Greetings,
Have you ever noticed that not long after or before some item or piece of technology that some law-enforcement or intelligence agency announces that it is using it appears or has already appeared on the open market? Have you ever noticed that there are certain things which are pushed as "fashionable" or "comfort wear" which are of a particular design? This is all designed so that when things happen they are not so much of a shock to the general public. The same can be said of language, it is changed in the media to not cause alarm to people.
Normalisation is a concept where something is pushed into the open market to make it "normal" and thus more accepted when it is present or used. The mass market is used to normalise military and law-enforcement concepts so that they are not so much of a shock to the general public. Items of technology are passed on to the mass market by the same companies which make them for government agencies, or licensed to be produced by others. Others are simply encouraged to be produced by companies who are politically-allied, or in mutually-beneficial situations. Then the ideas are picked up by others.
How long did it take before there were drone aircraft available as toys or hobby aircraft after the military started using them? How long before they started to be a fashionable item that could be hooked up conveniently to a piece of technology that you already had? Here is a perfect example of normalisation. Now if drones controlled by law-enforcement or intelligence agencies are seen flying around or are recorded and spread doing so, it will not be so much of a shock because they are a piece of technology which is familiar to people, and even fashionable.
Another fine example of the normalisation of military wear is cargo pants. They are an almost exact copy of the pants worn by the military simply "civilianised" to disguise their nature. They have also been shortened in some cases to make them more fashionable, but the long-pant versions are almost an exact copy of the military form. Indeed some are even available in military camouflage prints. This is the normalisation of military forms of dress. It makes the presence of military personnel on the streets less obvious. Military personnel who are undercover wear gear which is closer to civilian wear; when civilian wear comes closer to military wear it makes this much easier. This is most useful in the current climate.
The normalisation of military and law-enforcement concepts allows them to enter our society with greater easy and less alarm. This is simultaneously a good thing that it does not create over-reactive concern, but also a bad thing that people will not notice changes in the nature of society and the introduction of such elements. These concepts should be noticed and attention paid to them, questioned critically even, just not hysteria made over them.
Cheers,
Henry.
Thursday 24 October 2019
Monday 23 September 2019
Choices and Consequences
Greetings,
Another dichotomous relationship that people tend to focus on one side of the relationship and forget the other; I have previously discussed rights and responsibilities (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/rights-and-responsibilities.html). It seems to be a modern trend that people want to focus on all of the things that they have the right to do but forget about the consequences of these actions. This, for me, is a real problem.
I can choose to eat junk food all of the time, but I must accept that if I do not exercise on a regular basis and possibly even more that I will put on weight. I can choose to sit around and do nothing with myself, and sit around and watch television, but I must accept that I will achieve nothing as a consequence of this choice. I can choose to not take the medications which I am on, but must accept that the consequence of this action is that my health is going to suffer as a result of this decision. I can choose to neglect my hygiene but the consequence is that my health will suffer and it is likely that people will not want to be around me particularly much.
In each one of these situations there is a choice and a consequence. In every situation where there is a choice to be made there is also a consequence which will result from that choice. The most interesting thing is that we make choices all of the time, and not making a choice also has consequences as well. The most important thing is that the consequences are something which cannot be avoided because they are inconvenient, or because they are something which we did not plan for, or because we do not like them. They do exist and this is the way it is.
A person may choose to wear a piece of clothing because they like the cut of it but it is outlandish and makes them stick out. The consequence of this is that people are going to look in their direction. A person may decide to speed in their motor vehicle. The consequences of this could be that they will be caught by the police, or that they may be involved in a collision. A person may choose to point out that there are certain things wrong with society. The consequence of this could be that people could decide to join them, or the people could think that they are a trouble-maker, or elements of the government may decide to take a closer look at them. Each one of the choices a person makes has consequences, some of them are not planned for.
What also needs to be known about consequences is that there are those consequences that we plan for and there are those which we do not plan for. The latter are those which are usually a result of a flow-on effect of choices made, or a result of linked elements which were not taken into account. In any case these consequences must also be accepted, even if they were not planned for. In any case the choices made have consequences and people need to accept this.
Cheers,
Henry.
