sober judgement, is as necessary to the good life as waves of passion.
Living without either reduces us to being less than human.

Bronze Age shipwreck (Salcombe Devon)

2010-02-14T18:34:00.003Z

A Bronze Age shipwreck has been discovered near Salcombe, Devon. It appears to have been carrying tin and copper as part of an international trading network. Dated to 900BCE this is a key archaeological discovery by the SW Maritime Archaeological Group, now being assessed at Oxford.

Fascinating - but yet again the dominant influence of sea and rivers in the shaping of early cultures is distorted. In this case we have experts saying wow! we need to recognise that people were boating around really quite early.
Doh!
From what I've read the structure of the ship is based on generalised guesswork as nothing has yet been brought up of the actual ship.

The guesswork suggests a prehistoric canoe or curragh, of lightweight wooden construction. Paddles are mentioned but not sails. But even quite a narrow boat (estimated at 40ft long and 6ft wide) would have had at least small sails. There's no way it could have crossed from France purely on musclepower: well it could have but it would have needed a lot more than 15 sailors to provide power. Why do it with wind to help?

The issue that really annoys me is how experts speak of a maritime or water based trade network as if this is such a weird idea.

Land based travel networks are an anachronism when looking at ancient or indeed early history. Until the invention of railways only properly in use about 160 yrs ago, land travel was slow, expensive and risky. Narrow lumpy tracks, with trees on each side to conceal robbers were extremely inefficient. A few empires with great effort kept roads open cutting back on undergrowth to each side. But this was in recorded history, and even then exceptional.

The travel of choice would have been water, which was fast (under sail) and in skilled hands relatively risk free.

Our whole idea of geography is skewed by modern land travel. Cultures spread along coasts and river banks, with other cultures of a very different type clustered inland. A powerful example of water based culture is the Celtic Crescent which stretches from the Hebrides across Ireland and Wales, Cornwall, north west France, around the coast of Spain and into north Africa and southern France.

In these regions we find common language roots, common legends, similar music/ instruments, and shared philosophy e.g. not representing the gods in art.

Curraghs/ coracles were tough boats and coastal peoples would have early got skilled at navigation. Start thinking of the sea and large rivers as like modern motorways and cultural boundaries start to look very different.

Tough love?

2010-01-03T00:17:00.002Z

Peter Mandelson has decreed that parents should be tough, and deny their grown children comforts and care in order to force them out of the home. He suggests not doing their laundry for example.

He's half right - and half badly, cruelly wrong.
Yes a child needs to learn that sharing a home involves duties of care and responsibility. That usually has to involve some tough struggles on the way. But it isn't in order to force them out. It's the parent's job to train a child to carry (practical) responsibility.
Do it and that child becomes a welcome companion to share the home. So there is no need to kick them out.

I suspect this is more of the Government agenda to war on families. We are not supposed to hold together, care for one another. Because separate lonely taxpayers will buy more to console their empty lives so that fuels this dirty economy.
The joke is the dirty economy is broke. There aren't the jobs for young people and if there were, housing is way too expensive.

I should be horrified and devastated if my son decided to move out.
I'd cope, of course I would. But welcome it as some parents say? I can't imagine that. I'd lose a strong, caring house companion.

I should be horrified and devastated if my son decided to move out.
I'd cope, of course I would. But welcome it as some parents say? I can't imagine that.

I'd have to struggle with huge loads of heavy shopping - miss his great cooking - do the washing up ... cleaning up ... cat care ... heavy rubbish bins ... local errands he now does .... one of the sweetest companions for shopping trips, cinema etc would be gone.
I'd be exhausted and lonely.

In other words he knows he's a respected adult. That carries with it duties of care and responsibility.
He learned from a tiny child to do his bit. Yes there was the struggle 12-16 when we had to be tough and insist. At one point we said no duties from you, no good food for you. Dinner would mean bread n butter for you, steak for us right in front of you!
We never had to do it but he got the point because he knew from other similar dialogues - we'd do it.

A child has to learn to be an adult. Sometimes that is brutal in its war. But do it and the result is a companion of joy.

I am reminded of when he was little and I faced the great bogey of the mother of a son. Should I keep pushing him away from me to "be a man"?
This was a really hard decision. As a strong woman I risked bringing up a mother-hag-ridden man. On the other hand, pushing him away, amputating his sweetness, risked him becoming a robot lout.

I went to look at other societies inanthropology. What I found was very interesting. Sons pushed away belong to societies when men HAVE to go away. Hunting. War. Long distance lorry drivers. Long faraway stints in the city while family live in the country. In these situations men are bred to be detached, and boys are pushed away from mothers.
Grown men too are taught not to touch small children. It is said that if a man cares for a plays with his small child he will not be strong enough to go away to work, to hunt, or to war.
Well I knew I didn't want that kind of son so my path was clear. I let myself hug away and the ectasy of the close bond flowed free.

But also I fiercely guarded his freedom and independence. In a hug I was alert to the slightest quiver of his body to move away. At that point I let me arms loosen and he had free choice and often did move away. Other similar situations followed that pattern.
There was the predictable message coming from other boys but we weathered that. My son felt sorry for them in what they were missing. (Being home educated was crucial here to building his independent point of view.)
All along I have never seen trouble signs of him being weak, wimpish, unable to stand on his own two feet.

"A lazy little git" as he himself puts it - yes.
During the years from 10 onwards we intensified the efforts to teach him to contribute to the house. There was never any problem with heaving heavy shopping or other heavy work. He likes displaying his wonderful strength.
But other jobs meant endless reminding, nagging, and sometimnes furious threats. (Very similar to getting homework done.)
During those years I always very much sympathised with his point of view even when it was infuriating as well. After all for him, the world consisted of a comfortable home where food, warmth, hot water, clothes, rubbish clearance, money all happened as if by magic. Legends like Beauty and the Beast, or Psyche, reflect our lost childhood world of pampering by invisible servants.
How unwelcome, how infuriating, that this pleasant way of life was being interrupted by nagging parents ... do this, do that ... Why should things change?

The child wants to be a pampered "lazy little git" forever. Naturally.
It is perhaps actually harder for a child like mine who has had freedom of choice handed to him early. By the teens there are few rewards to hand out in return for greater duties. We just had to insist.
It can be brutal as a war of wills. In that Mandelson is right. Tough love is vitally necessary.
But the aim is not to push them away, to drive them out by making the home uncomfortable. What a bleak, limited idea of a home or family that is.

However it does fit the Government agenda of families as no more than dormitories for workers. If both parents are out working full time (long hours working) then there is only the brief weekend together. Much of that is cut out by cfhores. So not much family time together. Just an efficient unit in the tax, debt servicing, consumer buying economy. Cash cow people in herds. MOO!

Teaching our children to be responsible, sharing, caring people is not about forcing them out. It's about helping them become someone lovable, someone who shares the load.
Once you get there they are a joy so why should you want them to go?
Of course if they want to - to travel, to do interesting work elsewhere, or in order to make a new home with a partner, that is their freedom.
But actively want them to go? Madness. Reminds me of that time at 5yrs when just as the child becomes a lot less work, but still lots of fun, I was expected to hand them over to a school. No fear. We went on enjoying each other.

The idea that helps as a guide is "flatmate." At 13 or even 10, start thinking "flatmate." By 18 he should be one.
What I mean is, when I feel he should be doing more, getting out of my way, that this is "my house" etc I check. Would I expect this of a flatmate?
The answer is always vitally educational.

Money is obviously not like being a flatmate. But flatmates do live on unequal finances. If it's not too unequal, one splits 50/50. If that is obviously unfair, then the contributions are adjusted in proportion to ability to pay.
In our case I have far more ability to make money. So I do little housework and he does more. I think we are both content with that.

One day perhaps I will have to grin and bear it if my son's life changes and he wants to go. I shall think of Spartan mothers and need my friends' help. I'm sure he will be kind to me about it.
But oh! how I joy in every day he stays.

Avatar

2009-12-31T01:35:00.005Z

I was reluctant to go, not being a lover of splashy special effects and not much else. Also violence nowadays goes way past my tolerance so I was all ready to leave and go home if necessary.

I liked it. A lot. There was a great deal more than special effects. The violence was there but it illustrated genuine conflict rather than the usual gory porn - of which there was none.

It has its flaws. I'll leave the in-depth discussion to after the READ MORE link so if you haven't seen it stop here.

But I'd recommend it.
Special effects A
Violence control B
Gender balance A
Characters B
Dialogue C (but with some good moments)
Politics B
Beauty A
The Na'vi are Noble Savages of classic kind: physically stronger and more agile than civilised humans; morally aware, deeply interconnected; religious without being cowed; linked to ancestors, passionate, loyal, aggressive and generous.

Cameron uses a blend of various tribal cultures to bring them alive for us. They have dreadlocked hair, painted skin, plaited and crafted decorative jewellery, belts etc.
This can easily be seen as stereotyping even racist. But how else do we create poetic images of an ancestral culture? The Na'vi are as much drawn from white Celtic ancestry as from colonial peoples on other continents. (The Celts were the early colonised too of course but they were white subordinates, mainly of the English.)

The military-industrial complex as the Enemy is vividly presented in ways that Left or radical rhetoric find it hard to do. The massive machines crunch and threaten what is human, supposedly to serve humans by extracting vital resources. The soldiers are manipulated with pep talks about 'survival' against 'hostiles' in a realistic way.
The human world is "dead" and all human scenes are shown in metallic colours that emphasise their techno, alienated state. The contrast with the quiveringly alive colours of the Na'vi world is obvious.

Ultimately although Avatar makes a brave picture of persons standing up to a machinelike civilisation, the ending is naive. The desperation for minerals (or fuels) would bring back a great force of conquest. But that is to disregard the nature of the film which is heroic saga, fantasy epic, rather than sustained political realism.
Cameron points his doom warning like an ancient prophet, rather than a political economist. But the warning is there loud and clear.

In religious terms Avatar is very good, a Pagan world realised. We have the Earth Mother who is immanent spirit in all things. We only borrow our lives and must give them back. The Na'avi thank the beasts they kill to eat as their relatives - trees, plants, animals are "all our relations."
But the Goddess is said not to interfere in the struggles on the planet, yet then she does - which disappointed me. I liked the first point better. However the animals drawn into the final battle could well have responded to the Na'avi under threat as their "cousins" so it becomes a moot point whether this is the deity or not. Such is the difficulty with an immanent "everywhere" divinity.

Though beasts are nominally respected in the most intense scenes with them, they are not. They are dominated. A young warrior is expected to duel with a flying dragon beast and subdue it much like "breaking" a horse. Why was there no "dragon whispering"? Why no partnership with the beast?
Nonetheless although the Paganism is flawed it is thrillingly there in a better realised screen presentation than I have ever seen before.

Politically Avatar is weak. The military and scientific groups among humanity are conventional and realistic enough. But the tribal politics are crude, a king and priestess and a bunch of warrior hunters. What did they use to navigate conflict in decisions? Was there a Council?
It appears that our hero can send out orders and get them obeyed by other tribes. How? Why? Because he had taken on the powers of legend. But how otherwise did the Na'vi mediate conflict and determine their laws?
Tal tells me that there is much more detail in the Pandorapedia that was not evident in the film.

Avatar is excellent on gender. We have a heroine who is strong, skilful, active and innovative - she does not just reflect the feelings or follow but initiates. Several times, including the crucial last event, she rescues our hero. Where else on the big screen does the final duel have heroine rescue hero? - except in comedy perhaps. Yet it is more interesting than that for that last duel has hero rescue heroine, who then repays the favour. Neat.
Nor is the heroine an isolated example of strong women. There's a scientist who has the breadth of mind to understand much of the Na'vi meaning. She attempts to block the military agenda but unsurprisingly fails.
There's also a great pilot who flies into battle with heroic wisecracking courage.
Among the Na'vi there's a queenly priestess plus a glimpse of another female leader.

I'm perhaps asking too much of the big screen in feeling even so there was a lack of gender depth. Unlike the Serenity/ Firefly opus which I recently much enjoyed discovering, the females in Avatar only connect to males and service their needs. Principally the hero's. But Serenity/ Avatar shows that gender balance can be imagined in-depth. Avatar had to please its backers no doubt so we couldn't go too far on gender. So B rather than A.

Oh but did I mention the sex scene was a bore? I liked the restraint, as heaving blue giant bodies would have made me heave. But why didn't they join their telepathic plaits - or do something other than a boring American kiss n cuddle?

Where Avatar gets murky, inspite of its many remarkably good points, is the white American rescuer hero. As Will Heaven at the Telegraph points out in no uncertain terms, the theme of the white rescuer is dubious. Tribal people, this theme tells us, cannot lead themselves out of trouble: they need the superior white guy to do that for them.

The point is hard to tease out. Yes Jake is a white American male, and a soldier at that. A conqueror. He bags the native princess and by her Pocahontas sponsorship wins acceptance in the tribe so he can later be its saviour.
But in Avatar he does it by becoming a Na'vi far more intimately than living among the tribe, adopting their dress and learning their language. He lives in a Na'vi body. So as he becomes the incarnation of an ancient Na'vi folk hero, he does it as a Na'vi. He looks to us like a Na'vi and his retuirn visits to his human body almost become an irritating diversion. As he says his human life has become the dream, his Na'vi life has become his reality.

There is also the pragmatic point that he can become the saviour of the Na'vi specifically because he has inside knowledge of the human military machine. This neatly reverses his original mission to spy on the Na'vi from the inside!
He can therefore exploit a blend of Na'vi ancestral knowledge of the territory, with his own trained knowledge of his own (?) people's weapons and tactics.
Tal comments: Knowing, for example, that while the Na'vi bows cannot harm military gunships when shooting from the ground upwards, when shooting from Ikran-back (Na'vi flying beasts), with the added speed of the beasts flight behind the arrow, they can pierce a gunships canopy.

Yet even allowing that Jake becomes a Na'vi as much as an outsider possibly could, even living in a Na'vi body, and that his leadership twins Na'vi folk legend, intimacy with territory and human knowledge of human military resources, even so. He is still white American male rescuing the native tribe. He's not a Na'vi person emerging from Na'vi life to save the day.
This is perhaps too much for America to stomach. After all they only just permitted themselves a black president. Autonomous heroes of colour will have to wait a bit.

Nor do we see much of other Na'vi wisdom; command politics again. A council of war would have been interesting with different ideas hashed out. Perhaps we can forgive that one in the cause of heroic legend.
He does, Tal reminds me, claim a "right to speak" among the senior Na'vi before everyone gathered. Implicit is the idea that all Na'vi have this right. But we don't see how conflict is discussed and mediated. Since Cameron is criticising the dominance type of system exemplified by the military industrial complex, I feel he should have shown more of its alternative option.

Over all as I said I liked it very much criticisms notwithstanding. I do not bother to critique what I do not respect. I came away strengthened, inspired, confirmed in so much that means so much to me.
The interconnectedness of life. Ecology. Strong women partnering men who can be vulnerable as well as strong for themselves. Sheer beauty. Violence portrayed as a conflict rather than mere gore. Dreamlike other reality.

Avatar for all its faults has a real grandeur. It's glorious especially to a Pagan. So go see it and get the DVD.

Vengeance is mine, says the judge

2009-12-20T23:37:00.011Z

It's now a week since I collapsed weeping in the supermarket. I hasten to add nothing bad has happened to me and mine, or not directly. No I wept for a stranger, aman named Munir Hussein.

Catherine Bennett's blog today in the Guardian, is a useful model article of all the bad arguments in the Munir Hussain case.

Munir Hussein, a pillar of respectability, a businessman known as The Peacemaker, is at the heart of a legal uproar about burglary and violence.
He came home with his wife and children to find burglars. They tied him up, and his family, beat him up, stated they would be killed, and held them at knifepoint. But his son got away and got help, his uncle who lived nearby.
Once the thugs saw their game was up they fled with a freed Munir, his brother and two neighbours in hot pursuit, bearing a cricket bat and a metal pole as makeshift weapons.
Two got away but Samir was broght down and battered, causing some brain damage.

Munir Hussain and his brother have been jailed for years. The judge explained that if he did not jail them it would undermine our "civilised society."

Munir's mother had just died. His wife was recovering from a stroke, and under the strain of the case, she has had a second one. Munir's successful business may have to close, putting 100 households into unemployment. These are not legalities but the whole mess made me weep for Munir and his family.

The ensuing debate has touched on the rawest nerve in Britain today. Public discussion has been fast and furious, the enormous majority on one side of the drawn lines.

Mr. Mercer MP when he asked for the most important change in the law that British people wanted, got the overwhelming response that people wanted the right to defend their homes - with violence, and without fear of going to jail for it.
Mercer's proposed law was then suppressed by the Government.

Catherine Bennett (Guardian) opens her comment today by mourning the damaged cricket bat. That immediately sets her tone as trivial and abusive of the serious issues involved.
Read on for a methodical analysis of the issues.

Catherine Bennett (Guardian) opens comment today by mourning the damaged cricket bat Munir used to batter Samir with, which sets her tone as trivial and abusive of the serious issues involved. A lot more irrelevant chaff follows.

