"Only" 5 weeks?

I'm a big fan of Scott Meyers' "Basic Instructions".

The latest edition (posted on Wednesday but I only saw it today) is this:


The bit that I want to talk about in particular is frame 2, and in particular in particular, the comment "I only get 5 weeks paid vacation".

I have applied often enough for entry-level admin, office, etc jobs to know that the terms and conditions offered for those entry-level jobs often include between 20 and 25 days paid leave per year (in addition to Bank Holidays) - at a 5 day working week that's 4 or 5 weeks holiday as the standard for entry-level office work.

So my question is: all you Yanks out there - what happened? Why don't you have the same rights as the rest of us? Hell - Britain is actually behind the curve on this compared to Europe, they get even more vacation time that we Brits do!

A comparable employee to that boss dude in the cartoon over here could have as much as 30-35 days leave (6-7 weeks) a year. You guys are getting stiffed, I tells ya!

Don't panic! don't panic!

Yesterday at the supermarket I had a panic attack. It was a mild one, not the full-on retching and doubled over and unable to function, and to be honest I don't think there were any obvious signs to the people around me of what was happening. But it was a panic attack and it was bloody frightening.

Not least because there was no obvious reason for it. I don't think it was because I'd just totted up the cost of the things in my trolley and it was already over what I was expecting to spend. There was too much of a gap between that and when the symptoms started to hit.

Out of nowhere, my heart started to race and it felt as if I was quivering all over (although I'm fairly sure I wasn't actually shaking, it certainly felt like I was. My animal brain was sending fear signals all over the place. I had to work hard to keep control of my breathing, and I tried to use slow, deep, breaths to calm myself but that didn't help. It was as though my whole body had suddenly started to respond to my surroundings with "Where am I? What am I doing here? Shit, this isn't right - I've GOT TO GET OUT OF HERE!!!!" And my higher self, trying desperately to calm things down, felt like it was fighting a losing battle. I kept myself calm on the surface, and I even managed to continue and finish my shopping, I kept that much of a lid on it externally, but all the time this turmoil and panic was flooding my system and I couldn't do anything about it.

Eventually, I finished the shopping, paid for my groceries, and went and sat down outside. I took a long while just sitting and drinking some mineral water I'd bought, and letting the inaction and the comfort of drinking start to take effect. I was probably in that panic state for at least 5 minutes, and it took me probably twice that long to come down from it enough that I could get home. It felt like a much longer walk than usual, because I was still feeling worn out from it all.

In some ways, the panic attack didn't feel like a panic situation at all, but rather it felt like the aftermath of a crisis. You know how sometimes you're in a high-stress situation, and you just have to act? But then when the crisis has past, your body collapses and the stress of it all comes over you. It was that type of sensation.

It's very scary when this sort of thing happens. I'm glad this is a rare event for me.

"LORD, Grant me..." - on "choice", "can't help it" and wisdom

Via Caroline Uncool, a little gem of "satire" fail crosses my radar and I feel compelled to respond. Not that my response is going to mean anything to Pisaquari, the author of that laughable (in the worst sense) piece of prose, but anyway.

As ever, the "Other Side" manages to reduce things to a simple "either-or" binary. It seems either EVERYTHING must be mutable and subject to choice, or else NOTHING is.

A famous prayer (I forget which saint is associated with it) is as follows:

LORD,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
Courage to change the things I can
And wisdom to know the difference.

When it comes to sexual orientation, most modern feminists accept that being gay or lesbian is not a matter of choice - it's just the way we are. This, we may safely say, is among "the things we cannot change", so we accept it and say instead that it is something for which we should fight for social equality.

When it comes to the economic and sexual exploitation of women, we can safely say that this is something that can, and should, be changed - it will take a lot of courage and a lot of effort, but we know it can eventually be done.

It does not need much feminist wisdom to tell the difference between these things! (Of course, it helps if you have a bit of feminist wisdom to see the difference.)

Let's have a look at the other items in Pisaquari's little vignette:

• Whatever you do in the bedroom
• Preferences for self-expression
• The kind of people we are
• Wearing lipstick

Well, now. Which of these can we change, and which require serenity instead? Can wisdom enlighten us here?

Actions can be chosen, for sure. A person can choose whether he wears lipstick or not, a person can choose what she does in the bedroom. But can they change the reasons why they choose? That seems to be a question of "preferences of self-expression" and "kind of people we are".

Pisaquari writes of "a feminism that could reject, resist, reform." I have heard that language before. From anti-gay Christians, who believe that Christ will make people reject, resist and reform their homosexuality into conforming heterosexuality. Of course, I do believe in feminism's ability to reject, resist and reform social issues, to change and ultimately destroy the patriarchal systems that govern our everyday lives. But I find the idea that we can use a political ideology to change what turns us on sexually to be extremely dubious. What we do about what turns us on is a different question than what it is that turns us on.

Whatever you do in the bedroom, you can’t help. No matter how many times you examine it, no matter how many times you think you might hate it so much you wanna go jump off a bridge while securing a chained noose to the perimeters of your neck and the scaffolding-whilst also aiming for the shark’s maw-no you can’t help it.

Umm, if you don't like it then you're not going to do it (or at least, you're going to be very well aware that it's not something hardwired into you to do it!). If you examine why you're doing it, you're looking not at the fact you do it, but at the fact you like it - and the reasons for liking it. So everything after "No matter how many times you examine it" has no place in this argument. It's just gibberish.

No matter how many times you’ve tried blocking thoughts about some older man insisting on you calling him Daddy while being orally serviced, it doesn’t matter. You can’t help it. You’ve had those thoughts for as long as you can remember!

Wow - that's some talent, being able to call someone Daddy while orally servicing him. Most people's mouths are somewhat occupied while "orally servicing", and therefore speaking at all is rather prohibited by that fact!

But, erm, let's just say for a moment that this "you" is a man instead of a woman. Then we see that this is precisely the same criticism that those anti-gay Christians keep trying to use to attack the idea that being homosexual is prenatally determined. And it is a big, fat, FAIL for the exact same reasons as the homophobes' argument is a big, fat FAIL.

If you feel you are a queer man trapped in a transgendered body with a hard-wired preference for paisley skirts and pin-striped business suits, then. you. are. It’s your biologically determined state!

"...trapped in a transgendered body..." - I'm not even sure what that's suppsoed to mean, but it looks awfully as if it's saying that you've been forcibly made to undergo SRS? Or is it saying that "if you're a queer man trapped in a woman's body"? Also, is the paisley skirt and the pin-striped suit meant to be worn by the same person at the same time, or is it you in one and your partner in the other? More to the point - why the fuck does it matter to you if I like to wear a paisley skirt and a pinstripe suit at the same time, and fuck people of my ownn genital grouping? Why does feminism have ANYTHING to say on the matter at all beyond, "you go, girl!"? Why do you care if my preference for such behaviour is hardwired or not? Why does it matter to you if I feel this is the way I am (transgendered, gay, paisley-skirt-and-pinstripe-suit-loving) and can't be changed? What difference does it make to you, your lives, the ability of women to "upon examining their condition, find it in themselves to make a different, less painful life"? Help me out here, cos I'm a bit confused!