Another dichotomous relationship that people tend to focus on one side of the relationship and forget the other; I have previously discussed rights and responsibilities (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/rights-and-responsibilities.html). It seems to be a modern trend that people want to focus on all of the things that they have the right to do but forget about the consequences of these actions. This, for me, is a real problem.
I can choose to eat junk food all of the time, but I must accept that if I do not exercise on a regular basis and possibly even more that I will put on weight. I can choose to sit around and do nothing with myself, and sit around and watch television, but I must accept that I will achieve nothing as a consequence of this choice. I can choose to not take the medications which I am on, but must accept that the consequence of this action is that my health is going to suffer as a result of this decision. I can choose to neglect my hygiene but the consequence is that my health will suffer and it is likely that people will not want to be around me particularly much.
In each one of these situations there is a choice and a consequence. In every situation where there is a choice to be made there is also a consequence which will result from that choice. The most interesting thing is that we make choices all of the time, and not making a choice also has consequences as well. The most important thing is that the consequences are something which cannot be avoided because they are inconvenient, or because they are something which we did not plan for, or because we do not like them. They do exist and this is the way it is.
A person may choose to wear a piece of clothing because they like the cut of it but it is outlandish and makes them stick out. The consequence of this is that people are going to look in their direction. A person may decide to speed in their motor vehicle. The consequences of this could be that they will be caught by the police, or that they may be involved in a collision. A person may choose to point out that there are certain things wrong with society. The consequence of this could be that people could decide to join them, or the people could think that they are a trouble-maker, or elements of the government may decide to take a closer look at them. Each one of the choices a person makes has consequences, some of them are not planned for.
What also needs to be known about consequences is that there are those consequences that we plan for and there are those which we do not plan for. The latter are those which are usually a result of a flow-on effect of choices made, or a result of linked elements which were not taken into account. In any case these consequences must also be accepted, even if they were not planned for. In any case the choices made have consequences and people need to accept this.
Cheers,
Henry.
Monday 9 September 2019
On the Same Day...
Greetings,
I am writing this particular article because it is my way of airing my feelings about my current government and their attitudes toward the lower classes, nay the underclass which they have caused to be created as a result of filling the pockets of their fat cat friends. Here I will present two news articles which will present our Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison not in a particularly good light, as it will show the hypocrisy that the Australian public has had to endure under his leadership and indeed under the leadership of every Liberal Prime Minister to date.
The first article points toward his idea of rolling out deductions from welfare payments, forcibly taking rental payments and other payments from welfare recipients (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/rent-to-be-automatically-taken-from-welfare-payments-in-shakeup/ar-AAH1T12?li=AAgfYrC ). This is not long after he was discussing a "cashless card" in which 80% of the recipient's payment was held that "cannot be used to withdraw cash, buy alcohol or gamble" (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-10/scott-morrison-defends-expansion-of-cashless-welfare-card/11493626). This card was is supposed to be rolled out and imposed on recipients of welfare payments, by the looks, regardless of whether they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regardless of of whether they have a history of being homeless or defaulting on their rental payments. He is thus again placing all of those people who are on welfare payments in the same group.
The claim is because the states lose $30 million a year through unpaid rent for social housing. So there is some sort of financial reason for this then along with the "its better for the community" thing? Then he should really explain the tax-payer funded $250 million upgrade that he just got to his official plane (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT?li=AAgfYrC). So, we all have to tighten our belts and watch what we spend but he is allowed to go and spend money which is not his on his comfort. Of course the claim will be that future Prime Ministers will benefit from this, but why was it needed? I am sure that $250 million would go a long way or at least some way to creating jobs for those people he so desperately wants to "have a go".
The arrogance of this individual and his government is insulting. They give donations and tax breaks to the corporations and "big money" and then complain that the most vulnerable of society are a drain on society. Even though if the tax breaks and perks were cut off the welfare system would easily be funded. They take money away from education and wonder why the country is not keeping up with other countries in the quest for technology and new ideas. They take away from health and complain that people are being a drain on the public health system and also allow private companies to hike up private insurance. Is it any wonder the nation is having troubles?
Write to the Prime Minister and your local Member of Parliament, I already have. Tell them that what you think they are doing is wrong and tell them the reasons why. Explain to them that they are hurting the nation that they are supposedly trying to help. Hopefully, eventually, they will listen to us and we won't have to wait until election time to get scared into voting for them again.