Mind you there has been some excellent humour in the debate. Try this one.
"The poor lambs who argue that Mr. Hussain should have made a citizens arrest and held the knifeman until the police arrived haven't a clue. They have no conception at all of what a knife carrying street fighter is like. The starry eyed darlings would have their blood and guts all over the pavement before they had finished saying "Stop and give yourself up or I shall be forced to give you a reasonably hard but not life threatening or otherwise seriously damaging blow about your person with my cricket bat."
[Klough commenting on Catherine Bennett, Guardian today]

Picking out the actual points scattered in Catherine's article we find reference to “a carful of supporters” – untrue. No car brought help, his help was Munir’s brother and two neighbours.
Four respectable men with makeshift weapons up against three violent thugs with knives seems entirely proportional, even heroic.

Catherine then rightly says this is “a land where faith in law enforcement has all but broken down” and there is “a general rage against police uselessness, against lenient sentencing.”
Less than 10% of burglars suffer any negative result so “those of us who … are forced to rely on conventional justice” are left radically unprotected.

Catherine then insults the mass of men for their protective anger for their families’ safety. I would rather honour it, and the men who feel it. Nor do I appreciate Catherine insulting women as well as men; if alone without my bloke, I’d not use a “rolled yoga mat”– I have a trusty and very heavy iron frying pan.

But she is right that Munir’s violence was not strictly self defence.
As she says the jury HAD to convict. Currently, that's the law.
BUT the judge did not HAVE to jail Munir.

Catherine supports the judge’s view that without jailing Munir we’d have a Hobbesian brutality where “the rule of law counts for nothing.” But this is nonsense. "Civilised society" already counts for very little – 10% clearup rates, police no go areas, violent criminals like the one who attacked Munir's family, with 50 convictions yet roaming free.

Jailing Munir is no remedy at all. That's like elastoplast on gangene. Instead, supporting Munir’s justified rage that his life and his family’s lives were threatened, would provide a hefty deterrent to thugs. People, police and even criminals agree. So what doesn't this judge and his good little girl admirer Catherine Bennett, not understand?

I would MUCH prefer to see police supported properly to do their job effectively. Once they were, up to about 1980. But for a generation the police have been more and more obstructed.
It is also questionable if they could cope even if properly supported. A 20% underclass and rising is flooded with alcohol as cheap as water, available almost 24 hours a day. They have no hope since the education system has been wrecked, and are continually and insistently told everywhere they look, that they are worthless scum unless they have all the latest material goods.

The result is predictable. Theft and violence in epidemic propertions. It is also going to get much worse.

So as this goes far beyond the bounds of police resources next best is to allow us to both defend ourselves, AND deter violence, as Munir did. Police and law cannot do it for us any more.

Much is made of the fact that Samir was running away afterwards. But Munir was still in the immediate aftermath of a death threat. He'd been tied up, threatened for his life, seen his beloved wife and chil;dfren in danger of their lives as well.
The law then asked Munir, in the immediate reaction to such ultimate fear, within minutes, to weigh up his response. He was required to measure out his own violence in a "reasonable" and "appropriate" way.

This is completely unrealistic. Highly trained police can't always do this - and they are not coping with their beloved wife and children in mortal danger. So why do we ask ordinary people to handle more than the professionals?

Peak adrenalin needs up to 15 mins to subside. Until it does no “reasonable” or “appropriate” reaction can be expected. A law that recognised that could give Munir a suspended sentence.

But wait – this judge could have done just this! A suspended sentence is available if Munir is otherwise peaceful and no threat to general society. Many witnesses including police say he is. Very much so. He has been known for years as the Peacemaker.

We must ask why the judge is so far cut off from the reality of ordinary people's lives who are living in a society ruled by fear. Is he blinded by his money? Privilege? Stupidity? I don't know.

Seriously this must be checked because judges should comprehend real life, and protect us, saying in effect BURGLARS BEWARE!

Kipling: assessing someone in another time

2009-11-18T23:01:00.001Z

It is right and proper to use the values of our own time to assess someone in another time. That is natural, and it is also essential.

However we must ALSO try to understand the person in the context of their times.

It is right and proper to use the values of our own time to assess someone in another time. That is natural, and it is also essential.

If we did not do it how could we condemn our Celtic ancestors for head hunting? child sacrifice by Aztecs? Victorian values of slave blacks and women? the beating of children in the 50s?

However we must ALSO try to understand the person in the context of their times. Is their attitude to another class or race standard in their times? Then they are just normal at that time. the exceptional person who did challenge what we now see as injustice might be particularly honoured.

But the person who did not should not be condemned. They should simply be noted as passively part of their times, on that issue.

They might be admirable on other issues. Kipling had a very independent, intelligent response to Church narrowmindedness for example.

Let's accept that we do not live in a timeless zone. People should be judged by the standards of BOTH our time, and their own.

Cameron's Tory voluntary work

2009-11-13T00:54:00.001Z

"On a more local level [Camron's policy] would publish booklets giving advice on how a local community could organise on behalf of itself, whether it is parents setting up schools or tenants forming more active associations."

I am not hostile to this, far from it. It would be grand.
But it would need far reaching changes to back it up.

At present people are working far too long hours, are heavily stressed by unjust and corrupt companies and councils. Bullying is epidemic and so is its twin, depression.
If not working long hours people are being cut adrift into the hopelessness and lethargy of unemployment as jobs are cut, debts cannot be serviced, bailiffs become brigands, repossession stalks the land.

I know from bitter experience that organising volunteers in today's climate is almost impossible. People are too exhausted, time starved, depressed and despairing.

More factors need addressing.

Women, who were always traditionally the backbone of the voluntary sector have been pressed into far more paid employment than they actually want. That's the property bubble. It's not going to get better soon as legacy debts still have to be serviced.
In fact a large part of voluntary work lack, desert estates, feral young, is lack of mothering.

People, both women and men, have been de-educated out of working in groups. In trying to run groups I've found it almost impossible over the last decade compared to the previous two decades. People have little or no idea how to put a group beyond individual "complaint." That has been steered so that action groups don't form, and problems are reduced to (weak) individual complaints.

Finally the restrictions on voluntary work by the unemployed are destructive especially in a period of high unemployment. The more voluntary work the better but the huge army of the unemployed is actually prevented from maintaining their morale and contributing to society.
I can't see why the puritanical powers that be couldn't allow a long term unemployed person to stay on benefits given proof of satisfactory voluntary work. It's contributing after all and at a cheap cost.

Anyway reviving and expanding the voluntary sector is going to take a LOT more than encouraging leaflets, and funding. Ken Livingstone and the GLC did just that but those were very different times without the exhaustion and despair, with a pool of women available, and a strong cooperative group ethos available.

Looking at Red Ken's early projects in the GLC would help Cameron a lot. One important lack in that period was long term advice to projects in how to use their funding. Some schemes were simply unrealistic, embarrassingly so. Too many used it to create jobs that when the tap turned off, collapsed the whole project because it had become dependent on those paid workers. Funds need to be used instead, to recruit and coordinate volunteers, to find and renovate cheap ramshackle properties etc that will serve the project even if politics whips away the funds.

It's going to need a lot more than leaflets and funding.

Barefooting

2009-11-05T21:24:00.003Z

I have been a barefooter all my life - I'm 60 now.
My mother, now 86 was also one and her mother and brother too. I can tell you that my mama has always been exquisitely elegant in Paris type clothes, perfect make up - and gorgeous toe rings and ankle chains.

The family tradition continues with my huge 18yrs son who has never worn shoes for more than a couple of hours very occasionally for a high formal event like a funeral.

Sigh. We got the constant stupid ignorant question "Can't you afford shoes?" This goes back to the snobbery of the early 20thC when only the well off could afford shoes every day.

Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.

Read about it and make up your own mind.

Barefooting is not unhealthy, dirty or unsafe.

In fact it's far healthier than wearing shoes which cramp and distort feet creating all kinds of health problems including bad backs.

My son was always far better balanced, better at climbing, and even calmer than other kids in shoes. Shoes HURT when you're not used to them which applies to all small kids.
I watched my son climb Cheddar Gorge around 60ft up - at 8yrs. Perfectly safe, he was like a tough little ape. It's also stood him well for martial arts where he's a demon fighter mostly due to strong sure balance.

Barefooting not dirty. Skin does not make dirt stick like dead skin (leather) or plastics do. The dirt drops off much quicker as you walk into a building so when oters are still tracking it in, you're not.

Bare feet don't get put on tables! or anywhere offensive any more than shoes are.
As for the common question on stepping in muck well you don't. Within weeks you learn to scan without being aware you're doing it. You step in it far less than shoe wearers who tend to be careless where they put their feet.

Bare feet don't SMELL! Sweat doesn't build up, soak into sock or shoe and go stale. It instantly ventilates and the foot stays dry. (This is an important issue for teenage males.)

Barefooting is safe. The skin on the sole rapidly toughens - it takes around 4 - 6 weeks. In fact it becomes tougher than many shoes. In summer when I barefoot more I don't even think about glass, splinters. I can just walk on 'em! and they drop away.
I did wash my son's feet when small in salt water every few nights just in case of tiny cuts but I was probably being overprotective.

Regarding chemicals etc there is very little protection from flip flops either. Liquid splashes in between the sole of sandal and sole of foot.
So most bio- or mineral-hazards are fenced off places, if serious, and only closed in shoes or boots are adequate. same as a building site or science lab.

There ARE a few hazards. Don't walk barefoot at night in the park because of rusty metal sharps, and dirty needles, for which ditto city centres. Don't walk barefoot in tropical countries because of parasites that lie in the earth there.

Otherwise FREE THE FEET!
While getting used to it, do it for longer and longer periods, like breaking in new shoes. Wash in salt water till the skin hardens. Expect to take around 4 - 6 weeks to learn to automatically scan the ground for yuck without noticing you're doing it.

Enjoy the massive sensuality of it. Ground textures are amazingly varied. The strength in bare feet travels up the spine so it's good for posture. Release those poor battered toes from potential bunions and corns, ingrown toenails. Gain a beautiful sense of balance as you move about.

If nothing else do give up shoes indoors. It saves your carpets or flooring because it's so much cleaner than tracking dirt in on shoes: and you get a lot of the benefits from part of each day barefooting.

Shoe manufacturers make a FORTUNE out of the damage you're doing your feet.

Free the feet - or choose not to barefoot.
But at least now you know a bit about it so you won't say (or think) incredibly stupid ignorant things about it.

Link - stunning pic of girl barefooting in snow!

Link Society for Barefoot Living

Ardi our Grandmother

2009-10-02T01:05:00.003+01:00

Ardi has emerged as the much older ancestress than Lucy of Africa.
See here.

I don't understand why (some) Christians can't hold their beliefs alongside the theory of evolution.
Nor do I see why evolution excludes the Goddess (and/or God if you prefer.)

Evolution is a theory. It's not fact. It's not "true."
It IS a good theory that holds up pretty well matching the facts we know.
It does however have some problems but then no theory is perfect.
Any theory shatters in contact with realities - they are so complex.

Goddess or God is not a matter of logic. She is a deep meaning in our lives. She is great and powerful enough to BE the force of evolution. No problem.
It's sad (to me) if people can't feel that deep meaning. Being a tiny pointless scrap of a machine universe os horrible and it certainly doesn't match my experience. The Goddess finds it a big joke!

Our latest ancestor looks beautiful. Blessed be.

[No further text ignore link to read more]

Anne, the Most Happy

2009-08-30T00:24:00.010+01:00

No post for a while because I've been setting up "Pagan Britain" email community.

Also lots of Y Mabinogi reading: "Rhiannon" by Gruffydd arrived from the library, and "Celts and Aryans." Oh and a busy day getting Tal enrolled at college.

ANNE BOLEYN

Thoroughly enjoying the Anne Boleyn Files - one of my greatest heroines together with her daughter Bess. I hate it that Anne is usually shown as a sexy vamp, ignoring her fine mind, especially her significant religious influence, and her acute political acumen.

I am surprised though that Claire on the Anne Boleyn Files doesn't explore the overriding issue of Anne's maternity. It deserves a blog section on its own Claire. I will outline the plot here, including the staggering effect this issue had on Britain's future! and the sexual politics that contributed to Anne's downfall.

I agree with Claire that Henry wanted the impossible. He wanted the independent intellectual Anne: he absolutely adored her ability to companion his mind and soul as well as his body. But, once they MARRIED she was his WIFE and QUEEN.

This was a relatively impersonal role to play. Anne herself was not bred to be a royal wife, and she failed to adapt from high hearted mistress, to dignified queen.

It is worth noting that Anne and Henry are by no means unusual. Through the ages men with a bit going for them have yearned after the independent woman. But once won, the story shifts abruptly especially if she submits to marriage. Suddenly she is a WIFE, and she is judged very differently. What is MINE should be reassuring, supportive, not unsettling and challenging.

Many an independent couple has fallen foul of this stereotype I think.

But more than any other reason, more than making an enmity of Cromwell, more than opening up a precedent for other ambitious women (or their families) was Anne's maternity. She did not bear a living son, any more than Katherine had before her. Both women were rejected for this, although both had been greatly loved and honoured for a time.

I believe that if Anne had borne a son she could pretty easily have seen Cromwell off and other aspirant women too. Henry would have adored her not anly as his fiery companion of heart and soul and mind, but as his Madonna, Mother of the Royal Prince. This was the crux of her power, her magic, more than any other source.

Anne DID conceive a son. By birthing Elizabeth she disappointed Henry but he rallied and "forgave" her. He still came to her bed and she conceived again, this time a son. Of course they did not know that for certain, but she would have strongly assured the King of it.

What went wrong was one of those strange, almost eerie turning points of history. Henry was a strong virile man of 44. On 24 January 1536 he had a fall during a joust. He was unconscious and carried into the palace. Seeing him as if dead, and told he would die, Anne reacted with deep shock. She miscarried their boy child.

Had Henry not fallen as he did, Anne was likely to have had a healthy boy, for she had borne a healthy child before.

The tragic incident also changed Henry forever. From being active and manly he was forced to live as a semi-invalid for the rest of his life. Any active older man finds this tough, but this was a man used to getting his own way, a powerful King. His body was broken, a failure – and so was hers.

He became increasingly tyrannical, partly to demonstrate his power still, but quite possibly because he had suffered a brain injury in the fall.

This was no longer the tender lover, the jovial friend, Anne and others had known. Henry became spiteful, a petty bully, and unlovable. A proud woman such as Anne would have found him hard to bear in his unpredictable rages and self pity.

Whether or not his brain was damaged, and this does seem likely, we do know that Henry lived with a wound in his leg that would not heal, and caused him frequent pain. A persistent hurt that will not improve drains energy and optimism; and this pampered prince had little experience of coping with lengthy or permanent physical limitation.

Anne had loss to bear, but a miscarriage for her was not the end of the world - for her on her own. She could look to try again. But the king was older, and he had gone through all this before with Catherine, dead baby after dead baby after dead baby over two decades.

For Henry his tragedy in 1536 was immense. He had lost his manhood in two huge ways.

His baby son gone, the hope of England reduced to a bloody flux. We know he was a tender father to all his children, so this was not only his fear and loss as a sovereign. No doubt he felt the death of the little boy too. But more than anything he had failed his dynasty, failed his colossal father, the shrewd conqueror Henry VII.

It was still part of being a sacred king that he should be "fit", whole, healthy and fertile. Henry was none of that now. In ancient times he would have been sacrificed, or forced into exile for a king must be a perfect specimen.

Possibly Henry was always at heart insecure. Brought up as the younger indulged brother to Arthur the serious Prince groomed to rule, Henry had not expected, nor been expected, to become a King. His childhood was to be treated as less important, a playboy.

Brother Arthur’s death as a young man thrust Henry unprepared into the direct royal lineage. Significantly he was the one who insisted on being Your Majesty, to reinforce on his grandeur. His great father had never needed that. But now His Majesty was failing – yet again – at this most sensitive and intimate task: to provide a son for his realm. What the meanest peasant or potboy could do, he could not. (He had had illegitimate sons, but that meant little.)

Secondly his own personal strength had gone too. His world had closed down, shrunk to an indoor, limited, observer life, seeing other men hunting and jousting and dancing - the things he had so loved and so excelled. To sit about, to hobble with a stick, when once he leaped ran and rode - this was bitterly cruel. He did not help himself by overeating for comfort, becoming bulky, putting yet more strain on his leg. Henry did not face old age gracefully.

His double loss, with the horror and frustration of long years behind him with Catherine's many dead babies, the prospect of yet more of the same misery with Anne, plus the agony of his unhealed leg wound, pain in his head, and raging emotions out of control; Henry was in a bad way. Certainly he was in no state to rise up smiling, comfort his Lady Anne, bounce into bed and try again. Her comparative youth and health would also be hard to bear as a contrast to his weakness.

In the grip of great loss, depression and fear, many people even today consider whether they are “cursed”, jinxed, dogged with “bad luck.” It is so much easier to think that some outside target for our pain and anger is to blame, instead of a huge daunting complex of events we cannot control.

If we are cursed then we can get the curse lifted, and regain control. But to solve a complex situation of misfortune requires long gruelling effort and courage to work through. Even then there is no guarantee of success.

No wonder the market for protection magic, removing curses, is as brisk as it ever was. Henry did not live in an age of science with technology all about him as its result. That age was just beginning, still on a shaky basis. He was surrounded by priests, prayers – and he lived with suppressed fear that his great rebellion against the Pope had set off divine retribution. The God of the Bible had after all always targeted sons: Abraham's Isaac, the Egyptians' first born, and his own Jesus. Henry had good reason to fear the hand of God.