Power Play Bars are about owning power. With play! Everyone gets a feather boa and black latex stick at admission. The rest of the evening is spent being randomly tickled by feathers and poked/slapped/prodded by The Stick. (Haught.) I was waiting in line at the restroom when I got three hard slaps to my ass. (Ouch!/Hot!) This was code for “Hey can me and my friend take turns c*nt torturing you with our steely pocket knives?” To which I responded by gently plucking two feathers from the boa and sticking one up each guy’s nostril (one was Zed’s!). This meant “Yeah but I’m a feminist so make sure you do it in a feminist kind of way.”

::GROAN::

And how do we own power through play? Through respecting other people's limits, choices, and desires. Through emphasising the importance of informed consent and safe/risk-aware practices. From considering these points, we can see that any encoded interaction is Not Okay (since it relies on a tacit assumption that everyone knows the same code); we can also see that having that coded interaction be based upon striking anothers arse or shoving feathers up their nose is completely out of order, because some people have being struck with sticks as a limit; others have feathers shoving up their nostrils as a limit. In fact, Caroline's passage on this is perfect:

Let me tell you this - it's totally personal, you can't generalise from this. I am the "choice" feminist who believes in autonomy, lipstick and cock. If I'm seeing the dude I like, I make an effort. I wear stuff that makes me look nice. So I'm seeing him with my clothes that make me look nice, and some random dude the street spat out comes and 'slaps my ass'? If I'm making myself sexually available to one guy, that's not a carte blanche for the whole of the male species. And fuck, if I am making myself sexually available to that guy, who the fuck are you to judge.

Finally: I tried very very hard to change who I am, and I failed. Wisdom has advised me that serenity is the best approach after all when it comes to my violent nature. That means I have the courage and power to choose how and when I use that violence, and for what reasons.

As a sadist, I use my sexuality to give sexual and emotional pleasure to others. Does it even matter why I am like this, given that I do no harm? Why does it matter to you why my partners make the choice to let me cause them pain? If it gives them sexual and emotional pleasure, and if they've examined and no it's not patriarchal shit but it's just something they enjoy - why does it matter to you so much that we choose to do this stuff?

Call for Submissions: Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy XIX

The next edition of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy is due here on June 1st. Deadline for submissions is officially set as 29th May (but late submissions will probably be considered), which gives you all just 10 days to get your lovely links to me at snowdrop[hyphen]explodes[aroundabout]talk21[dorothy]com (decode the spamfooling bits!) - or you could just use the email box in the right hand column.

A previously advertised, I am particularly interested in the following themes:

• Sex and money - what's the relationship between them? Do personal finances affect the sex you have? Anything else relating to finances or economics and sexual freedom/autonomy.
• Roles played in sex/sexuality/gender/society - either fantasy roleplaying, or changing roles through life (e.g. did you have different roles when you were younger?), or ways in which roles change depending on circumstances.

Don't be limited by the suggestions I've given, please take these themes and surprise me!

Of course, any other posts on the themes of sexual freedom and autonomy are also very much wanted for the carnival!

Posts should ideally be written/posted since the date of the last carnival (23rd April) but if you have anything older that's relevant to the suggested themes, by all means please submit it!

The rest, my dears, is up to you...

Class Privilege meme

Via DaisyDeadhead, who apparently is about a year behind the times with this (making me even further behind the times, since I'd not seen it yet):

Introduction:

An activity designed to help the participants gain awareness of the vast range of social class that exists within themselves and others. This has been updated based on the wide range of feedback we received as this was becoming a popular experience.

Equipment:

A big room with space to move for all participants
Chairs to sit for discussion

Rules:

Pay attention to how you feel. Angry, sad, happy, winner, loser . . .
No talking – we will talk about this a lot when it is over
Line up here and take a step forward of about 1 (one) foot or one foot length for every fact that applies to you.

For blogs, bold the following facts that apply to you:

Part I, when you were in college:

Father went to college
Father finished college
Mother went to college
Mother finished college
Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor. (Maternal grandmother was MD - one of the first women to be in the UK!)
Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
Had more than 50 books in your childhood home (Dad loved reading after playing truant to read at the library as a boy - so always acquired more books as life went on)
Had more than 500 books in your childhood home
Were read children's books by a parent (Dad valued reading a lot, so helped me learn to read too - was able to do so because he was unemployed for a lot of my childhood)
Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18 (instrument lessons provided by the state school system)
Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively (difficult to say - I don't identify with any of those portrayed on television)
Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs (I was the last to benefit from the State's payment of tuition fees without cost to the student)
Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs (see above)
Went to a private high school
Went to summer camp
Had a private tutor
If you have been to Europe
Family vacations involved staying at hotels
Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 (a lot was, but I was the oldest of my family - but my older cousins often gave me hand-me-downs, as I gave my clothes to my younger siblings)
Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them (I don't drive - but neither of my siblings who do drive got a new car)
There was original art in your house when you were a child (only what the kids had produced ourselves!)
Had a phone in your room before you turned 18
You and your family lived in a single family house
Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home
You had your own room as a child (occasionally - but there were never as many rooms as there were siblings)
Participated in an SAT/ACT prep course
Had your own TV in your room in High School
Owned a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
Went on a cruise with your family
Went on more than one cruise with your family
Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up (holidays only)
You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family

...

Now everyone recognize that you are at the same place academically.
Everyone turn around.
Everyone has permission to talk.
No one has permission to accuse any one or any group of anything.
Everyone must use “I” statements.
Note that the people on one end of the room had to work harder to be here today than the people at the other end of the room. Some of you had lives of more privilege than others. There is no one to blame, it is just the way it is. Some have privilege and some don’t.
(this can be said now or later, I don’t know where it will be appropriate)

Discussion:
What were the feelings that you had during this experience? Who was angry?
(Anger will be a primary emotion at this point.)
What, specifically, makes you angry?
Who are you angry at?

Who was happy?

Summary Statement
This experience was about creating awareness of privilege. What it is, what it does, and what it means. Having privilege does not mean that you worked less hard. All it means is that you had a head start, so maybe it does mean you didn’t have to work as hard . . . .

Homework
During the next week notice how your high school years helped or didn’t help your experience in school/at work . . . .

Explanations and Notes:
All of the step taking was about things not requiring effort on the students’ part, but were things done by others.

~*~

12 points, although as noted, not all of them are comparable between USA and UK - especially talking about paying for university tuition.

Chaser of The Paper Chase added another level-

Part II, in childhood:

If your body does not bear long-term signs of malnutrition. (obesity now caused by constant hunger when younger)
If you had orthodontia.
If you saw a doctor for anything other than emergencies or school-mandated shots. (It was on the NHS, so visiting the doctor was free - unlike the USA)
If you heated your home with clean-burning fuels or had properly vented heating.
If you grew up in a house without vermin.
If you had running water.
If you had a basement or foundation under your house.
If you had an indoor toilet.
If your parents and immediate family were outside the criminal justice system.
If you yourself remained outside the criminal justice system.
If your parents had a new car. (not until I was in my teens, and even then it wasn't owned by them but a lease car from the company)
If you never went barefoot so that you could ’save your shoes for school.’
If your parents never argued in front of you about having enough money for food to last out the month.
If you ate hunted and fished meat because it was a recreational activity rather than as the major way to stock a freezer. (Although - in the UK there really aren't any places where you can go to hunt to stock the freezer; hunting and fishing are only accessible for the very rich)
If your laundry was done at home in a washer rather than in a lavandaria. (Laundromat)
If your hair was cut by a professional barber or hair stylist instead of your parent.