Cheers,
Henry.
I am writing this particular article because it is my way of airing my feelings about my current government and their attitudes toward the lower classes, nay the underclass which they have caused to be created as a result of filling the pockets of their fat cat friends. Here I will present two news articles which will present our Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison not in a particularly good light, as it will show the hypocrisy that the Australian public has had to endure under his leadership and indeed under the leadership of every Liberal Prime Minister to date.
The first article points toward his idea of rolling out deductions from welfare payments, forcibly taking rental payments and other payments from welfare recipients (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/rent-to-be-automatically-taken-from-welfare-payments-in-shakeup/ar-AAH1T12?li=AAgfYrC ). This is not long after he was discussing a "cashless card" in which 80% of the recipient's payment was held that "cannot be used to withdraw cash, buy alcohol or gamble" (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-10/scott-morrison-defends-expansion-of-cashless-welfare-card/11493626). This card was is supposed to be rolled out and imposed on recipients of welfare payments, by the looks, regardless of whether they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, or regardless of of whether they have a history of being homeless or defaulting on their rental payments. He is thus again placing all of those people who are on welfare payments in the same group.
The claim is because the states lose $30 million a year through unpaid rent for social housing. So there is some sort of financial reason for this then along with the "its better for the community" thing? Then he should really explain the tax-payer funded $250 million upgrade that he just got to his official plane (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/inside-shark-one-scott-morrisons-new-dollar250million-plane-is-revealed-after-a-commercial-jetstar-airbus-a330-is-transformed-into-a-100-seater-tanker-for-the-prime-minister/ar-AAH1PYT?li=AAgfYrC). So, we all have to tighten our belts and watch what we spend but he is allowed to go and spend money which is not his on his comfort. Of course the claim will be that future Prime Ministers will benefit from this, but why was it needed? I am sure that $250 million would go a long way or at least some way to creating jobs for those people he so desperately wants to "have a go".
The arrogance of this individual and his government is insulting. They give donations and tax breaks to the corporations and "big money" and then complain that the most vulnerable of society are a drain on society. Even though if the tax breaks and perks were cut off the welfare system would easily be funded. They take money away from education and wonder why the country is not keeping up with other countries in the quest for technology and new ideas. They take away from health and complain that people are being a drain on the public health system and also allow private companies to hike up private insurance. Is it any wonder the nation is having troubles?
Write to the Prime Minister and your local Member of Parliament, I already have. Tell them that what you think they are doing is wrong and tell them the reasons why. Explain to them that they are hurting the nation that they are supposedly trying to help. Hopefully, eventually, they will listen to us and we won't have to wait until election time to get scared into voting for them again.
Cheers,
Henry.
Wednesday 21 August 2019
Taking Political Action
Greetings,
The following discussion is about political action and what it means to take political action. There are people who think that they are taking political action when they are actually not. They believe that they are trying to make a difference but they are actually not really. So the following will discuss methods of taking political action and their effects.
Protesting is the most well-known form of political action because it is public. The 1960s and 1970s made protesting famous, but it existed and was used well before this time. This, again, is the idea of using a "ground-swell" to demonstrate that there are a large group of the population which are concerned about a particular issue or set of issues. For many they are just an inconvenience which block roads and stop the flow of traffic, and this is actually their point. Protests are designed to make people take notice by causing an inconvenience through the massing of individuals. The other idea behind protests is that there is greater safety and greater force in numbers. One person can be ignored, but when hundreds of people get together, it is more difficult to ignore. Protests, for the most part, are designed to be non-violent, and the ones which turn violent are usually the result of a small group of people on either or both sides of the protest which stir up trouble. Protests are a form of political action which demonstrate an individual's dedication to a cause.
The following discussion is about political action and what it means to take political action. There are people who think that they are taking political action when they are actually not. They believe that they are trying to make a difference but they are actually not really. So the following will discuss methods of taking political action and their effects.