But in his extremity there was a way out. The priesthood was clear that the cause of sin was always female. Had he not been tempted just as Adam had been tempted? By a beautiful women who had spoken to him of freedom, and offered it to him with her body?

Hurt, grieving, afraid, desperate for escape, the King had a sweet young girl placed upon his knee. Quiet Jane, who did not argue, who was so young, so gently healthy, so suited to motherhood.

Once a lover turns against his love, his hatred can be as intense, as deep as his love once was. It can be aggravated by the haunting of former times. Henry knew he was still vulnerable to Anne so he refused to see her, in case she reached his heart again. She had to die to cleanse him of his curse.

If Henry had not fallen, if Anne had borne her boy and he lived, there would have been no Bloody Mary, and no Elizabeth. There would have been a glorious Edwardian Age perhaps, and a very different history with no Stuart kings, no German Georges.
Perhaps there would have been no witch craze for one thing. The fear of a powerful woman might not have been invoked by a king's pained nightmare about Anne, his determined Queen and Great Whore. Nor would her mighty daughter have killed Mary Stuart, and left her son the Stuart king motherless, in terror of strong women. A world without the Malleus Maleficarum would nave been better off.

Trading eggs

2009-08-15T04:11:00.003+01:00

From the Daily Mail today:
Egg donation can mean "ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as a result. She is now in early menopause and infertile herself. Not only that, she is unable to walk and in a wheelchair."

Since the medical risks to the donor are so high, she should be compensated for taking the risk.
£10 - £12,000 sounds quite low to me.

Perhaps the prejudice here is that women are buying and selling motherhood, that great sacred cow. Don't get me wrong, I venerate mothering too! But our strong feelings block us thinking sensibly about it.

Also there is a cruelly sentimental idea that WOMEN should do helpful things for nothing, or offer their bodies for nothing.

Unless we abolish the rich and the poor, then richer people will buy physical services from poorer people. That can be cooking, cleaning, massage, prostitution, wet-nursing, organ donation and egg donation.
[Ignore Read more link - this is the full post.]

Welfare scroungers

2009-08-12T02:51:00.001+01:00

The indignation of those who want welfare mothers' money cut off, or their unnecessary children aborted, are understandable. They are also deeply ignorant of what social welfare is for. I say that without disrespect: few do know this.

Welfare is certainly in part idealistic, to ensure people and particularly children, do not starve, and do not die for lack of warmth and shelter. That is what would happen to these children if we did not pay welfare for them. It's not the feckless mother who matters, but the innocent child.

That's the idealistic part. The cold hard cash part, the much stronger reason for welfare is to consider what happens without it? Crime and riots.
You think crime is bad now? Look at history where no one could walk anywhere alone.
The middle and upper classes carried swordsticks as a matter of course; the lower clawss carried knives.
Trees had to be cut back 10ft from a road by law so robbers could not hide in them. Think of that when you pop over to visit the parents on Sundays. Travellers always went in groups for safety.
Dead bodies had to be removed daily from the gutters which had frozen to death in the night, or starved. Death by starvation is long drawn out and painful by the way.
To survive such harsh conditions the poor put their children to work at 5 or 7 years. Little kids doing dangerous dirty work. One big option was prostitution naturally.

But a lot of that didn't matter because the rich, the bankers of those days, still made their money. What really annoyed them was the damage to property if the poor rioted. Unfortunately that could mean warehouses, offices, even wealthy homes being burned down.

Another thing that made welfare attractive ws that dirty starving people get diseased, and many infectious diseases are stupidly unaware of clss differences. The beggar on the street could infect the respectable who came near them. Oh dear.

So welfare was developed to keep the poorest in moderate comfort so they wouldn't in desperation riot, burn, and otherwise damage the all important property. That welfare gradually led to a reduction in violent crime was also a positive as knifing did affect the middles and uppers, sadly. But it did work because ordinary people were able to stop carrying weapons everywhere.
If the recipients of welfare lie about stoned or drunk, so much the better. Addled heads don't organise riots and are ineffective at serious crime. There's burglary and mugging yes bit that really only affects the less well off who can't afford gated estates, chauffeurs and bodyguards. Poor things life is tough.

Given this kind of rational agenda, kieeping the very poor in a state of uneducated stupidity, drunk, drugged, messy, incapable, is all much better than having them out and about, starving and desperate causing trouble for their betters.

Baby P still might have survived this benevolent welfare state. Only the Social Workers were too busy tapping keyboards updating their reports for ContactPoint. This is a project which is now admitted to be a colossal failure. 80% of Social Workers' time was spent on feeding its machines. Not much time for looking after little boys.

Of course Social Workers are a dim lot, the dregs of the professions. Anyone who can get a real professional job wouldn't apply. But for badly educated products of state schools with few qualifications it's a well paid niche.

Once it was a not bad profession but it has gone down so badly the good older staff left years ago leaving young inexperienced (mostly) women who haven't had children and have no idea what good parenting is.

But oh how exciting to be able to bustle into people's lives, ask them lots of personal questions and write grown up reports about it! That this is done on the idea of "helping" is positively orgasmic though there is little understanding that helping = interference.

Most genuine families in need would benefit from a sensible home help to do some housework, get shopping, and teach how to do these things together with basic child discipline. Clipboards, meetings and reports are not what is required. But rolled up sleeves and washing up is a bit, well, shabby compared to toting a briefcase to meetings.

ContactPoint which drained what little intelligence and energy Social Workers had, was established following the Laming Report (after Victoria Climbie died of hunger and abuse in the bath). It's now being discontinued I believe hacving cost us billions of public money.
The word was at the time that Victoria really died because the SWs didn't want to visit her as her auhnt was scary and aggressive. So much nicer to visit nice families, who were cowed and polite, for a nice cup of tea. While Victoria died.
No doubt something similar happened to Peter, SWs eagerly investigating nice pleasant healthy families wrecking their lives with the spectre of the child stealers. While Peter died.

All right, if you still want to stop the Underclass from breeding because welfare is admittedly getting a bit expensive - about the same as spend on the military both are to protect us from violence. So let's look at how to stop ladies like Peter's mother from breeding.

Some suggest cutting benefits on the 3rd child. But that would still create a brood of 3 useless mouths and a useless mother.
So why not stop benefits after the first child?
That would cut the numbers of the Underclass in half in a generation. Neat.
All right what do we do when she has the 2nd child? Let her manage on the same money? Of course the children (both) would suffer but then they do anyway fed on junk food, TV and violence.
So perhaps we take away the second child so a deserving family can adopt it. Pretty soon we'd have shortage of adopting parents.
Never mind, China shows the way. Pregnant women are not difficult to control and can be easily taken to hospital and aborted. A little upsetting yes but so much better for everyone. Might as sterilise at the same time, so much more efficient.

Of course there will be quite a few cases of error where mothers making serious attempts to work are aborted and sterilised forcibly. But sacrifices have to be made for a sane society to exist.

After a while it becomes much tidier to collect up such mothers/ families, and put them in big compounds. Give them labout to keep them out of mischief. Dormitory accommodation is a LOT cheaper than flats and houses and catering on a mass basis much cheaper too.
In fact they don't really need money, and clothes can be issued in a plain type. As they will begin to look quite grey and different to ordinary people their guards will be rather prone to bullying them but that'll act as a deterrent for others to stay out of the Underclass.

It's a problem that their cheap labour, and their older children doing "work experience" undercuts other slightly less poor people trying to earn a living. More people end up faqlling in to the compound way of life but hey they'll be in out of the way places where WE don't have to think about them.

As for their disabled children probably best to painlessly end their sad little lives. Why prolong their useless existences? Tidy them up for heravens sake.

Now the rest of us can get on with our respectable tidy lives. We'd earn quite low wages with free State labour being used alongside us.
We'd live in terror of losing that badly paid work because that would mean ending up in the Compounds, or as some call them, camps. With forced labour, disabled kids killed off neatly, our other children candidates for adoption by the rich. Some of the camp children could be sent to war which would mop up some of their numbers.

But hey sacrifices have to be made. It would at least be a sane, rational society. The banks would make their huge profits. MPs and company directors would make their money too.

Wonderful. Hitler would be delighted.

Canu Gwyl Lleuad / Lughnasa singing

2009-08-09T23:23:00.004+01:00

Went to the woods and sat by the big pools brushing out my long hair and making many triple plaitings.

Water was brown like darkened bronze, smooth silky reflecting birch, ash trees with golden highlights where afternoon sun sprinkled the trunks of the trees sinking deep down to Annwvn under the waters.
So deep so clearly mirrored the underworld under but around, through, in.
A woodpigeon spoke of Goddess peace.

Walked through the lush green choked woods along by the stream up past the Two Trees who rest my back gently moving yet stillness as I lean back eyes flying up into spattered leaves against deep sky blue like a picturebook.
The waterfall is dark but busy in the shadows, voices of falling water busy busy, rushing over the knotty roots.
The Oak in the Water stands quiet over her pool as the waters slush the overflow at her feet.
Up the bridleway a soft mulch of mud lies sculpted across the gate stroking the side of my feet with cool.

In the top meadow many perfumes of flowers fighting for attention are almost dizzying but a sharp note beneath the sweetness saves the atmosphere from overkill.
Small wasps work the white valerian clusters peaceably beside me; there is cool shadowed grass around my bare feet while fuzzy warm sun lies on my neck.

Sitting on my mighty log throne with soft skirts spread I was surrounded by soaring trees flinging a mass of dense green multicoloured green pride of green in millions of tiny pieces of green way up high in an amphitheatre of green.
The Ash singing delicate so I sang her too.
Horse Chestnut insisting on his say even outspeaking the Oaks today.
Above and around the brilliant blue of halcyon summer sky reaching limitless where was this moment who was I so very me.
I sang them all and they gifted me with sweet voice but also answered by cynical crows lest I become proud and forget the dark beneath the golden day.
Alone without humans yet so embraced I was, sitting in the high meadow beside the sloping hill above the waterdeeps.

Returning, things happened normally hard to do but they were nothing to me today.

Destroyed masculinity?

2009-08-06T21:24:00.004+01:00

A new book claims that women are destroying men's masculinity which is why so many men have sunk into passivity and failure. Groan!

I love it when my husband cooks, it’s very sexy. Why on earth should I be irritated when he fusses in the kitchen? as the book suggests I should! Providing food is very masculine.
Nor do either of us find it unattractive for me to fill up the car – what am I supposed to do when out driving for heaven’s sake? Run it dry?
I’m certainly grateful that he and my son heave the heavy bins out as I CAN do it but it’s so much easier for them.
The examples given are limited and odd.

But there certainly is a problem. The “lazy teenager” husband in the article I read definitely rings a bell.

My own analysis after 20 years of marriage is that men are not programmed for equality much and we don't train boys to handle it where it counts. They are creatures of extremes: either dominance or passivity with nothing in between.
If men feel they are in charge, the boss, they will often do well – though not always as no one is perfect.
But if someone else is in charge, they don’t cope well at all. They become sulky teenagers complete with passive resistance, sabotage, irrational tempers and rages, refusal to get help or advice, parasitism about money etc.
I try to deal with it by making sure my husband has certain things like the car that are “his.” That works OK but the trouble is you can’t split everything up like that.

So in areas that must be shared it simply comes down to who handles it best. If he does, fine. No problem.

But if not, inevitably, yes there has to be some of that feminine stuff because men are just not equipped to handle inferiority. Which really comes down to lies.

Pretending he did his part better than he did. Repairing what he messes up, but doing it discreetly so it doesn’t notice. Letting others think he does more than he does, and does it better. Feminine wiles like this are filth, but men aren’t ready to cope without them.

Doing this feminine filth is damaging to both. It infantilises the man that he does actually need it, and it damages the woman who must provide it to ensure the family works out.
It is most bitter to provide most of the money for a family, make sure bills are paid, things get fixed, events organised etc – and elaborately pretend you’re not doing it.
If anyone does realise what is going on a female provider is not seen as heroic, admirable, worthy of help and support, as a man would be. She is instead either a ballbreaker or a stupid exploited victim letting a man live off her.

Try not doing it though, give him “time” or “space” to do one of those things, and watch the mess appear if this isn't one of his skill areas.

With children at stake you can’t let that happen. Certain things just must get done right. Nor do I really see why my security financially, or my basic comforts at home, should be put at the mercy of someone who won't look after them properly all to save him a bit of accurate self assessment.
On some things there isn't much room for a man to mess up. Those things have to get done by the best person for the job and the other must either defer, or try to learn better skills.

Women are simply much better at recognising they aren't good at something and either supporting the person who is, or learning to do better, or both. It comes out very early on in children learning things which is why girls get ahead if they are not artificially held back. Boys give up and flop into failure if they don't zoom to the top straight away, where girls cry, then try again.

There is no good answer right now. Somehow though we HAVE to find a way for men to learn how to handle not being dominant, and not collapsing into useless lumps as a result.
It would help if there wasn’t this constant emphasis on masculinity meaning being in charge, being dominant, being deferred to. Masculinity is gorgeous in its distinctively male bodies, its capacity to father a child, its strength to carry heavy stuff, an ability to stay detached and nurturing when we women occasionally need to collapse.
It would so help if men could be shown what we really appreciate, instead of being fed a pretence. Every time a man carries something heavy I am delighted in his masculinity. To him it's a shrug, minor, just as many of my female sensitivities he finds so useful are nothing to me.
That kind of mutual respect is REAL.

Stop implying men should be exaggeratedly strong and dominant and they could have breathing space to get used to not being exaggeratedly strong and dominant. Stupid articles telling women to apply more feminine lies do NOT help.

Wildlife disturbed by human sex!

2009-08-05T23:37:00.003+01:00

"A wildlife trust has ordered bird-watchers to stop having sex in bird hides."
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust refers to "... certain things going on at nature reserves that shouldn’t. ... certain noises coming from the bird hides ... could possibly disturb or cause harm to the animals that live there."

Er, does Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust realise that animals and birds actually have sex?

Animals and birds are not fluffy toys you know. They'll know exactly what "certain noises" mean and will know that the humans occupied with "certain things going on" won't be any threat to them at all.

Said humans will be rather taken up with what they're doing!

Quoted from Daily Mail report. Ignore 'read more' this is the full post.

Should a man pay out for almost 20 years after a quick fling?

2009-08-02T00:09:00.003+01:00

A young woman is chasing a wealthy male star to try and make him pay for her choice to mother, because they had a quick fling.
I find this both demeaning to women's independence and dignity, and seriously unfair on men.

There is absolutely no reason why a man should be expected to "be a gentleman" after a quick fling. Why on earth should he pay out substantial money over almost two decades because of a quickie?

Women who enter into quick sex for fun should take responsibility for their own biology. We are not the same as men, so sex can have far greater consequences.
The female choice is either to refuse fast sex, and insist on commitment in order to cover the possibility of a child; or use birth control efficiently and accept the small risk of getting caught out after a fling.
If you do get caught, that comes out of your choice. No one forces you into having a fling so grow up and deal with how your body is made.

The old Celtic laws by the way covered different types of marriage, seven in fact. These ranged from the life commitment we supposedly honour today, to the serial commitments we actually have; to short term contracts either publicly known or private.

It would be far better for us to stop this quasi Christian pretence that there is only one kind of marriage. The Celts worked out a good syste. Read Hywel Dda or the Brehon Laws. All very sensible.

Sadly the forces of so-called 'family values' are fanatic about going the other way: back to bonded women, patriarchy, the sexual double standard etc.

Breasts

2009-07-21T00:18:00.003+01:00

Thank heavens for a voice of reason. Perhaps the breast bullies can now be made to SHUT UP.

"Michael Kramer, a professor of paediatrics who has advised the World Health Organisation and Unicef, said that much of the evidence used to persuade new mothers to breastfeed was either wrong or out-of-date. (Article)

NO solution suits everyone. Which means the grossly simple statement "Breast is Best" - is a lie.

It's NOT best for those whose babies are allergic to their milk.
It's NOT best for those with greatly weakened systems - which is common after a hard birth.
It's NOT best if the mother's milk is scanty.
It's NOT best if the struggle to do it is exhausting, painful, and a barrier between mother and baby. Yes effort and good support can overcome problems - but some would rather just be happy with their happy baby.
It's NOT best for ensuring the greatest involvement by a devoted father.
It's NOT best if pushed at mothers as a guilt trip.

For many it might be best.
For others it just isn't.
Live with it. We're different.

The Genesis Enigma

2009-07-18T23:26:00.005+01:00

A new book claims it is astounding that biblical Genesis describes the stages of "creation" in the right order, matching the theories by modern scientists.

This isn't so surprising as it appears. It only looks it if we assume Genesis was authored by the primitive early Israelites. Those tribal brigands who invaded and massacred peaceful Canaan were indeed not great thinkers.

However many Israelites were later taken into slavery to Babylon which DID have highly sophisticated scholars, where Israelites learned some knowledge. Many of these better educated Israelites then returned to Israel under Cyrus.