7 points

***

It occurs to me that some of these things are not what I would consider to be associated with class. For example, a lot of proud working class men (and women) went to college, and sought to keep themselves educated later in life. My father was just such a man, and although he did eventually enter the middle classes, when I was young, the collections of books were largely from his growing up and his working class reading habit. Similarly, his class identity and the benefit he received from reading meant that reading was something he wanted to pass on to his children.

Some of them I don't associate with class simply because socialist governments in Britain managed to change the playing field so that education and healthcare were free at point of use when I was growing up - so the government paid my college tuition; the NHS meant I could go to the doctor as often as I needed for frequent check-ups as well as immunisations and so on.

I am not saying "these things don't constitute privilege", because clearly, the things that I have on the lists that others in my society don't are things that have given to me not by my own efforts but by someone else's. But I think that they don't represent class identity or class background - and therefore, cannot be called "class privilege".

On the other hand, in the second list there are things that are so far on the margins of British society as to make their inclusion almost meaningless - again, thanks to the one or two genuine attempts to introduce socialism via the parliamentary route. These include:

If you had running water.
If you had an indoor toilet.
If you never went barefoot so that you could ’save your shoes for school.’

The first two of these I'm pretty sure are required by law to be provided; if a home hasn't got them, it is deemed "not fit for human habitation", and a landlord can be sued for not fixing it right away. I'm fairly sure these regulations have been in force for at least 30 years, probably longer. "Saving your shoes for school" just sounds like something out of Dickens to me. It's probably got some relevance to my Dad's generation, maybe a few years younger than him, but I can't imagine it today. Or rather, I can imagine that there are some families living in absolute poverty in this country for whom this might be a reality(and the government really need to be sorting that out, like, yesterday!), but that it could be common enough to be included in a quiz like this? No way. These three items are straight out of the history books - or more accurately, straight out of the tales told by my Dad and his contemporaries, about their youth.

The item in list one, "You and your family lived in a single family house" also makes my mind boggle. I know that some cultures have an extended-family system, and there are plenty of immigrants from those cultures living as British citizens (and very welcome they are, too). but the housing benefit system (which has recently been changed - I forget what they call it now) coupled with the socialised housing system (which was largely dismantled during the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher's government, alas) serve to keep there from being much need for that kind of thing.

That people in the USA - the richest nation on Earth - could lack these things in sufficient proportions as to make it worthwhile including them in a list like this is just crazy to me. How Americans can bleat about how bad socialism is, when socialist governments are what has dealt with these problems in Europe, is beyond me.

How Violent Am I? (My relationship with violence)

I was inspired to write this post after watching the How Violent Are You? programme that I reviewed yesterday.

Unfortunately, to do this properly (and if I'm going to do it properly) I need to encroach on the one area I have resolutely declared and enforced as being off-limits for this blog (or, in all probability, any other blog). It has taken me a few days to decide whether I can keep enough of it private to make this post possible, but here we are - I evidently decided I could handle it briefly enough and vaguely enough as to protect myself and feel comfortable with what I'm about to write.

The question of how violent I am is one that troubles me. I noted in the review that the television programme didn't go anywhere much near sadism or sexual violence (except for the brief mention of dopamine being linked to both fighting and sex), and in general I don't know that I associate my sadism with regular violence at all. And I don't think any answers are going to be found to that side of my self in this post either. Nevertheless, as I've mentioned before, I had some difficulties with my sexual identity due to my sadism when I was a teenager, because I thought back then that I must be a violent monster because of it.

I have always wanted to believe I am a peaceful person, and non-violent. For most of my life I believed in pacifism and non-violent direct action as the only legitimate stances to take. However, in the past 5 years or so I have had to reassess myself and my nature as I have come to know myself much better.

Two of the ways in which our behaviour changes over time with respect to violence, mentioned in the television programme, are through the development of the pre-frontal cortex at around 3 years old, which makes us better able to control violent urges, and through damage to the pre-frontal cortex such as through a car accident, which damages our ability to control our violent urges.

I was never, so far as I recall, much of a fighter as a child. I can't remember back very much of being aged 3, although I do know I went to playschool and I don't think there was ever any trouble of fighting. So, as far as I know, the first change didn't really affect me much.

However, I do know that from about the age of 8 or 9 until I was in my mid-teens I was a very violent person. Did something in my early life prevent the development of my pre-frontal cortex? It is, I suppose, possible - but then why the delay before the violence came through? Similarly, there isn't anything significant in my life at around the time it started to manifest that could have caused damage to the pre-frontal cortex. So, something else was involved there - and it was something that wasn't really covered by the programme. And that's as far as I am willing to go in talking about that episode of my life.

However, one significant event did happen when I was aged 12. I was hit by a car. I was unconscious for 36 hours (so I'm told) and, according to the doctor, I was lucky to have survived at all. Which sounds rather like the sort of event that the programme said could cause damage to the pre-frontal cortex. So did any personality changes follow?

Oddly, yes - but not of the type predicted by the above theory! In fact, about 6 months after the car accident I made significant breakthroughs in controlling and overcoming my violent impulses, and over the next two years after that I managed to rid myself of those impulses altogether (at least, so I felt at the time). What does bother me is that maybe that car accident actually caused my sadism somehow - even though I'm fairly sure I was interested in sadism long before then, and really, it's just a coincidence that the accident happened shortly before the onset of puberty was due to happen anyway!

As I've already mentioned, by about age 15 I felt as though I had fully eradicated my violent tendencies from my personality, but at the same time I was becoming more and more troubled by the thought that maybe there was this deeper, much more violent, beast within - my sadism. This is more or less how it stayed for the next few years, with concommitant mental health problems from time to time - again, I've discussed that before on this blog.

There is another, parallel, aspect to all of this, which is that I do remember lots of play fights and not-so-play fights with my brother when I was very young. I almost always lost, despite his being younger and smaller than me. I definitely did not get a buzz from these fights but was "up for it" nonetheless. I have been told by some people who knew me back then that they always had a feeling I was slightly holding back in those fights. For a long time, this was my whole attitude to violence by choice (as it were) as opposed to "violent urges". I didn't like anything really that smacked of combat sport or fighting for fun. Huh - just another way in which I didn't quite genderise properly as a "boy".

I have written before about my development into BDSM, and how I came to realise that no, I wasn't a hideous monster after all. Along the way, I think I came to terms with the violent self that all the time had been there underneath.

For context, during the period after I left university, there were a number of crises where I felt on the verge of lashing out, where the violent impulses of my young self seemed to be welling up and I was sure I would really go to hurt people around me. I never did - when the tension became so great that something was bound to give, I always retreated. I found other outlets for the impotent, frustrated rage fuelled by my depression and nobody ever got hurt - although it didn't do me any good, many of those outlets were in fact damaging to me in other ways.

Politically, my belief in non-violent action and protest started to be eroded in 2001 when I was "kettled" at Oxford Circus by the Metropolitan police; although the protest up until then had been entirely peaceful, around 3,000 protesters were held for around 10 hours before being released. I started to realise that peaceful protest is still met with overwhelming force. In 2003, the anti-war march in London involved at least 1 million protesters (that's the official police estimate - the organisers estimated twice as many). The march was entirely peaceful, and went right outside Parliament. As a percentage of the UK population, there has probably never been as big a protest against the rulers of the country since Boudicca took on the Romans. A month after the march, Britain went to war anyway. The peaceful protest, the biggest in British history, had been utterly ignored by the ruling powers. After that, although I still believe there is a place for peaceful protest, I have lost all faith in it as a means of achieving significant change.