Not Political Action
There are some who think that political action is as simple as making people aware of injustice. This is only a very mild form of political action, if it can even qualify. People think that spreading information is sufficient political action for them to feel satisfied with themselves about having "done something" when in actual fact, most of the time it really does not qualify unless the information is of a truly restricted nature i.e. like whistle-blower level. So there are two actions which people think they are being political, but they are mostly just stirring the pot, and not really having particularly much effect.
Article Cross-Posting
Our social media feeds seem to be filled with people complaining about the actions of government or corporations. They seem to be filled with articles shared from various sources, some are reputable and some are not so reputable about various issues. Posting these articles does make people aware of the issues which are about, but it does not qualify as political action. Neither does a long rant underneath it in the comments. It raises awareness but does not do much else.The "Meme"
Memes seem to have sprung up all over the place. Some of them are down-right hilarious, unfortunately these are not the ones that are being discussed here. The ones that are being discussed here, and "images with words attached" is the general definition which is being used here, are ones which are designed, like the articles above to stir people to action. For the most part, the most action that will be seen is some comment in the section below on a social media site. Much like Article Cross-Posting above, this does not qualify as political action. It may raise awareness of some social or political injustice, but it is not political action. It will not affect the government or corporations whom the meme is about.Political Action
For something to qualify as political action it has to have an effect on the establishment. This means that either the government or a corporation has to stop and take notice of the action of the individual. this is the reason why the previous actions do not qualify as political action. They inform people, but so do journalists as part of their everyday job, and most of them would not think they are being political. The most important thing about this list is that while it covers the full extent of political action it does not in any way condone any sort of violent act against any individual or entity.Voting
When political action is discussed this is the most common form which is recognised. Once every three or four years the voting public can decide to change the government. This is political action as the government, and corporations to a point, need to take notice of how people are voting and convince them to vote for them to keep them in power. This is the simplest and laziest form of the use of political power and some people even decline to exercise this properly, and in some nations, at all. This is not the only way that an individual can exercise political power or effectively pressure the government or corporations.
Signing petitions
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of active petitions currently active and they are not all that difficult to find. Thanks to the internet we have organisations such as change.org which have made them electronic which means that we do not even have to sign on a piece of paper, but can sign from the comfort and convenience of our own homes. Signing these petitions is a form of political action as once the signatures are acquired they can be presented to politicians to present the view of the people on a particular issue. Where a person puts their contact details with their signature it holds more weight and, depending on the petition, could bring the person to notice of certain agencies. Of course there is a risk with any real political action that is to make a difference. However, in the same way as Voting, this is a relatively lazy form of political action, especially with the convenience of internet, electronic petitions.
Writing to Ministers
Any person may write to a Minister or Member of Parliament. A letter will carry more weight if the individual is a registered voter, and even more if the individual is one of that Member's constituents. Of course it will carry more weight if the letter is backed up with evidence and is not simply a rant or a complaint. The point being that writing to a Minister or Shadow Minister takes some effort, and this is appreciated by the reader and thus this is taken into account when the letter is read. This carries far more weight than simply signing a petition because you have taken the time to share your thoughts on a particular subject, which is obviously of importance to you. It can also easily be claimed that letters carry more weight than petitions because of the time taken to write them, especially when they are well-researched. The combination of letters and petitions is also useful. This is a form of political action which people do not seem to be as aware of as they should be.
Writing petitions and collecting names
Hasn't this been covered? No, the previous was merely signing the petition. This is writing the petition and collecting the names, being the instigator of the action. Just as it was previously stated, a combination of letters and petitions is a way of making people listen to issues which are present in a community. The letters and the petitions should be sent one after the other, and the petition should always be followed up by another letter so that the issue cannot be forgotten. Petitions are designed to gather a "ground-swell" of support for a cause. They are also useful for gaining contacts with people who may be willing and able to assist further in the cause. This form of political action has a long historical record.
Protesting
Violent Political Action
The forms of political action which have been described previously are intended to be non-violent. The prime one which can turn violent is the protest, which, as discussed, is usually the result of a radicalised group of individuals within the whole which cause the protest to turn violent. There are forms of violent political action which often make the news, which will be mentioned here, but not heavily detailed, as they are not the focus.
Terrorist acts are acts of violence perpetrated to cause fear for a social, political, or religious aim. These acts are usually perpetrated against civilian targets rather than military targets and are designed to cause disruption. They have previously been used as a form of political action and been used effectively so to bring governments to the negotiating table. Their nature has changed in recent times, as has the approach to them. Such actions are now considered criminal and not a legitimate form of political action.