The Magi and other scholars of Babylon invented geometry we still use today - 60 seconds/ minutes, angles etc. They gave us our first recorded literature as well via their own ancestral culture, the Sumerians. In fact one of those books, by Enheduanna, told of a messiah who descended to hell for 3 days to hang dead on a tree - only that messiah was female.

Much of the early books of the Israelite Bible are based on Babylonian myths - Eden, Noah, Babel. Like the Greek philosophers we know better, the Magi well knew analytic logic so the order of the origin of the universe could have been worked out.
Impressive? yes. Mystery? no.

This new book also quite clearly distorts in order to fit facts to its argument. Day 4 for example has God creating the stars and the sun and the moon. As the author admits this is a facer as Light, day and night, already exist from Day 1.
An ingenious but unlikely theory is put forward that at this point evolution developed sight - so beings could SEE the sun and moon. Apparently this sequence does fit.
But I doubt if early science (deductive logic) could go that far and the argument here sounds artificially distorted. It's arguing back from what we know now - or rather what we theorise now.
We should not forget that evolution is only a theory, not a fact. A good theory, but just a theory. It doesn't fit all the facts. It just fits a lot more than other theories do.

"Public Enemies" - John Dillinger

2009-07-02T00:58:00.003+01:00

‘Public Enemies’ is such an outstandingly bad film it almost becomes interesting just because of that.
Depp is the only good thing in it, but he’s crippled by an overload of bad cimema.

As a film, "Public Enemies" needs a public health warning against boredom.

There’s a mass of gunfire, pitched much louder than usual to the point of real discomfort. Action fans might like it, but the camera work is so muddled it’s hard to make out who on earth is shooting who. I guess if all you want is bangs that's all right.
That muddle might be realism, as shootouts are like that, but good cinema it isn’t. A few shots of muddled shooting would give us realism: a constant flow of muddle becomes simply boring.

Action movies are often accused of cardboard characters. In this film we don’t even have paper ones.
Who was Dillinger? how did he become “John Dillinger”? We don’t know.
Yet we do, and his story is fascinating. Why was it all left out of the film? Why did we not see a glimpse of him looking after ‘his people’? for example. Nothing of the human person can be seen behind the guns except Depp’s skilled facial expressions.

Perhaps the greatest flaw is lack of identification. Even action films can grip us tight to the hero/ine. With Depp up there it’s a real tribute to the director Mann's failure that he leaves us outside gawping at muddle and mistakes. His hero is just a standard Hollywood cliché.
As for Dillingedr's gang and opponents, there are so many men in suits looking intense it’s hard to know who’s a cop and who’s a gangster. Constant close-up, in your face filmwork, doesn’t help recognition. Parts of faces, the back of someone's shoulder, don't tell us much about who's doing what to who.

Dillinger’s amazing capers simply aren't there. Not just a gunslinger but a mastermind so why not let us see what fun he was? Checking out banks by posing as a sales rep selling security systems – not shown. Setting up a job as a film company doing a bank robbbery, so people smiled as the real robbery took place – not shown. His trademark two shots at the ceiling, then “Everybody get down and stay calm!” – not shown. Instead lots of those muddled gunshots.

The regional American accents are so thick that a third of the dialogue or more is completely lost unless that's your hometown. Oh and who was the guy in the blue suit who got shot at the start? Never did find out. Nameless guy shoots nameless guy, shooter looks a bit uncomfortable, now that's real exciting cinema.

Most of the actors’ make up was smeared on like amateur stage make up. Men especially look peculiar in obvious heavy make up and tough guy heroes and villains hardly benefit from caked mascara, and lipstick.

There’s only one significant female role and she’s a scrawny, ugly little thing with no magnetism or appeal. Her photo in Dillinger’s fob watch, seen several times, shows up how hollow and skeletal she is.

Period detail is poor. Steam trains meant stations were filthy: this one was bright and clean – with white tilework. Everything else is lovely and clean too, such as streets and buildings. In a Depression era when everywhere except a few rich highspots was shabby and broken down.

The origin of the FBI was an interesting subplot, but like so much else, got lost in clever clever camera work, and muddle. The new type of gangster, another subplot, was another casualty to opaque accents, too-fast talk. That could have been genuinely interesting. Pity.

Was it too controversial to show just why Dillinger was so adored? Banks were hated then even more than now, with repossessions and unemployment as a ruthless backdrop for their greed. Dillinger challenged them by robbing them, so he was loved by the people so greatly they helped and sheltered him. They say his blood on the pavement was sacred, and hankies dipped in it when the body had been removed.

His death chapter is cheesy, predictable even if you don’t know the story. Why was the prostitute not wearing the red dress she actually wore? After such a boring film it was hard to feel regret when he died though the close up of blood pouring out of his face was a really nice touch (not).

Looking up Dillinger when I got home I was entranced by his real story. I think that was the one thing I can thank the film for. It made Dillinger so boring I wanted to know why he's a legend, so I looked him up. Not a great achievement for a film.

Shaven Slavery

2009-07-01T17:19:00.002+01:00

A school wants to force a boy to shave because "his moustache is not part of school uniform."
Face shaving originally started among homosexual men to try to look boyish.

Shaving has also been widely used to control hygiene in prisons, armies and navies. Keeping crowds of males clean in grubby or dirty conditions, to avoid epidemics, is a lot easier if they are forced to shave and crop their hair.

With a few exceptions, more hair is therefore universally the sign of a free man.

In modern Western societies shaving is required of the mass of bonded servants who service companies, councils and corporations. Cropped hair also depersonalises men, making them look remarkably similar. Suits complete the clone robot appearance to a frightening degree.

Shaving demonstrates that the man is a subordinate male, a lesser person who must obey the boss even in very personal matters like this.
Noticeably when men have more independence they tend to grow more hair.

To force a child to shave means forcing them into servant status. This is especially damaging as once started shaving distorts facial hair into stubble, an unnatural condition which can be uncomfortable, and can cause medical problems (ingrown hair).

British law requires education not to close off a child's options to decide their adult lifestyle.
The child should be able to wait till he gets a job or starts a business, to choose his way in life. Education is not mere obedience.

Oh but of course it is. That is the main thing schools are about.

Women Elders, fear and prejudice

2009-06-21T12:59:00.005+01:00

Re the African persecutions of Witches, often young children, they are ghastly. (response to someone else)
Another particularly badly treated group are older women. They are beaten up and tortured, cast out of their communities and left to starve.

In societies dominated by men women are seen as dangerous which equals: likely to disobey their masters. They are tolerated only if they can provide sex, plus children who can add to a man's pride, and to his wealth by their child work. Children are not just sold because of dire poverty, they are sold because they are possessions, as women are.

In a society with greater wisdom in my opinion older women are valued as child carers, healers, repositories of long experience. Rejecting the knowledge that comes with experience means you have to work everything out over and over, making the same mistakes over and over.

Read on for analysis applied to the (Western) Pagan community.

There is a problem with this hatred of elder women in our own community. I and other older people, especially women, are often snubbed when we give advice from our experience. I have more than once had frantically hostile reactions when I refer to myself as an elder! It is SO taboo to mention being older.

In modern Paganism I can see three roots for this anti-elder women stuff.

1. INNOVATION, INDEPENDENCE
This is a community that values innovation, and fierce independence. That makes it difficult to value elders. The two ideas are extremely contradictory.
While I too value innovation and independence, I would like to see a bit more ability to actually look at what elders say rather than dismissing it almost automatically because it comes from older people who are seen as past it. Difficult I know to balance these two points of view, probably impossible to get it right!

This area applies to both elder women and men. But other issues make it stronger around women.

2. MALE DOMINANT SOCIETY OUTSIDE We are not free of the male dominant modes still so prevalent everywhere.
Before anyone jumps in with outrage about how dominant women are a quick reminder on the rape epidemic going almost totally unstopped by any legal or other restraint/ 80% of domestic violence is against women, who die every week from it/ the poorest people are still women, struggling to look after kids etc etc Things have changed for better off women in terms of money, property, and for some, sex; not much else.

So the male dominant deep psychology still affects us, and older women are the least valued people among male dominant groups. Nor is this a simple case of women vs. men. It's just as often other women who are scared of getting - or being - old, and fear elder women so show them contempt in minor and major ways. Surrounded by media saturating us with the value of young bodies this is not surprising.

This is a powerful potential work area for Goddess magic. Hmm might do a workshop on it at House Morgain!

3. GODDESS/ PRIESTESS AUTHORITY The Pagan community and the overlapping but not identical Goddess community, has had huge effects in reclaiming the authority of the priestess.
This is not the same thing as "women priests" who merely occupy the masculine defined job of priest. They may soften it or change it a little, but they don't hold that place BECAUSE they are women, but in spite of it.

It may seem odd to put this here as a problem for older women, but it is. As noted we are all socially conditioned by anti-women ideas from the wider society. So Goddess and priestess do not sit in our heads without tension. We kind of pretend they do I think.
But the tension comes out in endless bimbo Goddesses or priestesses like Barbie images. Nothing wrong with them as an option, but their overwhelming majority shows that the propaganda from everywhere is right there in our heads.
There are plenty of other situations that show that our respect for Goddess/ priestess though much more than skin deep, doesn't go very deep. For example I frequently find Pagans who can't hear and consider what I say but can hear exactly the same thing perfectly OK if John says it in his male voice! Another example is how as soon as I speak of women/ men the assumptions of manhating leap up excitedly without looking at what I really say.

That's just good old sexism at work. In some ways being older is MUCH better. I don't have what I say or do ignored, discounted because my tits are the main interest any more! Which is wonderful.
Yet I can also feel how what I do/ say sparks much stronger hostile reactions now I'm older. The other side of the coin maybe? - without perky tits to distract any more I'm taken seriously - hence hostility! Perhaps I should not complain since this is what I want.

But there is an intensity to the hostility I encounter that intuitively flashes MOTHER at me. (I freely admit that here I'm talking my feelings, not evidence.) It links to some great research years ago (Chodorow I think) that pointed out that we're all with few exceptions, brought up in very early years by Mothers.
Those very early years form us like no others. So we all experience female domination when we're doing our core growing. Few later experience outside the gulags and horror camps, have such dominated experience as nappy changing, passive feeding etc So ANY female authority is underlaid by this deep layer of buried memory of almost total domination. No wonder we fear female authority!
Is this perhaps why "power women" are expected to be rake thin? as unlike Mother as possible? I wonder. In a period of transition where women are taking so much more power in commerce, law, the academy, and a bit, in government - perhaps they have to drastically amputate themselves as mothers to be permitted to do it.

Anyway my point here is that while Pagans are strong, independent people, we are by no means free of deep psychology. That deep laid Mother domination is still there, and elder women remind us of it: they are the generation that changed a lot of nappies, up ending the younger ones to do it.

Innocence, guilt, democracy, Child Protection

2009-06-21T00:43:00.002+01:00

"To be judged on evidence by a jury of our peers goes to the heart of a democratic society."
(Leading article 'Independent' Sunday, 21 June 2009)

Yes. Absolutely.
But there's precious little of that stuff around Child Protection.

It'd be a start if Child Protection operated on evidence rather than the personal opinion of one person. That person may be exhausted, overworked, not well trained, and as subject to the prejudices and jealousies of humanity as anyone else.

In Child Protection there is NO "innocent unless proven guilty."

There's just guilty until proved innocent, with the whole system against you.

Even then, if a family pushes allegations into court and gets an innocent verdict against all the odds, it's often too late. The child was adopted long ago, midway through the case. Then as Social Workers say with a triumphant smirk, the child is "settled" and cannot be moved.

In years to come we are going to hear from these children. Often they are lied to and told their parents didn't want them, or committed offences against them.

Like the lost children of 60s single mothers, adopted and not told till they were adult their true parentage, these children now being torn out of innocent healthy families, will rise up in accusation, grief, and rage, against those who are being paid to wreck their lives.

Child Protection is a rule of terror gone way out of control. even a small brush with them ruins families for years. No one is safe unless wealthy and well connected. That is something these people do understand. But innocence, and healthy families - and EVIDENCE - no.

Marriage?

2009-06-18T03:06:00.002+01:00

Justice Coleridge may have 'carefully' added bits and pieces to soften what he said. He still insulted committed parents by babbling about 'marriage' being best (oh how I detest breast is best, marriage is best etc)

The public trend is clear: marriage is on the way out. Less than half of all couples go for it.

We therefore need to look at how to build in procedures and customs that will strengthen everyday partnerships. Flogging a dying horse on an outdated system just won't work. People have been ignoring these attempts to foist marriage on them for some time.

STAGES OF COMMITMENT
I agree with Deborah Orr that the practical and traditional stages of celibacy, courtship, contract, are desirable. I'd further divide the Contract stage into an Early Contract (1 -7 years) Longterm Contract (7- 20yrs) and Life Contract (Over 21yrs) because these stages have different needs and different outcomes. A partnership just can't be assessed, or supported in the same way without looking at its stage.

If we got away from the ridiculous Christian custom of making "eternal vows" for a whole life, often when very young, it would help. The old Celtic laws (Hywel Dda, Brehon system) of different kinds of marriage, some resident, visiting, short term, long term etc was much more realistic. The Celts incidentally had women's property rights and divorce.

FAMILY ARRANGEMENTS, INVOLVEMENT
Deborah's analysis is good, but overlooked that the traditional model included close family supervision of the stages of a partnership. Arranged marriages have a bad name but in reality, as long as the principals are fully involved, they help a lot. If the family investigates a possible partner they can dig up the dirt and save much pain. Older people can often see a chancer and give warning.
An involved family will also contribute more, not just a wasteful splashy wedding, but real financial help for bills and babies over the years, where a family shut out is less likely to. The biorth family can also champion a partner getting abused.

MONEY AT THE HEART OF IT
But most of all I found this article lacking in its economics. The Judge is not living in the real world - presumably cushioned by high pay, gated living and a solid pension.
Real people are struggling to survive among debts, repossession, unemployment - if not actual, threatened. Then there's an ugly culture driven by the greedy wealthy barons where alcohol is sold with weak controls fuelling violence; drugs are linked to crime, more violence; both parents MUST work to pay ruthless property prices.
More than anything this last item, forced double employment for parents, is destructive. It means partners have little time to BE partners, to simply be with each other at home. When they are, they are exhausted and exhaustion breeds aggression and shuts down sex.
Additionally children are necessarily neglected, left to makeshift arrangements or institutionalised. That means their social abilities are very poor and they cause endless crises and stress.

SEX!
Meanwhile a proft driven sleaze media recommends sex sex sex, affairs and orgasms as the golden remedies. Naked bodies are displayed everywhere to urge people to do it dot it, it'rs your right. Exhausted, frightened, lost, people unsurprisingly either shut down and give up, or reach for forbidden fruit.

THE ROOT OF IT
All this goes back to the early 80s and the deregulation of the economy. As the biggest result the economy has just collapsed. It will happen again if banks are not regulated.
But that's the big level/. On the everyday level all kinds of misery is hitting people, and has been for 30 years. We cannot run a society on greed and ruthlessness with out families being damaged.

Actually I think it's a tribute to families and their brave, diogged, determined members, that the damage is not far worse than it is. It's time that our authority figures started PRAISING the families that work, and looking at how they do it. Rather than generate more despair by hammering people with disapproval, be practical, look at what works, and rty to spread it around.

I think any such study would find that 'marriage' - big weddings, flash sounding vows, certificates, have little to do with it. Nor do huge long contracts as very few people can achieve them - a life contract was historically around 15 years maximum, often no more than 3 - 7 years with deaths in childbirth, war, epidemic etc.

LET'S
Let's start being realistic, instead of pompous and disapproving.
Again, I'd recommend a look at the Celtic laws. Short and longer contracts both, building long ones from short ones. Residential and visiting contracts. Cut the fuss at the start: get a celebration custom going when there's something to celebrate at 3 years 7 years 10, 21 and so on.

The Cowboy Age

2009-06-18T01:54:00.002+01:00

Another excellent analysis of the economic crisis by Vince Cable today. Vince thank you for yet another calm, accurate analysis.

As Vince keeps warning, the Crash is far from over. A bit of bright gameplaying among the financiers staving off the very worst collapses is only a step away from disaster. We still have unemployment rocketing, repossessions and debts sky high, public services about to be cut back to a dangerous degree, crime, alcohol, drugs, violence and hopelessness blighting our society as never before in living memory.

The crucial key is banks regulation yetjavascript:void(0) Darling (currently Chancellor) says this is not going to be done. GRRRRRR. We are staring another BIGGER crash in the face.

The most important issues facing us today in Britain are -

1) the regulation of the banks, splitting them into two sectors - utility banking and international risk investment (Vince Cable's agenda).
If banks are not regulated we will have another crash that will make this one look tiny, because it'll crash on top of an already weakened base. There will also be very little or no Government capacity to borrow in order to do another bail out.

Since Darling is currently fudging bank regulastion the prospects are dire.

2) The second major issue facing us is the database state - this is not unconnected.
There is nothing clearly stated in the current central database proposals to protect us from having our detailed and centralised personal records sold to commercial interests.
Given the record of banks and commercial companies on how they deal with ordinary people's vulnerabilities again the prospect is dire.

We have increasingly become trained to be cows, financial cows, herded and milked by powerful cowboys. This is the new age, not the industrial age, not the information age, but the Cowboy Age.

Moo.