Personally, I also started to become more aware of violence in myself once I became an adult. While at university I was twice subjected to what I now perceive to be sexual assaults. After that, I started to feel more and more as if I needed to carry a weapon with me to protect myself. This is illegal in this country, but I do it anyway because of the fear I have.

My interest in history and in fantasy fiction means I have always had a certain fascination for archaic weaponry, and after university I started to explore this a bit more, learning about swords and archery in particular. I also started to develop an interest in finding out more about how "the enemy" thinks, still being at that stage a pacifist and opposed to the militay on principle. I read books such as Bravo Two Zero and other accounts by soldiers of military tactics and principles. Out of curiosity and in a spirit of research for a story idea I had back then, in 2003 I bought a replica firearm, to find out what the weight might feel like, how it fits into the hand, and so on. I couldn't experience the recoil of a proper firearm, of course, but it gave me some idea of the bulk and feel of what a weapon would be like. I now appreciate that that replica is still significantly lighter than a real firearm, but it gave me a feel for what it might be like to carry a gun. I also bought some stainless steel swords - not battle-ready, in other words, but good enough to feel what it's like.

I believe it is no accident that the political shift towards violence came at the same time as I was looking more and more at weaponry and warfare in general; I believe that the political part also influenced the personal. When talking about terrorists, I think this is a part of the process they call "radicalisation" (which is a complete misnomer - it isn't anything to do with the root of anything at all!) Another factor was a series of scares during that time, starting with the panic over the millennium bug, that suggested that civilisation might be about to collapse. Having read enough post-apocalyptic sci-fi stories to have imagined already what might be needed in such a state, the idea of tooling up with weaponry seemed quite good to me!

Another dimension of my personal relationship to violence started to develop as I started to relish more and more the physicality of sports. I always, and still do, oppose boxing (where the stated aim of the contest is to do brain damage to your opponent to the tune of rendering his nervous system sufficiently disrupted that for 10 seconds he cannot stand up) but a lot of other violence in sports I began to yearn for: I started to watch soccer matches for the crunching, fierce tackles (so long as they were legal!), but also for the situations where tempers flared between the opposing sides and fights would break out! Rugby became more exciting to me as it involves heavy tackling and body-on-body contact all the time. American football also began to seem more interesting because of the high speed and fierceness of the tackles and blocks.

Finally, I was also becoming more comfortable with my BDSM identity at the same time as I was becoming politically "violentised". But even though I was in all these ways becoming more aware of my capacity for violence, I still identified as inherently soft and peaceful in nature. I still believed that my violent urges were dead, gone, erased, in the past.

In 2005 I finally began to express my crossdressing/trans tendencies with the explosion of Lady Rosenthyme into the real world and out of my imagination. As I started to live out her personality online and dressing in r/l, I became aware of something that I found very disturbing.

Lady Rosenthyme still has the violent urges I thought I'd killed back when I was 15. They never went away, but were bundled up very small and hidden at the bottom of my mind. When I started exploring an alternative persona, one whom I recognised was "me with the safety valves off", then they re-emerged. This is why I describe Lady R as being scary. Whenever I am in my state of mind as Her Ladyship, there's always one part of me monitoring her behaviour and ready to pull me back if she gets too dangerous. But, on the other hand, this means that I can now recognise and own those violent urges, without being controlled by them.

Recognising them, I was able to welcome back the fierce and violent side of my nature and stop denying it. I own it now, and as my title image shows, I am happy to identify it as me being "fierce".

That fierceness is the last part of my story that I want to cover.

While recognising that it has always been there, but mostly buried so that I was unaware of it, the first real recognition came in (I think) 1998. Late at night, my sister asked me if I would attack someone who had assaulted her sexually. If I would "defend her honour", so to speak. I told her, "If you asked me to, yes - as long as it was a real assault and not just you changed your mind afterwards". And this was the truth - as long as it was an actual assault, then I would be willing to unleash my full vengeance on the perpetrator. I was a little bit surprised to realise this at the time. In fact, my sister was surprised as well - she thought of me as not being violent in that way even.

Over the years, however, I have come to realise that I am a fighter at heart. I want a crusade, a campaign, to go on, for Truth and Justice and Right and all that malarkey. But particularly, I will fight fiercely for my "tribe", however I define that at the time. To my mind, these are good things for which I can use the violence that is at my core. I view it as a source of energy that can be drawn when needed but must otherwise be kept locked away. In this sense, I see myself as being like the spear of Finn Mac Cool that also represents Renegade Evolution (look for my first comment and Ren's reply to it).

Conclusions: the violence I have struggled with all my life (even when I didn't know I was struggling with it) is nothing like the "violence" that I utilise in my BDSM play. The BDSM "violence" is characterised by being perfectly controlled and balanced, and is like a precision tool. The violence that forms to source of energy I spoke of in the last paragraph is something altogether uncontrolled and imprecise, even though it can be harnessed to perfect ends. Put it this way, to be a tackler in American football, which still requires precision, that precision would be from the muscles directing my body weight. The violence would just be the full force unleashed, and following the path that my aim gives it. I can use the violence and direct it, but I don't ever presume to think I control it.

So the answer to "how violent am I?" is actually, "very much!" Even though I am also a very peaceful, kind, soft person. Violence is in my nature, along with those other qualities, and I have just had to find a way to let them live together. Just - when you think I'm "safe" or "placid" (as some people have assumed me to be) - under the surface, the violence sleeps.

I think I know who I'm voting for!

After my email-sending extravaganza yesterday to determine the platforms on alternative sexuality and sex work held by the European Parliament candidates, I received the following reply from Professor Dave Hill, who is standing for the leftwing group "No2EU - Yes to Democracy":

This happens to be something I feel strongly about. I write about equalities issues including race, gender, disability, social class, and sexualities.

In referring to prostitution I am discussing female, male and transgender/TG sex workers. And their male, female, TS/TG, heterosexual, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Multisexual clents/ customers.

And in referring to sexual activities, I believe strongly that people of all sexualities shoudl be able to swing / enjoy sex whichever way and with whoever they want, as long as such activities are: a) consensual with those able to give rational consent (i.e. are not carried out while one of the two or more people involved are incapable of making rational choices through drugs or alcohol); b) adult (ie not with children); c) do not involve animals; and d) are carried on in private place such as a home or a club.

I believe prostitution should be decriminalised and that brothels should be legalised and regulated. I think that this is the best way to protect sex workers' rights, pay and conditions, not least, health. I think it is also a way of seeking to control and reduce the scourges of sex-slave trafficking and child prostitution. As well as to reduce sexual risks to customers/ clients/ users of sex workers.

I am opposed to the Swedish model which leaves sex workers unprotected. And I think the New Zealand model is preferable to the Dutch model, in that it allow sex workers more freedom to run owner-operated brothels. And Press reports indicate that it is that model preferred by sex workers, which is one of the major consideretations that should be taken into account.