Driven further along terrorist action can turn into revolution, but this requires the support of a large part of the population to succeed. Or at least complicity with a large part of the population to succeed. This is the most radical form of political action and involves taking over the entire government, usually by force.
Conclusion
There have been various forms of political action discussed. Clearly non-violent political action should always be the aim of the individual toward gaining their goals. What should also be noted is that there are more ways of exercising legitimate political power than just through the ballot. These should be taken into account. When a person truly supports a cause then these actions will be present. Posting articles and memes on social media is good for raising awareness but it does little else. More needs to be done to be considered "politically active".
Cheers,
Henry.
Henry.
Wednesday 7 August 2019
Occupational Reputation: Painting with a Wide Brush
Greetings,
Today I have the question, why is there in every profession those who will follow the rules and those who will bend them to almost breaking? Those who will do their utmost to hold the good name of an occupation, and those who are simply in it for the money, any way it is to be gained?
Today, I had two taxi trips. The first, the driver followed the rules, turned on the meter and proceeded to drive at the speed limit to our destination, expecting the payment as read on the meter. The second was taken from the rank at a shopping centre back home. He did not turn on the meter, he did follow the road rules, but expected payment of some amount which he estimated, rather than what was displayed on the meter, as he had not turned it on. Needless to say, the second was more expensive than the first. This is not the first incident of this occurring.
It would seem that there are also those taxi drivers who are willing to accept cash payments also for an estimated trip so it is not recorded on their meter, thus depriving the owner of the taxi their fair share of the fare. What needs to be noted is that this is not all taxi drivers, there are those who do follow the rules, but there are those who do not follow the rules to earn extra money. The problem is that those who do not follow the rules make a bad name for those who do follow the rules, hence the rather poor name which taxi drivers have.
The phenomenon seems to be common amongst many other professions. Lawyers and politicians are a common target for these accusations. Lawyers have earned the name of "ambulance-chasers" and "leeches" chasing cases and taking advantage of people in need. Politicians have also become known as high-paid individuals who have become disconnected from the constituents who they supposedly support, taking payment from corporations and interest groups to fund their political campaigns and not staying connected with the people who put them in government. Some of these reputations are well-earned, but for some of them, they are not.
The real question is what do we, as the general public, do about these situations? Do we remember the taxi drivers who follow the rules and give them good reviews and complain about the bad ones? Do we write about the lawyers and politicians who give the others a bad name? For the most part, we do not. We sit back and let things proceed as they are. The most important thing to do is to remember that there are always people in occupations of all kinds who do a good job, along with those who do a not so good job. The ones who do a good job need to be commended for their diligence, while the others need to be pushed aside. Remember this in your interactions and considerations of all occupations.
Cheers,
Henry.
Today I have the question, why is there in every profession those who will follow the rules and those who will bend them to almost breaking? Those who will do their utmost to hold the good name of an occupation, and those who are simply in it for the money, any way it is to be gained?
Today, I had two taxi trips. The first, the driver followed the rules, turned on the meter and proceeded to drive at the speed limit to our destination, expecting the payment as read on the meter. The second was taken from the rank at a shopping centre back home. He did not turn on the meter, he did follow the road rules, but expected payment of some amount which he estimated, rather than what was displayed on the meter, as he had not turned it on. Needless to say, the second was more expensive than the first. This is not the first incident of this occurring.
It would seem that there are also those taxi drivers who are willing to accept cash payments also for an estimated trip so it is not recorded on their meter, thus depriving the owner of the taxi their fair share of the fare. What needs to be noted is that this is not all taxi drivers, there are those who do follow the rules, but there are those who do not follow the rules to earn extra money. The problem is that those who do not follow the rules make a bad name for those who do follow the rules, hence the rather poor name which taxi drivers have.
The phenomenon seems to be common amongst many other professions. Lawyers and politicians are a common target for these accusations. Lawyers have earned the name of "ambulance-chasers" and "leeches" chasing cases and taking advantage of people in need. Politicians have also become known as high-paid individuals who have become disconnected from the constituents who they supposedly support, taking payment from corporations and interest groups to fund their political campaigns and not staying connected with the people who put them in government. Some of these reputations are well-earned, but for some of them, they are not.