I don't know what Vince's strategy is around the election. I hope it's to negotiate a Coalition Government so he can be Chancellor.
In which case DO NOT vote Tory. Labour will get few votes so all we need do is avoid a Tory triumph and the LibDems will be able to strike a deal with one or the other main party.

Mother, Child dead due to "Christian" faith

2009-06-17T17:24:00.005+01:00

A 30 year old woman killed her baby then died of blood loss in a toilet.

I am horrified that the revolting beliefs of these parents terrorised their daughter to the point that she suppressed awareness of her pregnancy, then panicked, committed deliberate murder, and died herself in a ghastly way.
What a poor crazy woman, with her mind twisted by these foul ideas of sex guilt and shame.
In a healthy family she would have been TOLD about sex - her mother admits they never spoke of it so she never checked her daughter was knowledgeable and competent to be an adult woman.
In a healthy family she could have told her parents and they could all have enjoyed an addition to the family. Instead of THIS.

Do not PLEASE blame this on "religion." This isn't religion. It's a particular part of one religion, Christianity, and a certain type of Christianity that wrecks lives with guilt and misery.
There is a lot of other religions not like this. You can venerate, meditate, pray etc without poisoning minds like this.

The Politics of Depression

2009-06-17T00:18:00.005+01:00

It appears there is concern that such enormous numbers of people are living drugged for depression. Oh deary me, why are so many dependent on nasty chemical pills that cost the NHS so much?

It's true that there is too much reliance on drugs drugs drugs. But then that means money for the drug sellers.

For a great deal of depression one of the best remedies is simply exercise. It stimulates the cheerful hormones.
The difficulty is that depression itself makes doing exercise very very hard to do. It makes a person desperate to stop, slump, give up. That's its nature. A system of encouragement and coaching would go a long way.

But beyond exercise, healthy eating, meditation, the elephant in the living room is the appallingly depressing society we live in.

Depression is political.

Since 1979, we've lived through 30 years under two long Governments by supposedly different parties, and our society has been ruthlessly engineered to centre on wealthy people getting wealthier. Inequality hasn't been greater since before the World Wars.
This destruction of our society, once beautiful, has been like a juggernaut of destruction ridden though every human value, every piece of kindness, beauty, safety and health that made up a decent society.

Violence rules our streets and invades our homes. Domestic violence and rape are an epidemic. Police are useless unless you are rich.
Drugs destroy huge numbers, not just addicts, but their families and lovers. But a lot of money is made from drugs.
Alcohol is freely sold everywhere, every other shop sells it, at all hours. Young people are dying of it through disease. It's fuelling violence everywhere. But it makes money.

Women, girls, boys are bought and sold, whether for full sex or bits of sex stopping short of coitus. They aren't the ones making the big money.
Almost all parents are forced out to work by crazy property prices, leaving children neglected, to grow up into yet more violence, drugs and robotic lives.
Films games and popular books glorify violence, make booze part of almost all everyday events, reduce sex to a physical grunt. More money is made.

Jobs are insecure, pensions a joke, unemployment support strips life of dignity and comfort. The money saved isn't going to ordinary people.
Families are torn apart by the drugs, alcohol, violence everywhere, financial insecurity, debt.
Community projects go unfunded, collapse. Post Offices are closed that are vital centres of community life, and privatisation blights community networks.

Thousands of families have their children threatened by insane social services, getting fat fees for extracting perfectly healthy kids for adoption.
Hospitals are places of terror where you wait hours or days in pain for emergency treatment; or die because an operation becomes available too late. If you do get in you risk dying of hospital infections. Crowded wards with mixed sexes, dirt, impossibly overworked staff, make it a misery being there.
New mothers are dying of the Victorian puerperal fever because cost cutting throws them on the street within hours of giving birth.
Our elders are forced into institutions that then abuse them and neglect them. Life reduced to mechanical survival. Money thinking.

Education and opportunity is no more unless you're rich or take on massive debts.
Banks lie to people and persuade them it's safe and sensible to borrow money they can't afford to repay. Then bailiffs can knock your door in, or knock you to the floor, in order to take your possessions away.
Aggressive companies constantly invade our privacy, or threaten us, or cheat us.
An aggressive government invades our privacy, and plans to do it more efficiently with databases, forced 'home visits', cameras, ID Cards and tracking us. Because it all helps certain businesses make money.

Try to complain about any of it - it gets you nowhere. Poorly paid junior staff give scripted answers, acting as a buffer group so the wealthy mangement can't be touched. Complaints drag on for years building fat files, making huge money for lawyers, winning perhaps a grudging sorry, or rarely, some money: but nothing is improved about what happened.
Public consultations are smokescreens. Afterwards the wealthy do what they wanted to do anyway.
Consultants make big money to hold meetings, write reports, for projects that don't happen, or cause wreckage in our lives. But consultants are not accountable for what they do.

Meanwhile MPs earn four times what we do, and on top, cheat to get massive expenses, free (expensive) houses etc.
Companies are demanding we work for nothing (unpaid overtime, 4 day week).
Redundancy and repossession stalk us.
Fatcat directors roll in money that they rip out of the national economy that supported them and let them do it.
Bank directors and managers get massive payouts for wrecking our lives with forced debts, cheating us, terrorising us, overworking us, repossessing us.

It's ALL about putting money first. Is it surprising people are depressed?
We once had a decent society. Until the 80s.

Depression is suppressed, helpless anger.

The Morality of Passivity

2009-06-13T01:46:00.013+01:00

This is an essay on morality, about the difference between being active or passive. It looks at murder, mercy killing, domestic violence, international exploitation.
From that introduction you can decide whether to read more or not.

It's a piece of Philosophy, which for some might be a bit hard to read. But take heart, it's got guts!

MORAL RELEVANCE, MORAL HIERARCHY
I agree with Ash (see footnote) that defining ‘morally relevant’ as a matter of praise or blame is too limited. I add that such a definition leads straight to Plato’s Hydra – as in how many people’s votes praise X and how many assign it blame? Alternatively we could examine exactly who, outside of the demos mass of people on a majority vote, has the authority to praise and blame? Neither works.

But from there, to merely say that something is morally relevant means we use it to make a moral decision, really only moves the words around without saying anything about the meaning of moral relevance.

So to take it further I suggest that to be morally relevant, something has to contribute to a hierarchy of desire, or value.

What we desire most, as in we value it the most highly, is helped by or hindered by what is morally relevant. Still thinking of that hierarchy of what is most valued, something is not morally relevant if it does not move an action up or down a hierarchy of desire or value.
Now having done the philosopher's duty of defining my terms, onward.

SOLE OR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY:
KAMM'S DOCTOR, RACHELS' KILLER COUSINS
In Frances Kamm’s example given by Ash, a doctor disconnects a patient from a life support machine, which means the patient will die. According to Kamm the doctor ‘allows’ the patient to die; she does not ‘kill’ the patient (make the patient die). She merely fails to prolong life.

In Rachels’ case of killer cousins, also cited by Ash, one cousin kills their intended victim. The other cousin finds their victim is dying anyway, but does nothing to stop it, when they could have. Thomas Ash says “Here our intuition is that both Smith and Jones [the two killer cousins] behave equally badly.”

I cannot agree. My intuition shrieks that the cousin who actively kills is morally worse. An active killer intervened where there was no question of their victim, otherwise, dying. Had the killer not interfered the victim would have lived out their entitled span of life. The killer is squarely and totally 100% responsible for the death.

The other killer who refrains from acting, has a situation where the death was going to happen anyway. Crucially, they are not totally responsible for it.

If the death were wholly due to their inaction, that would remove the responsibility or causality from whatever other factor created the fatal situation before they arrived on the scene, or before they had a chance to act. The death is only partly due to their inaction, not wholly due to them.

There is a useful comparison here with the doctor who switches off life support. In both cases a death is happening, and in both cases the agent chooses not to provide what is necessary to avert the death. Other factors are different of course. The doctor acts, does something with the switch, which confuses the issue a bit as this is action not passivity.
But it doesn't confuse if we remember that it was the doctor who originally switched on the life support. So by switching off, the doctor resumes a passivity that could have been taken at the outset. That is, it is not the doctor who was the originator of the dying process. The "allowing" nature of the death is similar in that the original cause of death is not the doctor/ killing cousin.
There are other issues that make it morally different obviously, but here I am only looking at the active or passive cause of death.

In the example of the killer cousins, the victim is drowning. We can get clearer by asking why? People don't drown for no reason. It might have been because of their own ignorance, or stupidity, in swimming in that place on an outgoing tide. It might have been a hidden, treacherous current that pulled them under.

But if we say that the passive killer is no less responsible for the death than the active killer who drags down a safely swimming person, why then the victim’s own agency in choosing to swim in a dangerous place, or their ignorance that led to doing it, these become irrelevant. By giving the full responsibility for the death to the passive killer cousin, we are denying any responsibility to their victim, whose actions do in fact carry responsibility.

So to review, I maintain that the moral responsibility for a death by an active killer is solely their own. But the moral responsibility for a death involving a passive killer is shared, between the victim’s own agency, and the killer’s inaction.
Moral philosophy need not be, and I think seldom is, as simple as yes/no dualism. Morality needs more than individuals who are simple dark or light figures.

In speaking of shared responsibility with more or less on each side, the proportion of shared responsibility would vary according to the type of situation. For example we would probably allocate less responsibility to the passive, inactive killer who arrived only seconds before the victim died, and who did not know how to resuscitate. We might allocate less responsibility to a young child, more to an older one or to an adult.
There could be interesting situations like the determined suicide who warns the new arrival to do nothing as this will only require a repeat attempt to die. Much debate could hang on that one!
I am not going into all that but will just note that a case by case assessment is necessary to determine the balance of responsibility just because it is not yes/no simple, plus there are complex cases like the determined suicide which open up a particularly hot set of issues.

THE SHARED SPECTRUM OF (VIOLENT) ABUSE
This moral characterisation of passivity as responsible, but not wholly responsible, is very important. One application for it is in domestic violence. Here we find argument that the victim "asks for it" or is the innocent sufferer.

(My discussion uses 'she' for victim, 'he' for abuser. This recognises the common statistic that 80% of domestic violence abuses or kills females. Of the 20% of males abused, a death is extremely rare indeed. To hide this enormous inequality by using gender neutral language, is I think, immoral. At the same time I do recognise that a small number of males are victims.)

To take these common characterisations of the victim of violence, in turn, it is true that the victim can do or not do certain things that trigger violence. In my view women in highly suggestive clothing that projects extreme sexuality, who are drunk, walking alone, are not "asking for it" but are certainly taking unacceptably high risks. The colloquial form may mean the same thing.

By taking unacceptably high risks I mean that they do carry some responsibility for an attack. The major responsibility is the attacker's, always, but some belongs to the thoughtless woman. In a healthy society as the old Anglo Saxon Chronicles described it, a naked virgin could ride a horse from one end of the country to the other, untouched. We do not live in that society.

Women are wise who take account of the society we do have. In the West we do not go to the extreme of burkha cover up and chaperoning, which is one solution, though not a very effective one as heavily controlled women still get raped and attacked. Westerners are left to assess just how much suggestive clothing, just how much drunkenness, just how much isolation, constitutes a lessening of responsibility for an attacker?

Not much in my book. Strictly any lessening of responsibility there is, is practical rather than moral. Properly behaved men would resist a naked virgin, clearly the worse for drink, alone on a horse!
My main point is that Western women of wisdom must recognise and shoulder the difficult art of taking responsibility for their own vulnerability, without staying at home all the time unless escorted out.
But that does not excuse her attacker from moral responsibility if a woman is silly and provocative. It is after all, not inevitable for a man to attack her, just more likely that he might - because so many men are weak and inferior. That is not her responsibility, though it is her vulnerability.

Staying home to be safe fails as a solution. The home is often unsafe too, in fact more so. Here the responsibility of the victim in "asking for it" is much less obvious. A woman in her own home is entitled to be partially dressed or naked around her family. She will sometimes be irritating, even exasperating, that's life. It is difficult to see what kind of behaviour means she "asked for it" as in triggering a violent act of abuse upon her.

Possibly there might be an understanding that her abuser has a certain definite trigger. A man suffering from post traumatic shock might lash out violently faced with a certain set of words, or a specific object. Here it might be possible to construct some responsibility on her part if she is not careful to avoid the known trigger, and chooses to live with him before he is over the problem.

But those who say she "asked for it" seem to mean that she is simply infuriating. It may be said that she was bitchy, manipulative, that she attacks her abuser's ego in painful ways until he 'helplessly' snaps, and lashes out at her.
I do genuinely sympathise with a tortured man (or woman) under such treatment. I have seen it happen. But moral responsibility for reacting by violence belongs to the person who uses violence.
That is, there are other options: verbal response, including savage verbal response; cutout, moving towards exit in immediate or final terms; negotiation, including counselling support and anger management; etc.
The victim may be held most seriously responsible for manipulation, but not for the violence. The violence is squarely the responsibility of the person who opts to use it.

One area of information that supports this assessment is that much abuse research, and a lot of anecdotal evidence, tells us that the violence is pretty random. Its victims can desperately try to avoid its onslaught by 'being good:' that is trying not to do any one of a thousand acts of 'provocation.' This has little or no effect. Its failure as a strategy helps to clarify that it is the abuser who is responsible for what he does.

Moving to the second case, from "it's her fault she asked for it" to "she did nothing to deserve it poor lamb" it is far too easy to absolve the victim of responsibility for their own suffering. In a dark vs. light scenario the victim in this version is a helpless angel, not responsible for the violence. They ‘do nothing’ so they are ‘not to blame.’ Only the villainous partner is to blame, according to many.

But passivity is complicit. The passive, suffering partner could almost be compared to the passive killer. Both fail to act, and by failing, they allow (their own) injury or death to occur. Both share responsibility for it.
In the most extreme situation, facing a loaded gun at point blank range, there are at least two options: obey, or get shot. The moral decision is still there, even though almost anyone would understand the overwhelming argument of the gun.

This analysis can cover the all too frequent situation where an abuser threatens to kill his victim if she tries to leave, or worse, kill her child. Under this threat, with not very secure protection offered only under strong pressure by authorities, it is completely understandable that the victim submits.

However my partial moral responsibility laid upon her has a timing element. To hold her partly responsible is not at all to remove the larger share of responsibility from a violent partner. But just as the swimmer has not noticed or checked out the currents of the sea, the victim wife fails to take account of early signs of abuse, to stop it before it grows too much, to forbid, and/or move away from it. Violent abuse typically has a ghastly pregnancy: it does not leap fully grown into existence.

I am well aware that abuse quickly paralyses its victim into passive compliance. The victim begins to feel they deserve it, or it is a special kind of love, or some such construction. Their strength and self respect diminishes as insult and paralysis grows ever more. That is extremely powerful in destroying their agency to act. It also doesn't take long for the paralysis to build up. The window of opportunity to act may only be weeks, or even occasionally, days.

All the more reason to urge the importance of early vigilance among lovers against small signs of abuse, with the incredibly urgent need to act fast, and firmly, to forbid it; if it repeats, to leave. This needs to be educated as a task that usually belongs to the most difficult time to do it, in the romantic honeymoon phase.

Any encouragement of (usually female) masochism via the 'stand by your man' worldview, which sentimentalises bad manners, selfishness, roughness, or rage, is corrupt, especially as this is so often a slippery slope to injury, or death. While the idea is current, as it overwhelmingly is, that women or girls must in any way put up with rough treatment, their health, sanity and lives are at risk.
Arguably if there were no sick socialisation that females must suffer in order to stand by their man, then the minority of males who suffer as victims would not endure what theyy do as a role reversal.

THE 'LITTLE WOMAN'
Again, another famous instance of passive complicity is the person who does nothing while their partner tortures or kills someone. Or they merely obey a partner who dominates them. Courts recognise this situation clearly by sentencing the collaborator as well, though normally less than the main agent.

However in these situations there is often a form of gentlemanly sexism that does not hold the ‘little woman’ fully responsible for her crime. While I accept what I call “shared responsibility” I do not see the gap between action and collaboration as being so enormous. It would be better to set the precedent that collaboration carries a high degree of moral responsibility.

Occasionally such a dominated partner is male, but it betrays our understanding of what this means that we would call such a male 'weak.' There is significantly more effort needed to convince us that the dominated male was actually dominated, so their complicity was not a full, equal partnership.

Where the dominated partner is a woman there is usually little need to spell it out that she was dominated. This is the default assumption which can be raised and dismissed in just a few words, or even not mentioned at all as it is taken for granted that the 'little woman' just obeyed her master.
Explanation of the power balance only comes in if a) a report wishes to dwell upon pornographic or grisly details of just how subservient the woman was, or b) if the woman was 'unusually' the dominant partner. Apart from these extremes the assumption is that woman = dominated = not morally equal.

It is, obviously, corrupting to women to treat them as infantile ‘little women’ not capable of moral responsibility. Far more attention needs to be given to how women encourage, manipulate, or otherwise "allow" a monster to develop until atrocity occurs. If women were publicly held far more responsible than they are, for their contribution to crime in a partnership, it would act as a deterrent.