Re adult pornographic material, some of the same considerations apply to its making as to sex work itself, i.e. that with reference to those taking part in the making of pornography should be a) consensual with those able to give rational consent (i.e. are not carried out while one of the two or more people involved are incapable of making rational choices through drugs or alcohol); b) adult (ie not with children); c) do not involve animals; and d) are carried on in private place such as a home or a club.

Re censorship, my views are those expressed in the Skin Two magazine for example. I regard as an unacceptable and considerable intrusion on civil liberies the police action over the Spanner Case and also the current legislation on sado-masochistic material, which seems to me to criminalise consensual actions that the state and police should have no part in policing. Subject to issues of adult rational consent, the involvement of children or animals, and issues of trafficking, violence against sex workers by brother keepers or by customers/ clients, then I think that the police should be kept out of the bedroom. Let a thousand fetishes bloom!

On alternative sexualities, I am indeed committed to `bringing sexual orientation including modes of sexual expression such as sadomasochism, fetishism within the framework of human rights law', as long as they meet the four criteria a-d above. Re `other non-mainstream sexualities' I cannot comment without more specific reference.

I must say that I am concerned about the sexualisation and commodification of children and their sexualities, and I do support bans on sexually explicit material being visible and available to children. I think what also needs to be taken into account, too, is the offence that may be caused by public display of pornographic materials, for example, in newsagents shops, by, for example women. So I consider sex shops to be the most appropriate site for displays of pornographic material.

What can I say? He ticks all my boxes! He actually knew what I was talking about on a number of these issues, he even references the Spanner case and says he's against the police action there! this guy might actually be a sex-positive candidate!

Given my own left-wing feelings, and my suspicion of the Lisbon Treaty, I think I've found the answer already for how I'm going to vote.

I was pleased to find the #2 candidate from the "Jury Team" list replied, but rather less pleased to note that she doesn't know how to spell (this was a concern from her web presence as well, but I hoped it was just a single typo there). Nonie Bouverat says (after spelling errors corrected!):

In general though, I believe in maximum freedom consistent with not harming others and I also believe that government interference in people's personal lives should be kept to the minimum.

I have no strong opinions on the three models of prostitution and would listen to all sensible arguments. Sexual orientation should be covered by the ECHR, as an issue of personal expression rather than sexuality.

It's interesting that she apparently gives the opinion that the ECHR (and therefore the Human Rights Act) should already cover non-mainstream sexual expression under the personal expression clause. However, she also believes responsibility for these matters lies squarely with the individual nation states, not with the European Parliament, and so declined to develop any further on her opinions.

Dave Hill also mentions books on equality in education that he's edited: Promoting Equality in Secondary Education, Promoting Equality in Primary Schools and Equality in the Primary School: Promoting Good Practice Across the Curriculum. I don't know any of these books, but if any of my readers know anything about them, that would be cool if you could share. That said, the "product description"s on Amazon do look pretty positive in general.

Reply from Channel 4

Following my complaint that I explained in my review of "Extreme Male Beauty", I received a rather unsatisfactory reply from Channel 4.

First, let's look at what I wrote to them:

I would like to make a complaint about the sequence at the end of the episode of Extreme Male Beauty that showed Tim Shaw investigating penis enlargement methods.

This sequence showed him comparing a model of his penis from 2 weeks earlier with one taken that day, and showing them to his girlfriend. His girlfriend expressed disgust with the models and also expressed disbelief that any real change had occurred.

I am complaining because what followed this was a solo piece to the camera by Tim Shaw announcing how she was "going to have all of it", then heading to the bedroom. The last shot was of Tim Shaw closing the bedroom door, followed by his girlfriend's voice squealing "What are you doing!?" I believe that this comes too close to suggesting that Mr Shaw was about to rape his girlfriend to "prove his point" about the bigger size of his penis, and it is irresponsible to send out such messages.

While I appreciate that Channel 4 would not condone rape, and that Tim Shaw never actually harmed his girlfriend in making that sequence, what matters to me is what appeared on screen and the message that that sends. While I do appreciate that there is a strand of humour around this type of exchange, I believe that it serves to promote what feminists call "rape culture". Furthermore, the joke was not completed by the resolution of having her surprised "oh, that IS bigger!" in a pleased tone of voice (which would also have lessened the overall effect of appearing to be rape - however, that criticism could still have stood)

I hope that the reader will agree that I:

1. explained clearly why I believed that it (came close to) depicting a rape scenario;
2. explained why I did not feel that it was an effective joke (or "playful interaction")
3. explained that I understood that it was not actually a rape scenario, but instead focussed on the message that was being sent out.
4. explained that I understood how the sort of joke fits into modern culture (and also that some people think that it is often a harmful influence in modern culture)
   

Taking this into account, here is Channel 4's reply:

Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding EXTREME MALE BEAUTY.

We are sorry to read your concerns regarding the inclusion of this scene in the programme and the possible connotations you feel it implied. You can be assured if at any point the production team responsible felt this notion could be construed the scene would not have been included. Rather, within the context of the programme it is clear this was a playful interaction between the couple.

Nevertheless, please be assured your comments have been logged and forwarded for the attention of those who commission and made this series.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

"You can be assured if at any point the production team responsible felt this notion could be construed the scene would not have been included." Maybe I am asking too much, but to me this seems like another case of the excuses given in the recent Gisele racist photos story; and the same criticisms apply (all links lead to the same article, just highlighting different comments). Basically, if the production team didn't even realise that this interpretation could be taken ("construed") then how the fuck did they get to work in a culturally sensitive medium like television in the first place!?

"Rather, within the context of the programme it is clear this was a playful interaction between the couple." As noted above, I explained in my original email why I did not feel that this was clear at all. I suppose I could have been still clearer by highlighting my earlier concerns about Mr. Shaw's apparent lack of consideration for his girlfriend's wishes, and by focussing more on the fact that she seemed totally uninterested while he was effectively forcing his views on her. but I feel that this response did not do justice to my initial complaint.

I have sent the same email of complaint to OfCom now, with a note saying that I was unsatisfied with Channel 4's response.

"How Violent Are You?"

This was an episode of Horizon on a couple of nights ago, investigating the human tendency towards violent behaviour. For a 1hr show, it's a big topic, and of course not everything could be covered. However, what did get covered was very interesting. I was hoping that they might have an answer for why some people are sadists while others aren't, but nothing really seemed to come close to touching on that. In some ways, I think I'm more pleased that they didn't than I would have been if they had, but trying to figure out why I am the way I am has been a part of my existence for so long, having some kind of answer would have been nice.

Anyway, on to what they did cover!

The presenter of the show was ex-Tory MP Michael Portillo, who identified himself as being about as non-violent as you can get, so he wanted to know what makes people violent (since violence was so alien to him, or so he felt).

To begin this investigation, M.P. (as he appears in my notes) went to an indigenous population in the Bolivian Andes (unfortunately, I missed what the name of the group was) which was described by the narrator as "one of the few places where violence is instigated and used to maintain the peace". The narrator added that "their warrior tradition dictates that everyone should learn to fight - even women and children." (no, the sexism in that comment didn't escape me).

The cultural setting for this violence was called the Tinku. Speaking to a local doctor, M.P. was told that those injured during the fighting would not seek treatment at a hospital, as this would be considered cowardice. As the wikipedia article mentions, M.P. was told that people do sometimes die from the injuries inflicted.