The real question is what do we, as the general public, do about these situations? Do we remember the taxi drivers who follow the rules and give them good reviews and complain about the bad ones? Do we write about the lawyers and politicians who give the others a bad name? For the most part, we do not. We sit back and let things proceed as they are. The most important thing to do is to remember that there are always people in occupations of all kinds who do a good job, along with those who do a not so good job. The ones who do a good job need to be commended for their diligence, while the others need to be pushed aside. Remember this in your interactions and considerations of all occupations.
Cheers,
Henry.
Wednesday 19 June 2019
The World Has been Ruined by Lawyers and Accountants
Greetings,
There have been many complaints by many different people about how the world is being destroyed by the "big" companies destroying the atmosphere and also the ecology of the planet. It is true that this does happen, but I would argue that we need to look behind them to examine who allows them to do this. To be sure it is the politicians who have their hands greased by the money to make sure that laws do not affect them too much, but there are people who need to read these laws and financial policies to make sure that the companies can use them to their advantage, lawyers and accountants.
The companies, big and small, are defended by these two groups of individuals, lawyers defend them from law suits in and out of court, accountants defend them in regards to ensuring that they pay the minimum amount of tax possible. No company went alone to face the taxman, they always went defended by lawyers and accountants, first the accountants, then the lawyers. This is how they get away with paying so little, with assistance from their friendly politician of course who has bent things so that his public bears the brunt of the cost instead.
There has been much talk about renewable energy sources, and "green" energy not to mention "greener" modes of transport. These have been available for decades, but have been bought off and buried by the "big" companies who are addicted to oil. How did this happen? With the assistance of their accountants to buy the small company out of the market first, and then the lawyers to make sure that they would not come back of course.
Several famous cases have proven that if you have the money then there is a lawyer who will find a loophole for you to avoid responsibility for your actions. The same can be said for accountants, if you have the right accountant and pay them enough, there is always a loophole through which that extra lot of earnings can be slipped so that you do not have to pay tax on it. Lawyers always bear the brunt of accusation of low character in their approach.
Lawyers have been called "ambulance chasers" looking for clients from amongst those who are at their most vulnerable and needy, in an injured stated. Their signs claim, "No win, no fee," but only take the case if they know that they will win. Our world has become more and more litigious, 'Weird Al' Yankovic mocks this fact in one of his songs "I'll Sue Ya" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw). Obviously it points out some extreme cases but clearly it makes the point of the litigious nature of the world in general.
We need to sit back and have a look at our world and how much it is controlled by paperwork. It seems that every little decision we make these days needs to be documented or it will come back at us. A small outing becomes a major event because everything needs to be organised and everyone's needs taken into account, "just in case". We need to take control and understand that a mistake is just that, a mistake, no legal ramifications are required. Likewise we need to make the "big" companies pay as much as everyone else does, and also pay for the damage that they have done to the environment. To do this is going to take some ideological and political change.
Cheers,
Henry.
There have been many complaints by many different people about how the world is being destroyed by the "big" companies destroying the atmosphere and also the ecology of the planet. It is true that this does happen, but I would argue that we need to look behind them to examine who allows them to do this. To be sure it is the politicians who have their hands greased by the money to make sure that laws do not affect them too much, but there are people who need to read these laws and financial policies to make sure that the companies can use them to their advantage, lawyers and accountants.
The companies, big and small, are defended by these two groups of individuals, lawyers defend them from law suits in and out of court, accountants defend them in regards to ensuring that they pay the minimum amount of tax possible. No company went alone to face the taxman, they always went defended by lawyers and accountants, first the accountants, then the lawyers. This is how they get away with paying so little, with assistance from their friendly politician of course who has bent things so that his public bears the brunt of the cost instead.
There has been much talk about renewable energy sources, and "green" energy not to mention "greener" modes of transport. These have been available for decades, but have been bought off and buried by the "big" companies who are addicted to oil. How did this happen? With the assistance of their accountants to buy the small company out of the market first, and then the lawyers to make sure that they would not come back of course.