I am reminded especially of the vile Fritzl case where a daughter was imprisoned, raped and bore children in the cellar. Her mother apparently did not challenge her husband's domination and secrecy. If she had she might have saved her daughter from a fate literally worse than death.
In exoneration the Fritzl wife was only seventeen when she married a much older, bullying man. What was the very young wife's family doing? Why didn't they help her stand up to him? Because their particular society is famous for nurturing dominant men and submissive women.

The Fritzl case blazes the danger in weakening women (and our view of them) into obedient dolls. There is no more responsible persojn than a parent: moral agent deluxe! Where one parent acts badly the duty of the other is to correct it, and a subservient wife cannot do that. Nor is it only she who is responsible: the relatives on both sides carry some responsibility for allowing a bully parent to rampage.

In a society where female (or male) subservience to a dominator partner was clearly and universally understood to be corrupt, and dangerous, there would be far, far less scope for all forms of domestic violence: abuse, assault, rape, child abuse, spouse murder. The fact that we live in a cess pool epidemic of it says how far feminism has to go.

DISTANT ATROCITY
Given that inaction carries moral responsibility, how does this relate to the kind of inaction we all practise? For the world is full of people dying of bad water, hunger and preventable disease, yet most of us ignore most of it, at best. Some ignore it completely.

Ash would say that distance, or lack of knowledge, makes no odds. In his compass, inaction and action is not different: there is no distinction between the manufacturer of baby milk who knowingly sells to mothers who cannot get clean water to dilute the powder, and we, who live thousands of miles away.
It's worth noting that we also live in a complex world where millions are deprived, injured, ill, dying, because of a greedy economic system that is also hurting most of us as well, though not as much.

In a purely abstract way yes, we are all responsible for suffering everywhere. In that sense also, I am responsible for the fall of a stone into a pool of water on the other side of the world. That is the wisdom of the mystic who reminds us that everything is connected. I respect that philosophy in helping me to connect, so that I do not disregard things outside my everyday rut as nothing to do with me.

But true moral responsibility lies in power, yours and my power to act or prevent, to move a situation up the hierarchy of (what we) desire or value, or to prevent it slipping downward.

Without power to act I cannot be said to be morally responsible.

Now taking each of those faraway suffering people in turn, yes I could do quite a lot to help some of them. If I reshaped my life I might succour twenty or a hundred to a substantial degree, by direct personal action, for example going to them in my holiday time and feeding them or providing medical supplies. Or going further and opting to work with the aid charities full time.

Individual effort is a tiny matter when dropped into a mess of millions. Even the big charities have limited effect. This is enormously relevant, and affects people differently. To a heroic minority it is all the more important to try to do that tiny bit alone, or to dedicate a life to charity work.
Certainly to do nothing at all, not donate, not write statements and letters where we can, not spread the awful information on how unnecessary all that suffering is, these are morally indefensible passivities.
But beyond what we CAN do, we cannot be held responsible.

Therefore my inaction on many millions living in suffering, dying, carry no significant moral responsibility. Where I do carry moral responsibility is where I clearly can act to save or prevent, if I do not do what I can. It is doing nothing that condemns me, not doing small things.
It is important to remember that small contributions add up. The shift as a pile of pushes finally topples the huge rock comes often without warning, suddenly.

Here the question of distance arises. Clearly I can act to prevent far more effectively in my own zone, whether that is my own immediate locality, or my own society where I know the rules and how to use them. I am therefore faced with a lot more potential responsibility on a local basis.

MORAL INTIMACY
Secondly the issue of moral intimacy comes in.
We are not disembodied brains in buckets - even though we can devise a fantasy that we might be deceived by a Cartesian demon or futuristic Matrix power elite so that we do not realise brains in buckets is all we are.

What we are, in everyday experience, is hot hairy mammals, whose moral motivation is most strongly stimulated by our genetic kin, our friends, and those similar to us – extensions of our kin. That is hardwired in our brains, bucketed or not. We are embodied as philosophers say, we are bodies. As bodies we're situated in a certain place, which makes THAT PLACE more real, more important to us.

There is no good deploring this incredibly strong preference for our own, as if we ‘ought’ to care for millions of babies somewhere far away, as we care for our own. We just don’t, any more than we can naturally see clearly, what we’re looking at several miles away across a lowland landscape.

Until we can invent the moral equivalent to a telescope, bringing the immediacy of suffering everywhere into our ordinary sense of reality as vividly as we notice our own child's hurt, we will continue to see suffering close to as far more important than suffering far away. How not? Evolution developed us, and all other animals, to service the survival of ourselves and our immediate kin. If our ancestors had not had this imperative built in we would not be here to worry about it.

Nor is it necessarily desirable to invent that moral telescope. It is arguable that if we could feel for suffering everywhere as much as we can feel it HERE, we would collapse into a paralysis of sensitivity. Some anxious personalities already do something very like that and the result is inactive depression. We are in fact more likely to get practical and do direct aid or support a charity if we are not frozen by pointless and unrealistic responsibility on a massive scale.
That is the burden of guilt, something that only very rarely helps: significantly, I think at its rare helpfulness in parenting, that responsibility deluxe, the hot, hairy, animal, hardwired to protect and survive.

Finally there are certain people who are enormously responsible for world tragedies of hunger or epidemics, and it doesn’t help to blur them in with people who have not traded in guns, or poisoned waters by extracting or manufacturing processes. To claim moral ground is to act on this muck. But to share its responsibility completely when we did not make it happen, and can do only a certain amount to stop it (each of us) is a noble masochism that can destroy the ability to act at all.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, I do not hold myself or others wholly responsible for the death of children far away. Nor are we wholly responsible for suffering or death we fail to prevent. Collaboration is certainly morally responsible, whether for killing someone, failing to feed them, or for submitting to violence oneself.

The doctor who disconnects life support is responsible in part for the death that results. The battered wife, or the partner of a killer who ‘helps’, is responsible, in part, and it’s a large part. The person who does not act to save, protect, nurture or support, shares responsibility for the consequences.

But collaboration, while complicit, is not the whole story. We would not speak of it, see it, as collaboration, if there were not other factors of responsibility there. The swimmer flailing and sinking to death is doing so before their passive killer even knows it’s happening. The patient on life support is dying of something or would not be on it in the first place. The battered wife has a violent partner who was not wholly developed by her passivity, even though I hold her passivity to a harsh judgement. The complicit partner assists a murderer or abuser who begins the horrible job before the partner can interrupt in any way.

I do want to see collaboration held responsible to a very high degree. I think doctors who mercy kill need respect and understanding for the hard moral act of compliance with death they do. I want us all to contribute to feeding the hungry. I want people to refuse to work for the really obvious exploiters and killers. I want ‘little women’ to grow up and be counted, whether they like it or not, especially as responsible parents.

It does no good to spin morality around in the upper air where distinctions fade into each other. Down here among the hot hairy people, the hierarchy of responsibility must be examined with care, to see where its graded differences lie. Such is the task of moral philosophy.

* This article was written in response to an essay by Thomas Ash. I mention Kamm and Rachels as sources: this is taken from Ash, who does not list references.

Buckets for Social Services

2009-06-10T16:54:00.002+01:00

Apparently children who are "young carers" for parents with health oproblems don't get enough support.

There should certainly be a system in place so teachers know a pupil has good reason for late work.
Also the very real benefits for personal maturity, practical organisation should not be underestimated.

I'd recommend some buckets and rubber gloves for Social Workers so they could do a proper job and make themselves USEFUL. For a change.

It comes back to the current monumental failure of Social Services.
They are too busy fussing and interfering in healthy families to have time for families with real needs.
It's so much easier to tick a box for a family that needs nothing but has been "assessed" than to actually do something practical to help where needed.

It would be far better to cancel meetings, take away the briefcases, ignore the degrees.
Just issue pinnies and rubber gloves and buckets.
A bit of practical home help would help families in need far far more than all the conferences, meetings, assessments, and reports in the world.

Mobile numbers directory -consent?

2009-06-10T13:15:00.003+01:00

A new company has harvested mobile telephone numbers for the UK.
If you have ever entered your mobile number on a form, and not made sure you ticked/ unticked the option to share your number elsewhere - you're on it.

When you gave permission to share your number this could be because you didn't notice the small opt out box. It could also be because you were advised your telephone number would only be passed to selected companies who might offer you products that interested you - such as items to fancy up your mobile phone.
You DID NOT KNOW at that time that your number would be placed on a national directory which anyone can use to contact you.

Clearly this threatens your privacy. It also raises issues of young people and children, or vulnerable people, using a mobile phone.

For full details on your privacy, how to protect yourself, click READ MORE.

When an enquirer contacts the service it will send you a text message advising you that someone wants to contact you.

Clearly this will mean a lot of spam, and could be used to harass.
If you receive abuse as a result of the service the company refuses to take any responsibility.
I contacted my phone provider 02 who are seriously concerned that they have been unable to protect their customers.

OfCom is investigating and a report is due out by Friday.
the DP commissioner's office has provided me with some useful legal data (see below).

1. To have your number removed from the Directory call 0800 138 6263.
DO NOT use the option to text them. This opens a loophole by placing your number on another database.
However as of today the company is swamped with calls to do this and by 1pm today it was no longer possible to get through. I have spoken to several 'managers' who are sounding rattled.

2. You are probably safe if your phone is bought from a shop on a pay as you go basis, if you did not give your name and address as part of the purchase.

3. The legal position is:
Privacy of Electronic Communications Regulations 2003
Regulation 18: (Summarised) People have to know about a directory and that their number is on it. They must be given the opportunity to opt out.

That does not mean getting to know through third parties like newspapers, No2ID, me, or other concerned organisations. It means the directory must notify you direct.

The company stated to the DP office that they planned to notify everyone in one communication, presumably a mass notification. Details on that have not been publicised which is of consern as the service goes live within the week.

Fathers say it doesn't come naturally

2009-06-08T03:58:00.003+01:00

I was very lucky that my John did bond quickly with Tal but on the other hand John knew nothing at all - nothing whatsoever about how to even touch a baby. Since he wanted to be a fully active devoted father he had to learn it all from the first basics.
It was terrifying for both of us, for him obviously it took great courage, and for me too as after a few weeks I had to walk out and leave THE BABY in the hands of an apprentice parent.
Well for us it worked. Phew! But men need a lot more preparation than they get.

But let's not sugar the mummy pill too much. We too know the hell of hating the beloved child.

Yes it's easier becoming a mum. That squalling lump came out of ME and my body recognises it as an extended ME. Right on.
But I vividly recall the day I clung to sanity with shaky hands. At one point I went out of the house feeling I was safer around other people. I just couldn't handle the exhaustion. Its effect on me was literally unspeakable, unsayable.

As soon as John got in I said take him, take the baby for Goddess' sake before I do something awful. Like hit him. The unsayable thing, said, right there.
With soothing and a cuppa I was fine within 15 minutes of getting help.
I was lucky there too. John stayed calm, recognised end-of-tether was natural and normal, didn't panic. Told me I was normal, so I rapidly felt I was, and returned to a more comfortable normality.

What would happen if I'd been alone? If the person I turned to panicked?
"Child Protection" -so-called, is dangerous. It criminalises normal reactions. It stops us ALL - mums as well as dads, admitting we ALL get to the edge of madness at some point. Better to admit it, make it known, then work on it. For ALL of us.

Because if we CANNOT admit it for fear of the child stealers - that's when we are left alone spiralling into just that danger that the ghastly Child Protection system supposedly prevents.
So let's look honestly at what being a parent involves. The greatest love, the greatest joy - and the greatest most ghastly horrors as well. Because it rips us open and expands us, bigger, bigger, until we break and go beyond the greatness we ever dreamed we could be. That is the meaning of ultimate love.

60 Today - many happinesses

2009-06-03T22:55:00.004+01:00

So today was my real 6oth birthday even though my party with Jenny's family was on Saturday.
A quiet day today - there's been a heatwave for a week anyway. Tal did his History exam this morning - partly why we did the more active celebrating at the weekend.
A lot of happy things.

I made some Mabinogi notes this morning (brain happiness),
chatted with Colin who is staying bless him (Friend happiness).
Spoke with mama, only a minor squabble! (simply B)
Checked out a tile design vinyl for the kitchen floor (House happiness).
Tal came back in fine style from his exam, (maternal priide and teacher happiness) with John escorting (father devotion happiness).
I retired to a long bath with rose oil (hedonism happiness)
where I read a cute book by Fay Wheldon (silly book happiness)
and John brought me my old favourite banana custard, (hedonism happiness again) accompanied by Senua Cat and Morgaina Cat (Cats happiness).

John and Tal brought me a PILE of presents -
the most magnificent being a laptop they bought jointly the darlings. I am strictly instructed to use it for ME so it will be mainly for my writing and studies. Careful notes by my John in green Celtic font! (IT happiness)
Also a pretty skirt, scarves, (clothes happiness) a book )brain happiness), and for sheer craziness two model London buses (? a dream of road life fantasy but also a reminder of my very young days as a bus conductor).
I also have a fluffy with cat design and exquisite handmade card from Colin and Joan; not forgetting my fluffy hugs from Jenny and John's tiny witch model.

Many many happinesses brought together on a delicious day touching on all my aspects.

(Ignore READ MORE: full post is here.)

Erotica for Women?

2009-06-03T11:46:00.012+01:00

A new magazine called Filament aims to provide erotica for women.
Well I don't agree with those who immediately say that women don't respond to visual images. Many do, some don't.
But women have much higher standards than men when it comes to visuals because unlike men the visual is not the most important thing about sex. So a visual prompt has to be good to hack it.
Mind you I once asked John what he thought of porn and he said he found it boring even as a young man. A narrow set of poses and types, quickly becoming repetitive.
So the discerning man and many women both require something better.

More pics if you follow the READ MORE link.

It's unlikely that Filament will do any better than previous attempts to get female money. One picture shows a man's back - tired shrug. Now if there was a glimpse of the join with the thigh at one side ... but as it is BORING.

Another has an unpleasant pool of greasy oil around the shoulder and neck. Sloppy. Also why the jaundice yellow? Botox lips are NOT a turn on - they scream a lack of sensitivity. Kissing feelingless plastic is hardly sensual. Plus far too much make up. He looks like a schoolboy who has raided mum's make up and desperately tries to look grown up and instead looks like a crude doll. Poor boy.

I like the one I put at the top best - it has the contrast of white sheets and dark man, and some HAIR for Goddess' sake! though not enough.
But the pose is boring, too straight and rigid. Where's the all important hip? thigh?

Why are all these pictures cut at the waist when the lower stomach, hip and thigh is so magnificently central?
Why no pics of the line of jaw and how it aligns with a cheekbone? That's high erotica.

There needs to be a much wider range of types. Women are varied in our tastes. We don't just respond to elflike effeminate Legolas (oooh!) or elegant hard 007 Connery (oooh!) - we also like stocky Herculeans with deep hairy chests (oooh!) and strange, wiry creatures with slanted eyes (ooh!) and some of us like beards (ooh!) or tattoos (ooh!) or grubbiness and sweat from work (ooh!) or long luxuriant hair (ooh!) or sleek baldies (well no not me but lots of women love them) or jeans + leather belt and maybe cowboy boots (ooh!). That's just a few without thinking about it much.

Whichever type it is it'll take more than just a sheet, or a bit of symbolic art, or an expanse of well lit skin. It'll need a whole zone of body poses. Men use their bodies differently to attract another male and straight men rarely know how to do it for women. But some stars like Sean Connery know, so check them out. It certainly isn't enough to have the body sitting upright facing front, or lying in a straight line. What the legs and hips are doing is crucial.
Oh and pay attention to the THIGHS for heaven's sake. My great grandmother, an Edwardian lady, had a naughty habits of leaning over young men in the park and squeezing a thigh with a happy laugh. Wouldn't be allowed today but I can understand her joy very well indeed.

Then there's lesbian images. Don't they know straight women react very strongly to those without being lesbian at all?

Now THAT'S of interest - and no nakedness either, but the stuff of happy reactions for some.

I think the problem is the designers are just lazy. They want to crank out the same tired old stereotypes as the men's media. It might help if they realised that men too might like something better.

Also that more and more it's an obstacle that the brain throws up the questions - is the model happy about this? Or is s/he so slicked up it's uncomfortable? are they drugged? (check the eyes) are they scared? (ditto) - erotica is a two way exchange.
But that goes into the complex power play or porn, a huge can of worms. Not today thanks, it's my birthday so I'm staying lighthearted.

Tal Fawr with Log

2009-06-02T01:53:00.005+01:00

Tal at 18.

Well actually this is from last Saturday but it's so magnificent I thought it should be posted on its own.

"The Four Branches of the Mabinogi" Will Parker.

2009-06-02T00:09:00.007+01:00

If you love Y Mabinogi then this is a must have book.

I wanted to share my first impressions of
"The Four Branches of the Mabinogi"
before I move into a closer re-reading, taking notes + organising quotes etc type of reading. No doubt I will have more comment later.

What a feast for the mind you are Will. Having managed so far on bits and pieces, short papers in anthologies or journals, or the introductory sections that go with various translations, yours is such a magnificent massive cornucopia.
So magnificent was it that over the first couple of days after the book arrived it was almost too much. Like an ascetic suddenly switched into hedonistic celebration I could hardly encompass the giantism of what you have given me.

Now that the dazzle is settling down I can manage a tiny bit of detachment about my first forays. I can confidently say that whatever critical comment I make, now or later, the sheer scope of his study places Will Parker with the giants of Mabinogi scholarship.