Speaking to a neurologist (I didn't catch the specific branch of neurology she studied), M.P. was given what sounded like an ev. psych. explanation for violence, that it is hardwired into us for survival. To test this, M.P. donned a boxing-style face mask and then squared off against a local person in a tinku style combat. After the first bout, M.P. declared, almost sulkily, "I don't like it", complaining of aches, sweating, and the signs of physical exertion. However, after a few more bouts he managed to throw his competitor to the ground, and M.P. said to the camera, "I knocked him down - I quite liked that!" Afterwards, M.P. didn't want to admit that this was enjoying the violence, just the sense of success.

The neurologist returned to explain that dopamine (which is also related to sex and drugs, but not, apparently, rock'n'roll) is released during a fight, giving us a sensation of feeling high and pleasurable during this contest. She said that as a result, violence can be addictive. There followed an interview with someone who had been arrested for football hooliganism, who talked about how this felt.

Following on from this theory about violence being programmed into us by our biology, M.P. then asked the obvious question: "If that's true, then what stops us from being violent all the time?"

The narrator introduced us to a group that is "naturally unable to moderate their violent impulses" - a group of 3 year old playschool children.

A new scientist (whose specialisation I missed, again), explained for us that development of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC for short in this post!) in the brain starts at around age 3, and it is this part of the brain that forms the control centre. The narrator continued to say that "being taught to share and take turns actually changes the structure of the brain" by strengthening and encouraging growth in the PFC. As we grow, said the programme, we learn not to be violent.

The scientist came back to explain that injuries to the PFC can cause personality changes as controls over violent impuses become disrupted. A car crash, for example, can make you more violent.

The scientist said that there are two parts to us - the underlying personality, and the controls we have over the top of that. Speaking to M.P. he said, "what we don't know is how much control you're exerting right now - you may not know it yourself."

We were then told that drugs, acohol and such things can also damage the PFC.

To investigate M.P.'s violent tendencies, he went to the USA to visit a forensic psychologist, who tested his aggressive responses in two or three ways, that she would use t assess muderers and wife-batterers, amongst others. She interviewed him first (which revealed that M.P. has occasionally got so angry with his computer that he damaged it!) and then carried out a reactions test to see whether emotive or aggressive words slowed his reactions. M.P. turned out to be about average in his latent aggressiveness.

They therefore decided to subject him to sleep deprivation as a way of breaking down the controls that normally exist. The form of this sleep deprivation was to make M.P. the father of "new-born twins" (actually electronic dolls programmed to require feeding/nappy-changing etc which required responses from M.P. at all hours). They then sent M.P. to work in a restaurant kitchen for a day, before giving himn another night in charge of caring for the twins. During the second night in particular, M.P. became paranoid (for example, he suspected the experimenters of reprogramming the babies to cry more often, which had not happened) and felt much more aggression and distress - which he aimed at the experimenters rather than the babies.

When the reactions test was run with M.P. in his sleep-deprived state, his "aggression" result was much higher. To which I now feel that it's a wonder any baby survives at all, if parents are under that stress!

However, M.P. felt that this was not the only reason why people snap or become violent: in his words, "most murders aren't crimes of passion". The next thing that M.P. decided to investigate was the ways in which genocide and mass killings come about. To find out about this, he spoke to a refugee from Sudan ("Immanuel"), who had been drafted as a child soldier during the wars in that region. The narrator introduced the themes of this interview as being "brainwashing" and "building up an ideology to justify premeditated murder". Immanuel spoke of how he had witnessed terrible crimes against his family, and how these are used to build up a sense that you are fighting for your people, for your country. He said, "you want them [the enemy] to feel the pain" and that "you're doing it for the people - your raped sister, your murdered mother and so on."

The final stage in M.P.'s journey was to witness a repeat of the Milgram experiment.

This experiment tells the subject that zie is participating in an experiment on memory and learning skills. Zie believes that zie has been chosen at random to be the "teacher", whereas in fact the other participant is in fact an actor chosen to play the role of a second subject (the "learner"), who is strapped into a chair. A second actor plays the role of the scientist conducting the experiment. The subject is then taken to another sealed room and asked to give electric shocks of increasing voltages every time the learner gets an answer wrong. The voltages go up to a potentially fatal 450V. In actual fact, the responses of the "learner" are now played by a CD player (not available in the original test, but it provides a much better control in modern versions than relying on the actor's performance remaining consistent). As the voltages rise, the responses become more desperate, screaming, begging for release, etc. Eventually, there are no responses at all (given the level of voltage being applied at this stage, the implication is that the recipient of the shocks could well have died). The point of the test is to see how far the subject will go, when told to do so by an authority figure (i.e. the scientist in the room with them).

When M.P. watched the experiment, 12 subjects sat in the chair. Of those twelve, 9 went all the way to the maximum 450V. One woman seemed totally unphased by what she was hearing and calmly and matter-of-factly went on trough the experiment. She looked perfectly "normal" and "safe", but damn, if I wasn't scared of her by the end of the show!

On these observations - about the willingness of people to obey authority, even aginst their own moral convictions, and on that one woman's rather scary behaviour, the programme ended. As I said at the top of this post, I feel that they didn't really cover much ground in it, but in 1hr, how could you?

"Extreme Male Beauty" - Review

I feel a little bit guilty that I ended up missing the first episode of this series, shown on Channel 4, which is investigating male self-image and cosmetic procedures in modern society. It is, after all, pretty much what my original mission statement was all about!

However, I did manage to catch it this time. I confess to being disgusted with it (not just the graphic portrayals of surgery, but with the whole tenor of the hour-long show). I think I will not be able to bring myself to watch any more episodes.

In what appeared to be the standard intro segment, it was revealed that in the UK £920M was spent on male beauty products in 2008. It then progressed to introduce the theme of this weeks show, which happened to be penis size. Since sex education is a major theme that I try to develop here (and hope to develop further in the future) this seemed like a valuable show for me to analyse.

The start was... not promising. The presenter claimed that EVERY man wants a bigger cock (he used the cutesy term "winkle" frequently through the show). Already, I was against him on this. If my cock was any larger then I'd have trouble getting into my favourite orifices on a partner (mouth and anus - and the latter is already quite difficult without a lot of lube and some stretching beforehand)! But of course, most men are talking about length. Well, experience (and, you know, actually listening to women!) has taught me that length is not all it's cracked up to be.

Mr. Presenter (I missed his name, but I am sure this is no great loss), after making his universalising statements about men, then went to talk to his girlfriend about his project for this segment of the show - namely, to make his penis bigger. Her response (which had to be repeated several times by her) was summed up by her annoyed statement, 'We've had this conversation so many times - your penis is fine!" She also told him that it was already "enormous".

The average erect penis is between 5" and 6" in length. Since we know from measurements taken later in the show that the presenter's cock had a full 7.5" in length, his girlfriend's opinion can be taken as a fair assessment. And yet the presenter didn't seem ready to believe it. he also didn't seem ready to accept her injunction that he should not change it.

Since she's the one who's going to making use of the dong in question, I would be inclined to say let her make the final determination of anything being done. But that would have rather scuppered the concept of the show. **scowly**

The show's first "set-piece" was an "identiy parade" of 5 penises dangled through a screen for a variety of women to observe and comment on. The presenter said that this was so he could hear for himself what women really think (he was #5 in the identity parade). The thing that came out overall? Girth is better than length. It was then reported that a survey revealed that 52% of women prefer a man's crotch to be unshaven. Although survey statistics weren't reported, the handful of women who attended the identity parade seemed to prefer an uncircumcised cock (although one woman made a very definite preference for the snipped willy style).