Several famous cases have proven that if you have the money then there is a lawyer who will find a loophole for you to avoid responsibility for your actions. The same can be said for accountants, if you have the right accountant and pay them enough, there is always a loophole through which that extra lot of earnings can be slipped so that you do not have to pay tax on it. Lawyers always bear the brunt of accusation of low character in their approach.
Lawyers have been called "ambulance chasers" looking for clients from amongst those who are at their most vulnerable and needy, in an injured stated. Their signs claim, "No win, no fee," but only take the case if they know that they will win. Our world has become more and more litigious, 'Weird Al' Yankovic mocks this fact in one of his songs "I'll Sue Ya" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw). Obviously it points out some extreme cases but clearly it makes the point of the litigious nature of the world in general.
We need to sit back and have a look at our world and how much it is controlled by paperwork. It seems that every little decision we make these days needs to be documented or it will come back at us. A small outing becomes a major event because everything needs to be organised and everyone's needs taken into account, "just in case". We need to take control and understand that a mistake is just that, a mistake, no legal ramifications are required. Likewise we need to make the "big" companies pay as much as everyone else does, and also pay for the damage that they have done to the environment. To do this is going to take some ideological and political change.
Cheers,
Henry.
Sunday 2 June 2019
The "Public" Face
Greetings,
The discussion that follows is one which I have briefly touched on previously. In that post it was about how the Internet made us anonymous, or at least had the potential for doing this for us (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/internet-connection-cloak-of-anonymity.html). This article is, in a way, an examination of the opposite, the "public" face which is presented, and how this can affect our interactions with other people.
There are two faces which we have, a "public" face which we present to the world, and a "private" face which we keep for our close friends and family. There are similarities between these two faces, but there are often differences as well. We get to choose what parts of ourselves we present to the public sphere, for the most part, and we get to choose what parts we hide, though erosions in privacy are making this more and more difficult. There are clearly places where our "public" face and our "private" face will blur, and how much these blur is most often our choice.
There are people who will automatically have a "public" face that is known by people, these people are what are known today as celebrities. However, anyone who interacts with the public also has a "public" face which will become known and attached to certain things. This may not be on the same scale as these "celebrities" but they will still become known. Hopefully they will become known for the right things.
A person who makes statements and stands with regard to certain things, will become known for these things. The more that they make statements about these things the more that people will have an expectation for them to be of a certain character. A person who makes statements about human rights, gender equality, and other political matters is going to be expected to also be acting according to those same statements, even in their personal life. As soon as they are seen to be "soft" on one area, which relates to another where they have made some grand statement in any way, their credibility will be damaged. Care needs to be taken with what we are seen to be standing for as it can come back to us, the Internet has a long memory.
Some will claim that they have a different personality or face for different interactions due to the nature of those interactions. A person thus may act brashly, arrogantly, with interactions on-line, but then may be friendly and considerate in-person. The problem is that if all people have seen is the former interaction, because they have never met the person in-person this is all that they are going to be known as. You may claim that, "But that was on-line." It was you, it was your interactions. You cannot separate your "face" on-line from your "face" in-person. Things to distance you from your on-line "face" will only work for so long, people will eventually find out, it is better that you treat people on-line how you would in-person.
The "public" face which you present should be one that you would want to meet and interact with. Have consideration for what you are going to put out there, because it is almost guaranteed that if you write something that you are going to regret, it will haunt you for ages afterward. This "public" face should be even a deeper consideration for those who would want to spread information, or attempt to sell their wares of any kind. Good-will can be upset quite severely through the ill-considered interactions of your "public" face with people.
How often have we seen the popularity of politicians and celebrities damaged by ill-considered statements on their parts? The same can happen to us if we are not careful. Consider carefully whether you really want to post that statement before you press the "post" or "send" button. Once it is out there you can't have it back.
Cheers,
Henry.
The discussion that follows is one which I have briefly touched on previously. In that post it was about how the Internet made us anonymous, or at least had the potential for doing this for us (https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2018/08/internet-connection-cloak-of-anonymity.html). This article is, in a way, an examination of the opposite, the "public" face which is presented, and how this can affect our interactions with other people.