I think what I like most at first grapple apart from the sheer immensity of the opus, is Will's profile of Annwvn as the "Indigenous Underworld." This very much agrees with my own views, but he has expanded my ideas with the perception of Annwvn as a view to the East, recalling Roman luxury villas in the Southwest of England. Even back in my romantic superficial beginnings with Y Mabinogi, I thought that Annwvn and its persons were Neighbours, or Foreigners, rather than the remote, transcendent theology of the "classics" (sic). So this "Indigenous Underworld" is received gratefully.

I am pleased to have a clear etymology for Annwvn. If I understand aright, Will suggests a separate Underworld (chthonic) and Otherworld (marine). I have seen (I think the Matthews) use of Otherworld which did express the kind of Foreigner mode I prefer, but was never quite comfortable either. Although "Underworld" is tricky because of its connotations elsewhere, the etymology as "deep, under" makes it imperative to reconstitute it in Brythonic fashion.

Also the chthonic UNDERWorld sheds light on Arawn's name and nature. I found a possible cognate on Arawn in arawen = grain, cereal. (See Celtnet) Since Hafgan links to the Cymraeg for Summer, this makes Arawn either the Winter King (the Man in Grey as we first meet him) in the seasonal duel, or possibly (Summer) Hafgan is his enemy because from the point of view of the grain, Summer with its killer harvesting is the enemy.

With my interest in Hywel Dda and Elen I was delighted, and perhaps a little disconcerted to find my cherished theory described independently in Will's pages. Reassuring but a bit uncomfortable (wail - this was MINE) However I do have a few more details to add still and shall continue that line to find more.

I also enjoyed much the Teyrnon material - I have been researching place names and especially Wentwood here in Gwent for my "indigenous" local tradition.

There are of course some bits where I disagree with Will but nothing major. I shall explore them as I do my close reading over the next few weeks.

I do recall one item that I will mention which is not so much a disagreement as that I feel Will has not given due weight. That is the Mari Llywd as the missing aspect of Rhiannon/ Non. In Y Mabinogi we have her as Maiden, Bride, Mother, but not as elder matriarch/ crone.
The Mari Llywd fits the gap as its practice stretches across South Wales - I have a delightful tidbit on an author who took his book about the Mari to an Eisteddford. On a stall talking to people about the book he discovered just how prevalent the Mari is - only each locality thought their surviving custom was unique!
The connection is of course the Horse/ Mare and that she is "a grey" that peculiar British convention for a pale horse. Given the Mari's geography, her tenacity of survival, and her fertility/ death's head duality I think we have our other aspect of Rhiannon as elder.

I found a review of Will's book on the net. It lists a number of inaccuracies.
For myself I apply a very tight level of assessment to a paper in an anthology or journal, or a short book. But I feel that for a long opus it is appropriate to be just a little more forgiving.
The functions of the large work, like this one, are to provide extended theory, with a wealth of cross references both intrinsic to the work examined, and extrinsic to it. "The Four Branches" amply performs these duties.
By contrast a paper or short book, which covers only a handful of points on one theme or at most a superficial outline of two or three themes, can be required to achieve 100% rigour. Any inaccuracy damns the entire item.
In an ideal world the long opus should be perfect too, but once past adolescence one has to notice we do not live in an ideal world. If we applied the same harsh criteria to a long opus as we do to a standard short paper, I suspect papers is all we'd ever get for a full book would be beyond human competence. Certainly I've never found a full length book that offered more than the obvious, that didn't have some inaccuracies on detail.

That review, and a couple of comments attached, raises the point that where we find inaccuracy on a few points we already know, it destabilises our trust on the rest of the work. We cannot then rely on using points made in our own work.
Excuse me? Really! Standard academic training is to NEVER use a secondary source, citation or quote, without checking it out. Methinks we have here the bleating of the lazy student who just doesn't want to do the required labour.
Also a touch of envy working. It is of course, so easy, and to a small mind, satisfying, to poke at the detail of a big person's work. So much easier to make a petty dig than to make the effort to dig foundations for one's own edifice.

Admiring as I am of Will's book I do not feel the same about his publisher. The book is badly presented - too bulky, with overly wide pages, and the proof reading is ABYSMAL. There are actual words left out on almost every page! Typos ditto.
I hope Will will consider a second edition with a better publisher who designs the physical book better, and knows more on how to reduce the price as well.

On the work itself I remain deeply in debt and would recommend it highly. It's utterly worth putting up with the thumping great book that needs a small cushion to support it! to get a thumping good read.
It should be obvious from the foregoing however that it's not a book for popular reading. A Level education and above, or self educated equivalent.

Go! Get it and luxuriate as I am doing. Oh what a feast indeed.

Women have never had it so good?

2009-06-01T01:25:00.000+01:00

Sir Stuart Rose, Chair of Marks and Spencer, says "Women have never had it so good." He asks with exasperation what we're unhappy about as a new study by M&S shows women are less happy than in the rigid inequality days of the 1950s.

Could it be, Stuart, that in spite of all the pretty things you desperately need to sell us, and, as you say there are women in high spots in industry now; but you see we women are aware of rather more than that going on.
Frankly my dear, you sound like the men of my youth who thought women shouldn't worry their "pretty little heads" about serious matters.

Here's a quick sample of why women might not be entirely happy.

Domestic violence is a national epidemic with women dying from it every single week.
Rape is running unchecked across our lives. Hardly any rapists get charged, and those that do, don't get sentenced.
Women are giving birth in agony, with huge short staffing in labour wards wrecking safety.
New mothers are chucked on the street within a day. As a result, the Victorian scourge puerperal fever, has returned. It kills. Yet it's so easy to prevent with good hygiene and keeping a nurse's eye on new mothers.
The property boom has pushed rent and mortgages sky high so almost all women have to work for money. Choice? You must be joking. LSE research showed that only 30% of women actually want to go out to work full time when they have a child. About 80% do it, unhappily.
We are separated from mothers, sisters and brothers who traditionally helped us cope with our children. We are separated because we are forced to get jobs in other areas.
We watch horrified and helpless as our children grow up badly because we are not there.
The education system is dangerous to kids, with its violent bullying in every school, drugs, knives, a radical lack of studying ethos.
The ruthless fashion industry is destroying our confidence worse than ever. Your industry, dear Stuart, which kills young girls who starve themselves to try to be "beautiful."

We are utterly utterly exhausted with covering three roles, job, mother, home, making it work. Our health is suffering.
Yes there have been some improvements. But don't insult us by saying that this is equality, or feminism.

Diolch yn fawr John

2009-05-31T23:25:00.001+01:00

A little post to say thank you to my John.
Often I mention what others do for the House and it is not so obvious that the big obvious things are only possible because John travels indefatigably around the country collecting my many Ebay purchases, supported by his wizard petrolhead magic, provides tools, sources more tools when needed, cooks delicious meals for everyone, does his own share of DIYery, supports and shares my decisions.

(Ignore READ MORE - this is a small post with no more to follow.)

Sexual age of consent

2009-05-31T22:00:00.001+01:00

I've just been reading about Bill Wyman and 13 year old Mandy. Interesting how attitudes have changed so enormously towards younger teenagers being sexual.

Historically 13 year old wives have been quite normal and still are across most of the world. We commonly admire Shakespeare's Juliet - we don't see her as sexually abused!
But young wives or girlfriends lived in large extended families, they weren't expected to run a home on their own. Perhaps the tremendous push to split families up into tiny units of no more than 2 or 3 people nowadays has more to do with the sexual age of consent than is usually realised.

Strange really. Tiny households mean we buy a lot more goods - 2 or 3 times as many washing machines, cookers, fridges, sets of carpets, cars etc Good news for the money men - add on making those older girls work in jobs, paying a higher mortgage and taxes and the money is whizzing!

Compare China where there is no sex or marriage under 25. Is this the future?
If so it bears consideration that China's law is not about protecting the young. It's about making sure they stay hard at it at work, as well as population control.

60th Birthday! and House happiness

2009-05-30T08:02:00.001+01:00

Jenny Mark and James have worked miracles. It's wonderful to see the House coming alive, coming into its beauty.
Doors, floors, garden, an outing to magical Wentwood (see pic - click it to see full size) and finally birthday celebration evening - I am 60!
I just managed to get the four poster room ready for Jenny, Mark and baby boys when they arrived. Great to be able to offer them the kind of guesting they deserve. It's all white with green carpet, pine four poster, and lavender sprigged curtains.

Mark the Magician installed the beautiful old doors I found to open on to the garden. They have green swirly bottle glass in leaded panes. He also put in one of the Dance Room doors, heavy pine framed panes of glass, more light! more light!

Meanwhile James took charge of the new fencing and John cleared the overgrown grass, and Tal cleared away my store of leaded glass windows. All together we have a garden again. Young Matthew and Michael much enjoyed roly poly on a blanket.

James also laid blond parquet in our study so it too is getting beautiful. As ouyr most used room that's so welcome instead of a mucky hole. Oh and last but not least he and Tal abolish the horrible old bar opening up the Lounge for a dining area. What a relief - that old bar just magnetised rubbish and dominated the whole room.

Jenny is all the time everywhere, clearing, encouraging, buttying, organising - with a baby on her hip and a toddler never far away. This is a matriarch extraordinaire. I am so lucky in my friendship with her.

I should also mention my admiration for Mark who often works at carpentry or plumbing with 2 year old Michael pottering about under his care. Like our son long ago, Michael has been strictly trained on safety and is remarkably good on it. But even so it's not easy to work on skilled tasks with a young person right in your zone.

SATURDAY we had a lovely outing to Wentwood (pics to follow) in very hot sunshine - but it was cool under the trees. Michael explored happily in all directions up and over the tumulus mound, while certain elders dozed peacefully.
The bluebells were everywhere and the green was so rich, deep and mysterious it was entirely likely for the fae to pop out of the shadows at any mopment.

In the evening, late after the heat died John cooked me a grand birthday dinner. It was held in the lounge on John's beautiful oak table which Tal laid and surrounded with lots of candles. A festive spread was much enjoyed by all though sadly Colin was unable to be there.
I understand some presents await me on my calendar birthday in a few days time. Meanwhile Jenny gave me a fluffy Little Hug, Tal a ridiculous pulp romance (so appropriate for me) and John two exquisite silk scarves and a tiny model of witch, cat and cauldron.
At the end John put all the little candles on a plate and I blew them out - somewhat too enthusiastically sending hot wax splashing. I wished, prompted by Jenny, and my wish was the same numeric that John and I shared at out beginning. He'll know what I mean.
I also made a speech about how 60 is gaining the wisdom that "you can't do it all." That has been a hard won recent win, but although I accept there are things I have not done or had, how rich I feel in what I have. The inner voice is also clear that I have another lifetime now as Crone which will be a greatly fulfilling and creative one.
And so to bed.

Rhiannon

2009-05-26T00:48:00.002+01:00

My Rhiannon research is really fizzing!
Decided to check her father in the First Branch - found his name is Hyfaidd Hen.
Looked that up and YESSS! there was a Dyfed warlord king same name. A lot of the information fits my theory of how Dyfed used the Pwyll Rhiannon myth politically.
Exciting.

Oh and I've ordered the magnificent Will Parker "The Four Branches of the Mabinogi." a bit of a gulp at £40 but it's a big detailed book. Can't wait.

Also just seen Andrew Breeze has “The Origins of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi” coming out very soon - June 2009 - and only a tenner. Great! Breeze has a theory of a female writer for Y Mabinogi. I'd agree there is much female content that is unlikely from a male author, but of course I have my own ideas as to who the lady might be - not the same as Breeze who goes for Gwenllian.
Still I only know a description of his theory, not the actual detailed argument (it's in a journal paper or a totally expensive survey he wrote on Welsh medieval literature. We shall see.

Found a wonderful cat picture in the Book of Kells but not enough info on where to locate it. It's in Nora Chadwick “Celtic Britain.” 1963.

Bubbling BRAIN.

[Ignore the READ MORE link - this is the complete post.]

Busy bee family

2009-05-26T00:37:00.001+01:00

Jenny Mark James and sprogs are over from Ireland. A great joy to have the house full of lovely beloved people for a week. The four poster guest room is now ready and Jenny assures me as its first users they had a great night's sleep. Lots of work being done!

Mark is working on the double doors to the garden - a set of beautiful old pub doors with greenish leaded glass panes in the top half. (Ebay natch) A tricky job that needs Mark.
James and Tal have mostly demolished the old bar - a great relief not to have it looming over us. So the lounge is now opened up and spacious.
Jenny is everywhere with ideas and practicality. How she does so much with two tinies in tow is amazing but she and Mark work together in the most skilful way keeping sprogs happy but still doing most of what they want to do. Something to see and admire.
Tonight we discussed using the new space in the lounge to create a library for all our books. But as everyone nicks books the problem is ... various wild schemes as solutions! John got thoughtful and said we can make glass doors for bookcases so off to Ebay we went and sure nuff ... watch this space.
Meanwhile Tal and James are studying for exams. Must get some fencing in for them to put up for the garden.
Oh and I'm losing weight. I have shoulders with hollows, and I can do my shirt up all down to the bottom.
A happy time.

Peter's so-called "mother."

2009-05-22T06:25:00.001+01:00

Peter's "mother," the woman who let her child be tortured and killed as a toddler (Baby P) is to be sentenced tomorrow. She has written an apology.

Such an apology, right before she is sentenced, is glaringly obvious as a play for sympathy. It could be dismissed as meaningless on that basis, but actually it shows up just what a foul female this is.

In a previous post here just earlier today I wrote of the absolute priority a child must take over any lover, even its own father. For if not, this is the extreme result, to "stand by your man" at the expense of a small child.

She speaks of nothing but herself in her horrible apology.
She speaks of her failure, not of the child's pain. She shows she is aware that she has a miserable future. She cries every day. She is sad she will never see her lovely son grown up.
She says nothing of the hell she created for him.

She says she failed to be honest with Social Services and as a direct result her son "got hurt and sadly lost his life."
Firstly it was not a direct result of Social Services failings that the child suffered and died.He died because certain adults tortured and killed him. Not Social Workers.
Secondly how revealing are her words. Peter "got hurt" - as if he stumbled and fell all by himself. He "sadly lost his life" - as if in a sad accident. She has no awareness that it was she who caused his suffering and his death, together with the two males she allowed to stay around him.

This excuse of a mother, this utter slut of a woman, tries to blame the tragedy on her failure to be honest with outsiders. She sees none of her own huge responsibility in allowing inferior males to stay around her child. She sees none of her failure to protect, her failure to leave.

Her child did not exist for her. Only her own ugly needs, her cowardly fears, her shameful dependency.

It is time we called time on these unspeakable females who cling to some dregs of a male, and put that foul link first, not their child. That is to be a slut, and a whore.
Inferior males, and their female allies shriek about how many lovers a woman has. They prance about in religious robes, or respectable suits, condemning sexuality as if it is monogamy that protects children. For shame on this cruel hypocrisy.

It is not the quantity, but the quality of her sex choices that makes a whore. A woman could have many lovers, but choose good partners, who do not harm her child. Or she could choose just one, clinging to him over long years of a sanctified, respectable marriage, supporting him even when he hurts or humiliates her child.
The first can be a good mother, which is what matters.
The second is a whore.

A woman's right to choose is a heavy responsibility. Time we stopped forgiving sluts who cling to bad men. It is time we held them fully responsible for the terrible harm they allow to happen. For the sin of the bad female is usually passivity.

Women are responsible for what we do. That is the core of feminism.

Child or father first?

2009-05-21T14:01:00.001+01:00

A woman has stated publicly that she loves her husband more than her children. Rightly she sees this as a forbidden thing to say. She is brave to go against the mainstream view.
Nor does she sound like a bad mother. But a confused one.

Putting children first doesn't cut out flourishing sex with their father/ a partner, as the lady seems to think. Over a long marriage sex dips or disappears, sometimes for months on end. Early years childcare is so exhausting, and privacy is a problem! But sex comes back - it has a lot of raw power!
In fact it's good for children to know that a love affair is happening, and to learn the courtesy of respecting sexual privacy. A closed bedroom door means 'do not disturb except in emergency' which is an important social code.

Nor does devotion to child mean you cannot adore your lover. There are different kinds of love, and different kinds of passion. Both these are passionate loves. Both stir the heart and soul.

You don't necessarily have to feel like you're "in love" with the child. Devotion is none the worse for not being romantic. I guess it depends how romantic you are.
My son is a kind of faerie magical prince to me, a dream lover. Freud knew his stuff! Only of course that bedroom bit belongs to husband. I cannot imagine any of that in connection with my child even if I try. But I'm undoubtedly "in love" - missing his presence, delighted at every detail of his appearance, all the symptoms of heart and mind being in love.
Maybe this lady who feels she is not "in love" with her child is interpreting being "in love" too sexually?

What is right and proper however, is for the new life to take absolute priority. That is nature's way.
Only if the child's longer term, or deeper needs justify pushing it to one side for the sake of the father, can this be a good thing. For example I once put the father first for most of a year. He had cardiac crises, over and over again.
It was terribly difficult balancing the devotions. I made time for my child, and made sure he had high quality care while I stayed in hospital keeping his father alive. But clearly, this was about saving his father for him, and secondly, my beloved.