After a segment about a body-makeover for a man who had lost weight due to a gastric band, a survey result was reported, that 24% of men would consider having cosmetic surgery.

The presenter next went to a Harley Street surgeon to ask about penis enlargement operations. After a graphic sequence showing how it's done, the presenter spoke to the surgeon saying "I came in feeling okay about myself, but now I feel like I have a very small penis indeed!"

He then spoke to an NHS urologist who often has to put right surgical enhancements of the cock that went wrong. This doctor reported that of the cases he'd seen almost none were necessary, and the penises were all of average size or more before the original (botched) operation.

This left the question hanging of just WHY men are so unaware of their own size that they feel the need to be enlarged. While a brief look was made at the way that men's "lunchboxes" are portrayed in the media (and on underwear packaging!), there was no real attempt to analyse why men are unaware that acually - they do look like that (the presenter assuredly looked like that without enhancements - he had a pretty big cock already!)

After trying a series of contraptions that all seemed like a lot of trouble for no obvious gain (except that a few looked like excellent SM toys!) the presenter turned to the internet and reported a technique called jelqing (NB - the other techniques tried by the presenter are also described elsewhere in the wikipedia article linked).

The presenter decided to practise this technique for two weeks before measuring to see whether his penis had grown. He now measured it at 8" long. It seems to me that this growth of 0.5" surely falls well within the range of experimental error and doesn't prove anything about effectiveness. Mr. Presenter's girlfriend was even more sceptical than I was.

At this point (as the show was reaching its end) things took an extreme nosedive for the worse. Given that the presenter had been dismissve of his partner's wishes at the start of the show, it is perhaps predictable how he announced his intention to prove his case to the camera after she'd left to go to bed. It was sadly all too predictable how the programme closed. He entered the bedroom, closed the door, and his girlfriend was heard to squeal, "What are you doing!?" End of show.

For those too dense to get it - the apparent implication is that he was about to RAPE her to win the argument.

(Yes, I have sent an email of complaint to Channel 4, and when the OfCom system is back up tomorrow, I intend to send a copy of my message to them.)

So a show that could have been really positive for men's body image turned out to be just another bunch of patriarchy-reaffirming claptrap, with a "rape" "joke" tacked on the end for good measure.

European Parliament Elections

Today I went by the local District Council offices to pick up the lists of candidates standing in the 4th June elections (these are County Council and European Parliament).

The European Parliament elections are run on a proportional representation system whereby each political party runs a list of candidates and then seats are awarded in approximate proportion to the number of votes cast (so if 6 seats are available, and three parties are running, then party A might get 70%, party B might get 18% and party C might get 12%, meaning that A would get 4 seats and B & C would each get 1 seat). Each country in the EU is divided into regions (I am in UK region "South East") and each region is awarded a certain number of votes in rough proportion to population. (I think there are some issues about some countries getting disproportionately more seats than others, but I'm not up to speed on that or if it's still current.)

Since I have decided to be one of those annoying people who actually bothers to write to the people who want to represent me in various democratic bodies, I have written to the top two candidates on most of the parties' lists to find out their views on the sexual politics matters that matter to me, and that I feel will be unlikely to be raised otherwise.

I left out some parties that I would definitely not be voting for. I included the three main UK parties (Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats). I left out the Christian Party, on the grounds that I was fairly sure that their answer would only annoy me; UKIP, on the grounds that they already annoy me; United Kingdom First, on the grounds that they sound like they'd be just as annoying as UKIP; the BNP, on the grounds that they're racist bastards; The Roman Party, because I couldn't find an email address, and besides, I think (hope?) that that's just someone playing silly beggars (there's only one name on their list).

I sent emails to The Green Party (who have a Member of the European Parliament elected from this region); Libertas (who claim to be the "only pan-European party"); the Socialist Labour Party (who I don't think are all that relevant any longer - if they ever were); the Peace Party (sound awfully nice!); No2EU-Yes to Democracy (a left-wing alliance against the undemocratic "Lisbon Treaty"); the Jury Team members (who reject the idea of party politics in the first place, but each stand on their own platform); and the English Democrats (who sounds a lot like UKIP, but dafter and more entertaining in their nonsense!)

The emails were all as follows:

I am writing to you today because I understand that you are one of the top two candidates for your party in the European Parliament election in the South East region this year. As a campaigner on alternative sexuality and sex workers' rights, I would like to ask about your policies in those areas.

In particular, I would like your views on the various approaches to dealing with prostitution (e.g. the Swedish Model, the Dutch Model and the New Zealand Model) and which you prefer. I would also like to know what your views are on adult pornographic material, its production, and whether (and to what degree) it should be censored.

Finally, on the alternative sexuality question, will you commit to bringing sexual orientation including modes of sexual expression such as sadomasochism, fetishism and other non-mainstream sexualities, within the framework of human rights law?

If I get any good (or entertaining!) replies, I'll probably post them here for others to read!

What happened to...?

Does anyone know what's happened to Caroline of "Uncooler than Thou"? I followed my bookmark but just got a message "the blog has been removed". So I tried the older wordpress addy as well (still bookmarked!) and got a similar message there.

I'm sure everything was up and fine last evening, and no signs suggesting she might be considering such a move - does anyone know what happened?

(I note that the "Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy" page is still up)

Rickets, Race and Religion

This article on tonight's Channel 4 News caught my attention because it is about another disease often associated with poverty (like TB), that is making a comeback.

Apparently, rickets - a disease traditionally associated with the slums of Victorian Britain, and believed to be eradicated since then - is on the increase.

The part that really shocked me was the racial slant on the story. In the written version linked above, it says:

Although generally most common among the white population, many cases of rickets in the UK are seen in Asian, Afro-Caribbean and Middle Eastern children.

Some studies suggest as many as one in 100 children from ethnic minorities suffer from the deficiency.

Dark-skinned people do not absorb as much sunlight through the skin and may also wear clothing for cultural reasons that prevents exposure to the sun.

In the broadcast report the caveat in the first paragraph quoted was actually reversed: the emphasis was on children of PoC having the disease, and a qualifier that "it's not just darker-skinned people; a few white people get it too".

As noted already, rickets is associated with poverty. So it is also questionable that the "medical" or "biological" reason given in the article is the correct one, and it certainly looks as though it is there to avoid questioning what other factors might really be responsible (i.e. poverty - which would affect both the amount of sunlight and the quality of diet).

Finally, the remark that some PoC "may also wear clothing for cultural reasons that prevents exposure to the sun" was, in the broadcast story, made much more explicit - the reporter called it the "Burqa Effect". If such a remark is plugged into the already pre-existing cultural narrative that Muslims should be made to conform to our cultural norms and in particular that all Muslim women who wear traditional clothing need to be "rescued", it starts to look like a very dangerous line of reasoning and it starts to look in particular like a weapon with which to force others to abandon their belief system or risk losing their children because "look, your culture is causing this illness!" I wish I knew enough to challenge the science (note the dietary advice and/or supplements available; maybe there's an answer there?) but needless to say, I am very suspicious of the way this report was framed.