The "what if" game is helpful.
If the house is on fire, and you can't save both partner and child - obviously you save the child. It would be agonising - but then you see I know that his father would have it no other way. He knows that I would put our son first, as I know he would too. That is something to do with why I love this father so very much.

When baby was tiny I hesitantly voiced this. Looking at the precious little thing between us, I said softly to the father "You know, I can't put you first any more, don't you?"
He glared at me like a savage. "What the hell do you think I'm doing as well?" he roared. "Of COURSE he comes first."
That is a profound love to share.

Both parents should put their child first on anything important. But that still leaves plenty of places for the adult beloved to have priority as well. With sex, romance, fun and all the rest.

False Allegation

2009-05-20T23:54:00.000+01:00

An accused taxi driver is to get financial compensation for a false rape allegation that wrecked his life. This is indeed a landmark case.

Now can we have compensation for families wrecked by "guilty till innocent" investigations by Child Protection?

Any family should be very very wary of asking for help from Social Services. Help means interference. You are unlikely to get much real help, and you could easily find they disapprove of something quite petty and start investigating you.

These so-called Child Protection investigations are far far worse than the police. They are actually more terrifying as the risk of inefficient Social Workers taking a child away without cause is very high. That's worse than any criminal sentence.

Social Services do not use rules of evidence.
They often depend on a single person's opinion - and this can be about what MIGHT happen, not what HAS happened. So you can be completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Social Services also pretend to be casual, to "have a chat", to be "helping." When in fact they are deceivinjavascript:void(0)g you and trying to tick boxes against you.
They tell people they shouldn't contact a solicitor, which police cannot say.
They have no duty to tell the family their rights.

Like this poor man, life is ruined, as family is shunned. Child is isolated in a wrecked family. It takes many many years to recover, if ever. Childhood ruined and can never be put right.

Anyone suffering from false allegations can get help from the Family Rights Group (FRG); or False Allegations Support Organisation (FASO).

NEVER be taken in by talk of a "little chat." there is no such thing. Every contact with you is written in a Report and kept permanently on record about your family.
NEVER agree anything or discuss anything on the phone. For every single thing, ask for it to be put in writing.
DEMAND the reason (in writing, make a copy) for any Assessment, investigation or contact. They are required to tell you. They are also required to give you details of their Complaints Procedure at FIRST CONTACT with you.
ALWAYS tape EVERY meeting. Start the tape running, then ask if they mind. This is a legal requirement or else you cannot use the tape as evidence.
ALWAYS have an independent witness with you at any meeting to support you and observe what is said.
TRY not to get aggressive when they are being impossible and infuriating. This can be used as evidence you are an unsuitable parent.
FILE ALL PAPERS in a ring binder. Put them in date order, LATEST on top, oldest at the bottom. Keep any copies or attachments with the original letter/ notice. Use paper clips to fasten such bundles together. Make a copy of any letter you write and put it in this file.
CRY A LOT. Don't drink, don't drug. Talk to good friends. It's survivable, though one of the worst experiences you can ever know. Be warned: partners get angry with each other under the strain. Keep fighting!

CONTACT your local Councillors, your MP, FASO and FRG. Ask them to help you get a solicitor if you don't have one.
Family Rights Group (FRG).
False Allegations Support Organisation (FASO).
Local Councillors are listed on your Council website.
www.WriteToThem.com lists who your MP is.

Praise song

2009-05-20T05:31:00.001+01:00

Is there greater joy than to see your child triumph? I doubt it.

Yesterday my Boy went to take an exam, the first of a series over the next few weeks. After much pushing - bullying and coaxing both! yes he DID work hard. He left very early in the morning light, a hero walking, well prepared and gleaming.
It took a lot from us all as a family. Quite honestly I was far more exhausted than he was. But ...
I think I was happier as I knew so much more of what we'd accomplished together.

Strange things these hormones. As a young woman there was nothing I loved more than fiercely reaching for what I willed. Then Love, and the beloved's needs twine with mine. But nothing, nothing, nothing compares to the all engulfing Song of the Child.

Oh dear he was so brave. He rarely shows, or I think, feels fear. A much loved being, glowing full of confidence. But in this endeavour, yes he came to shelter with me before and after the great effort of the event itself.

No there is no greater joy than to see him conquer. I just wish it wasn't so exhausting - for me!

Thanks due for help with Blog

2009-05-20T03:00:00.001+01:00

Thank you to Vin the Blog Doctor.
http://www.blogdoctor.me
so now I can show snippets for each post to make them shorter. Readers can read more if you like but not have to wade through loads of stuff you don't want.
Wonderfully clear instructions - what rarity.

Quis custodies?

2009-05-19T23:29:00.000+01:00

Today it is said that MPs cannot be trusted to handle their own finances.
Get real. It's not that MPs can't be trusted to handle their own finance claims.

NO ONE can be trusted to check their own finance claims. ANYONE who could just claim whatever they wanted would get greedy.

So what was the Fees Office doing? If the claims put in had been properly handled - accepted only when mainly incurred as part of work expenses - most of this would not be happening.

Andrew Walker, Commons' finance and administration director who ran the Fees Office must not be a scapegoat. He DID try to challenge the unspeakable Speaker Martin about all this. Martin suppressed his reports.

The question now is WHO will the new "independent" Fees Office be accountable to? The tax authorities are too overstretched. The citizen panel sounds like a good idea. There are plenty of people who oversee expense claims for their companies who could do this.

Harlow, Queen of Faerie

2009-05-15T11:41:00.001+01:00

I remember Harlow very well as a heroine to my family so I am surprised to hear her spoken of in a new biography, as being so obscure.
Nowadays I hope we can understand better that these bewitching women - and men - are typically not themselves interested in sex. Not real sex.
To these fey creatures, sex is a way to power, very often the only way to get affection they know. To get a glimpse of gentleness, they will suffer a great deal of violence. Their lovers therefore know they can be uncontrolled and get away with it.

They crave affection, faeries do, to be wanted for more than their beauty, but then they are hurt by being used, so often settle for the power their pseudo-eroticism gives them. Not that this false eroticism isn't beautiful. It's the true meaning of glamour - Glamourye - the ancient eldritch art of faerie. To turn dross into gold by candlelight.

For when dawn comes, that fey creature is revealed as grubby, hung over, smelly and grey of skin. Frequently ill, anxious, craving and demanding. At worst dominating at best needy.
Yet still the fascination of that Look bespells us so the truth is hard to see.

The truth, of a starving abused child, desperate for love they never got. Instead they got sex, too early, so they absorbed its raw power without its sweetness.
Unequal sex, too young sex, damages for life.

Of these are made our stars, our prostitutes, our rent boys, and our battered wives. Seduced or bullied young they learn so thoroughly that they have little or no value except as a sexual body. The rest has a horrible logic that destroys them with drink, drugs and violence as they seek more and more desperately to numb the void.
Not a pretty sight after all, as what seemed so lovely is stripped of its illusion. Poor Jean.

One law for the rich ...

2009-05-15T10:55:00.000+01:00

Last week a young mother was killed. She had begged for police protection because she had received threats to kill her.
Police did NOTHING. Only hours later she was dead.

Yet one of these scum MPs [fraudulent expenses] has a window broken and there are instantly TWO police guarding his home. For a broken window!

One law for rich scum. Another law for us.

However there are interesting developments. The Mail has teamed up with the Taxpayers' Alliance to bring private prosecutions against the worst MPs. The hated Jaqui Smith and Hazel Blears are top of the list together with Morley and McNulty.

It seems a private prosecution has to meet a high standard of evidence: it must show there was intent to defraud. Very sticky to prove.
Very likely there will never be any actual prosecutions. There will however be a fuss and a stink, and these fatcat frauds will be battered and badly embarrassed.

In the year leading to a general election this will be interesting.

Cameron (ugh) gets it right

2009-05-13T16:04:00.000+01:00

Today in Parliament:
All the leaders stopped short of personal attacks on each other's claims or those by their team in a tacit admission they are all deeply involved. (Daily Mail)

I have had some sympathy with Brown about MPs expenses. But not now.
Just as the bad news was being published by the Telegraph, a frantic Brown yelled at his Ministers that NuLabour MUST clean up their act. His people refused. That's when I sympathised.

A hysterical week later David Cameron announced that he's NOW cleaning up his MPs.
Now I don't rate DC - he's an empty puppet, another Blair, who'll say anything to get power.
But here he's done it right.
Or at least he has good advisers.

His people have been told to pay back their cheating money or get out of politics.
Clegg's LibDems are also coughing up. Clegg's calling to cancel mortgages on expenses.
All Brown can do is point at a committee grinding its way to changing the system - one day.
Not good enough.

CAMERON / TORIES
No more claiming on expenses for a mortgage, then renting out the property.
No more furniture, food and household goodson expenses.
Expense claims to be published online as soon as they are made.
CLEGG/ LIBDEMS
Repayments are being made.
Capital gains can only be kept based on the amount of their own money that has gone on a property.
BROWN
Wait for the Committee to make a decision.

Oh and Hazel Blears the muckiest of the lot is voluntarily replying a few thousads of the millions she has made. She SAYS her constituents are the most important thing in her life. Does the woman not have children?

Boy is DEAD. Use Reins on Toddlers!

2009-05-13T13:00:00.000+01:00

A 2 year old has died at a fairground. He got away from his dad and collided with something moving.

Like the McCann tragedy, this is not about blaming the father. Far too many people neglect to use reins so he is not to blame. It would have seemed normal to him to walk with a 2yr toddler without reins because so many people do it.

My son was in reins until he was definitely safe on his own. That was around 4.
I bought 2 reins and sewed them together.
That meant he could have a "short rein" in busy places, crossing the road. But in a safer place he could have a bit more freedom, like in the library (ist floor, closed off but big space for him)

However whatewver we do it's almost impossible to contain every 2yrs. They are just so totally unaware of danger. We were in a little kiddies playground once, off the reins. He slipped away and was found outside by the ice cream van!

Interestingly the reins taught him a set limit of how far to walk away from me when not wearing them later. This was very useful for years till he outgrew it.

The Bullied Breast

2009-05-10T23:35:00.001+01:00

Please please STOP spreading this wicked lie that "breast is best."

This is a gross oversimplification. It is damaging mothers and children both.

# Some babies cannot tolerate their own mother's milk. For them, breast is NOT best.

# Some mothers have a virus, or a health condition which they do not want to transmit to their baby. For them breast is NOT best.

# Some mothers just cannot breast feed due to certain types of nipple, or a very hungry baby needing more milk than they can supply. For them breast is NOT best. The agonising struggle forced by “breast is best” bullying blights their introduction to motherhood..

# For mothers after a caesarian, breast feeding can be far too demanding on a body in recovery. For them breast is NOT necessarily best.

# For some mothers the painful aspect of breast feeding many experience, cracked nipples, the acute and intimate demand on a body shattered by a bad birth, the massive drain on their bodies, the exhausting frequency of feeds, all adds up to far too much to handle so breast is NOT best.

# For some families the crucial involvement of the father in bonding to build long term commitment, or where the father is to be the primary parent, means for these families breast is NOT best.

STOP BULLYING about breast feeding. It's driving vulnerable women into depression and lifelong guilt that does NOT enhance their parenting.

By all means campaign to improve support and public tolerance for those families who are willing to breast feed. But the soundbite “breast is best” is bullying, dishonest, and cruel.

Breast is best when a particular family decides it is. Not otherwise.

Army to run State Schools

2009-05-10T18:00:00.000+01:00

The Army is to be called in to run some State schools.

This is the Hitler youth idea.

Those who know a bit about the history of State schooling know its origins were to train poor boys how to obey military orders, as a preparation for the army (in Prussia).
It was so successful that State "schooling" spread across Europe, America and the world. It was NOT about education.

So now it's coming out in the open. School is about robot obedience, uniforms, hierarchy, and training as cannon fodder.

"drills, uniformed parades, weapons handling and adventure training."
Adventure training maybe. Physical exercise is much needed since schools sold off their sports grounds.
But how is the rest going to improve literacy? self confidence facing up to the authorities? or social skills around MUTUAL respect and MUTUAL cooperation?

Hitler Youth did this same military takeover of the young. So does every dictatorship.

MPs Expenses

2009-05-10T11:37:00.000+01:00

Thank you to the Telegraph for aiding democracy in exposing this corruption. You are quite right that “acting in good faith” means claiming decent and reasonable expenses for the clear purpose they are intended. It means respecting that this is OUR money, public money.
Democracy is being served.

Phil Woolas MP appears to be a transvestite and fetishist claiming for women’s clothing and nappies for his own use. To each their own, but NOT on public money.
Barbara Follett MP gets police protection way above what any other frightened, mugged woman in Britain can dream of getting.
Mr. McNulty MP and Keith Vaz MP are property developers, using public money to do it.
Phil Hope MP can’t stuff all his expense paid goodies in his home, there are so many.

One MP has asked plaintively where his baby son could sleep if he can’t buy an expensive cot on expenses? Well I bought a very nice travel bed for £25 on Ebay, and I paid with my standard income, not public money. You provide for your child out of what you EARN, not by fiddling expenses.

In the Public Interest?

2009-05-09T11:39:00.000+01:00

MPs are now forced to consider just what "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" means.

They have voted for laws to put all OUR personal information on one central database.
Millions of us, with our health, finance, locations, children's details, can now be put on a memory stick or disk - just like their "sensitive information" now.

Then just like theirs, our information can be wrongly put together, corrupted, leaked, lost, or sold, and used to hurt us.

I have NO sympathy. They've dropped US in it.
I'm very glad THEY are getting a taste of it.
Maybe that might make them realise in their fatcat, cocooned lives, what it's like to be a real person.

The Telegraph is RIGHT. Publication is overwhelmingly in the public interest.
Sir Stuart Bell you are WRONG. Exposure of what YOU do with PUBLIC money is definitely part of a democracy. Get real and stop whingeing.

MPs who are upset might like to join No2ID to get database info under control.

Just Eat Less!

2009-05-05T10:41:00.000+01:00

Jim said: stop sticking food down your throat just check on the state of the people of the Sudan, even the thickest fatty cant deny this one ...

This is dangerous, ignorant rubbish.
Yes people in starvation conditions are thin. They are also VERY SICK. They die young.

They have fragile bones.
Immune system drastically weakened.
A cut or wound will heal very slowly and infect easily, death from blood poisoning a high risk.
A small bug is serious to a weak starving body. They die of them unnecessarily.
They die young.

Weight loss done properly means eating just as much or even MORE!

The art is to eat different things, gradually training oneself to eat differently step by step.
Cut out sugar first - that can take weeks or months.
Always eat breakfast or you eat more in the evening.
Increase exercise tiny bit by tiny bit - I had to start with 15 steps across my bedroom.

Do not DARE insult the courage the patience it takes. From 15 steps to hillwalking has meant a heroic journey. ,/span>

MPs Expenses

2009-05-02T15:44:00.000+01:00

I'm no great lover of this government but this is highly biased reporting. Four major areas are being reformed. The only significant "climbdown" is the daily attendance allowance.

4 out of 5 is excellent - especially as the MPs themselves voted the 4 reforms through by overwhelming majority.
Plus there will be more when this Committee finishes their work.

No 2nd second home allowance for Greater London MPs 355 to 39.
All expenses supported by receipt 348 to 22.
Declare all outside earnings 305 to 31.
All MPs' staff employed centrally by the House, not by MP 285 to 96.

I say just for once WELL DONE MPS.

Is Hetero Natural?

2009-04-26T09:46:00.001+01:00

'What makes you think it's natural to be heterosexual?':
Christian teacher suspended over gay rights promotion row.

The lady was NOT saying that heterosexuals are normal.
She was pointing to the fact that many people assume homosexuality is not "natural."

Her question then asked why people believe this?
Possibly her manner or way of using this approach was flawed.

It would be better to explain FIRST that
-- many animal species routinely include homosexuality;
-- all human societies include homosexuality;
-- many human societies have historically respected it.
-- it is a natural method of population control.
-- religions differ in whether they accept it- there is no one religious view.

So homosexuality is certainly "natural." The question is then how we deal with differing views on its rightness - something quite different.

Young people deserve help in understanding hetero/ homosexuality both: otherwise they can live in miserable uncertainty.

Gestapo Social Workers

2009-04-25T09:48:00.000+01:00

Daughter blasts 'Gestapo' social services as they bundle mother, 86, out of family home
Please Daily Mail, expose the named person who authorised this travesty of "care."

Social Services are way out of control and thank God people now know it.

Please make sure everyone knows when dealing with these people always always always do the following:

--- have EVERYTHING put in writing - never agree anything verbally
--- don't talk with them on the phone, just keep saying thanks please put that in a letter to me
--- tape all in-person contact (start the tape then ask if they mind; this request is a legal requirement).
--- ignore their claims they "just want to have a little chat." No such thing. Anything with them is recorded in your file, and used officially.
--- notify a solicitor and your local Councillor if you must deal with them - and make sure they know you have.
--- cc all your leters to the solicitor. Ask solicitor to just file the letters at first for information.
--- check the DP Act.

DO NOT TRUST THEM.
They can and do wreck families' lives.

Moving in!

2008-04-24T20:00:00.002+01:00

We moved!