I usually have respect for the liberal approach of Channel 4 News reporting, but this story angered me.

NB: Observe how the blame is also specifically being placed on women in the story: the headline being about pregnant women particularly (and not about the children's diets, for example), and the cultural clothing being explicitly female clothing in the broadcast version.

Guide to the Orchestra

Not anything to do with Benjamin Britten's "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra", but rather the much more modern and much more loopy Bill Bailey's "Remarkable Guide to the Orchestra" which screened on BBC2 tonight.

The most frequent words from my lips as I watched this show were directed at Bill Bailey.

They were:

"You sick, sick, bastard. I fucking love you!" This phrase, or variants on it, were uttered many times as Bill Bailey first introduced the different instruments (for example, did you know that bassoonists are all actually playing hits by the Bee Gees whatever classical work they're playing in? Neither did I until Bill Bailey revealed it...) Bill Bailey's explanation of how the oboe disappeared from Emmerdale (at the same time as the word "Farm" disappeared from that soap's title... apparently, not a coincidence!) was also very twisted.

After this, we were treated to a journey through the range of expression that orchestral music can provide - from the original (cockney-influenced) William Tell Overture to 1970s US cop shows, taking in orchestral versions of some of Bill Bailey's stand-up stage songs (such as Docteur Qui and Insect Nation. He also revisted his theme of disliking the Eastenders theme tune, an enacted a "character leaving" scene with full Hollywood-style orchestral backing, to show how it should be done.

Bill Bailey is an absolute genius; the show was written entirely by him according to the credits (the second name in the credits was Anne Dudley, who conducted the orchestra and was credited as "musical director" - the web page suggests she assisted Bailey in arranging some of the pieces too). To rework William Tell Overture in the way that Bill Bailey did for tonight's performance is just brilliant.

Absolutely hilarious entertainment.

Advance Warning: Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy topics

This isn't an official announcement: I'm not due to host the carnival until June 1st, and there's officially two carnivals scheduled between now and then, but I thought it might be a good idea to get people's creative juices flowing well in advance of that date (deadline for submissions is likely to be May 29th, incidentally, so this is almost exactly 3 weeks' notice).

Topics I'd be particularly interested in seeing covered:

• Sex and money - what's the relationship between them? Do personal finances affect the sex you have? Anything else relating to finances or economics and sexual freedom/autonomy.
• Roles played in sex/sexuality/gender/society - either fantasy roleplaying, or changing roles through life (e.g. did you have different roles when you were younger?), or ways in which roles change depending on circumstances.

Don't be limited by the suggestions I've given, please take these themes and surprise me!

When my turn comes around I'll repost this with more info about submitting articles and stuff, but like I said, I wanted to give everyone a chance to contemplate the themes in depth and come up with loads of good stuff.

See you all in June!

My CV in oratory

This is a sanitized (by which I mean, I've removed the captions that reveal my real name and stuff - someone who already knows me will still be able to figure out it's me, but then, they'd be able to do that from my face anyway!) version of my video CV that I've just posted to youTube using a separate user account.




It's essentially the same as the Dream CV I wrote in September last year (when I wrote also, "I practically wrote it as a speech, or maybe a soliloquy from a play - imagining myself reading it from an autocue and proclaiming it to the world in glorious, rousing tones" - today I finally got around to doing just that!) I tweaked the wording slightly because when I tried reading it aloud it didn't seem to flow the way it should, or otherwise just felt inappropriate. I struggled a bit with finding the right speed for the autocue program, but overall I am happy with the result.

I'd be very grateful for comments and feedback on this from trusted folks (Anony, please don't bother with trolling, pointlessly negative remarks will be ignored and binned, ta!)

Women's FA Cup Final - Arsenal v. Sunderland

A cracking game, although I missed the first half through not realising that a free-to-air station had the coverage.

The FA has a report here but I wanted to add a few comments of my own here about what I did see.

I saw a very powerful, physical game of football between two sides who on the day were fairly closely matched (Sunderland being a division lower than Arsenal, they were not equals, but that is the joy of soccer - a good team with good heart can very often put the wind up a much better side). I remember a few years ago that there were stereotypes being bandied about about women players obviously being gentler in their challenges and softer with their tackles. Well, that was NOT the case in THIS match, by any measure. Some of the tackles were downright fearsome (and the ex-England women's player on the commentary team clearly relished the physicality of the match, too!) As regular readers may know, I have associated pain with sporting contests for most of my life, and taking that coupled with my Northern cultural background, this is to me the way football should be played!

The other thing that struck me was that the players are hugely better role models for attractiveness than the airbrushed models in magazines and so on. Strong, physically fit, energetic, and yes - attractive. There were also, of course, a variety of shapes and sizes on the field, because physical fitness doesn't always have the same physique from person to person.

Finally, I want to wish Sophie Williams a swift and full recovery after she collapsed on the field. There were several anxious minutes for those watching as she stayed down and not moving at all while the medical staff surrounded her, eventually lifting her with her neck in a brace onto a stretcher and carrying her away. The early reports during the match coverage were that she had suffered a seizure and had been unable to communicate with the medical staff while she was down; the FA's report says she was taken to hospital after leaving the field.

Respect, too, to Alexandra Ihringova who refereed the match, allowing fair but brutal challenges, but penalising the unfair ones, and showing exceptional observational skills to enforce the letter of the Laws of the Game.

Local council gets it kinda right

I signed up to be on a "customer survey" scheme by the local District council (that's between "town council" and "county council", and responsible for things like waste collection and development planning permission etc).

On the latest survey, the following screen cap shows how they get it right:


Now, they do still have "Male" pre-selected as the default, which is part of why it's only "kinda" right, but at least they have separate answers for transgendered folks and transsexual folks. On the other hand, no differentiation between trans man and trans woman - it's all just "trans-sexual" or "trans-gender"

Another slight query is the hyphenated usage of "trans", which I question on the grounds that with the hyphen it looks like "trans" is a qualifier rather than a part of the gender identity (by which I mean, "male, female, transgender, transsexual" can all be read as adjectives, but trans-gender and trans-sexual look like special cases). I suppose another quibble would be that there's no "genderqueer" or equivalent term offered.

Still, it makes a pleasing change from seeing surveys with only 2 options for gender. That said, I do feel like with this post I'm just giving them a trans* rights version of one of these...

Sale of girl reversed

The Guardian website reports that an 8-year old's marriage has been annulled, when the buyer dropped demands for a refund of the purchase pricedowry.

This is so messed-up I don't know how to deal with it (how do you address "The father is said to have married the child to a friend to pay a financial debt. It had been stipulated, however, that the groom could not have sex with her until she reached puberty" for crying out loud, without losing your marbles completely at the fucked-upness of it?)

I will make one observation, however:

Having (tried to) read the Qur'an for myself (I never finished it, but I did read most of it), my understanding of the dowry system as it appears in the Qur'an is that the dowry was not supposed to be a payment to the parents, but instead it was supposed to be like a trust fund to be managed on behalf of the wife, who would then be able to use it to support herself if the husband ever decided to divorce her (which would, in a heavily patriarchal society, have left a woman without other means of supporting herself). That's what it looked to me like it said (although I obviously could not argue that case very strongly against someone whose religion it is). The Guardian report says, "the issue is complicated by different interpretations of sharia law and a lack of legal certainty."