There are two faces which we have, a "public" face which we present to the world, and a "private" face which we keep for our close friends and family. There are similarities between these two faces, but there are often differences as well. We get to choose what parts of ourselves we present to the public sphere, for the most part, and we get to choose what parts we hide, though erosions in privacy are making this more and more difficult. There are clearly places where our "public" face and our "private" face will blur, and how much these blur is most often our choice.
There are people who will automatically have a "public" face that is known by people, these people are what are known today as celebrities. However, anyone who interacts with the public also has a "public" face which will become known and attached to certain things. This may not be on the same scale as these "celebrities" but they will still become known. Hopefully they will become known for the right things.
A person who makes statements and stands with regard to certain things, will become known for these things. The more that they make statements about these things the more that people will have an expectation for them to be of a certain character. A person who makes statements about human rights, gender equality, and other political matters is going to be expected to also be acting according to those same statements, even in their personal life. As soon as they are seen to be "soft" on one area, which relates to another where they have made some grand statement in any way, their credibility will be damaged. Care needs to be taken with what we are seen to be standing for as it can come back to us, the Internet has a long memory.
Some will claim that they have a different personality or face for different interactions due to the nature of those interactions. A person thus may act brashly, arrogantly, with interactions on-line, but then may be friendly and considerate in-person. The problem is that if all people have seen is the former interaction, because they have never met the person in-person this is all that they are going to be known as. You may claim that, "But that was on-line." It was you, it was your interactions. You cannot separate your "face" on-line from your "face" in-person. Things to distance you from your on-line "face" will only work for so long, people will eventually find out, it is better that you treat people on-line how you would in-person.
The "public" face which you present should be one that you would want to meet and interact with. Have consideration for what you are going to put out there, because it is almost guaranteed that if you write something that you are going to regret, it will haunt you for ages afterward. This "public" face should be even a deeper consideration for those who would want to spread information, or attempt to sell their wares of any kind. Good-will can be upset quite severely through the ill-considered interactions of your "public" face with people.
How often have we seen the popularity of politicians and celebrities damaged by ill-considered statements on their parts? The same can happen to us if we are not careful. Consider carefully whether you really want to post that statement before you press the "post" or "send" button. Once it is out there you can't have it back.
Cheers,
Henry.
Saturday 18 May 2019
All Queensland's Fault?
Greetings,
Australia has just voted for 2019, and the results are in and they are not what some people wanted. So as a result there is a lot of throwing around of blame as to whose fault it is. Several people who I have seen on Facebook and other media have been blaming the result on Queensland, due to its some what conservative nature, hence its backing for One Nation and other conservative parties. To this there are somethings that need to be set straight.
First and foremost, where I live in Rankin, the Labor candidate is being returned, so it was not my electorate who can be blamed for this mess. So the fingers can stop being pointed in this direction for a start.
Next, we have a look at some numbers, there are 151 electorates in Australia, 30 of these are in Queensland, it is a fifth of the electorates. What about the rest of the country? What about the other states? There are more electorates in Victoria and New South Wales. To gain what it required the Labour-National Party would require more than just Queensland. The evidence points to them getting it too (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/federal-election-map-coalition-defies-polls-retains-power/11127084?section=politics).
So before everyone tries to go blaming one state for the failure of an election maybe they should look at home first for the blame, if any blame should be leveled at all. Clearly the Coalition ran a better campaign than did Labor and other parties. What now?
My question for all those people who don't like it is, what are you going to do about it? When these politicians do something you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Just sit there and complain? When was the last time you wrote to your local Minister or Shadow Minister? When was the last time you marched? Australia is generally politically apathetic, and our politicians know it. This is the reason why the know they can get away with what they do. If you think that the vote is your only power then you are underestimating yourself.
Cheers,
Henry.
Australia has just voted for 2019, and the results are in and they are not what some people wanted. So as a result there is a lot of throwing around of blame as to whose fault it is. Several people who I have seen on Facebook and other media have been blaming the result on Queensland, due to its some what conservative nature, hence its backing for One Nation and other conservative parties. To this there are somethings that need to be set straight.
First and foremost, where I live in Rankin, the Labor candidate is being returned, so it was not my electorate who can be blamed for this mess. So the fingers can stop being pointed in this direction for a start.
Next, we have a look at some numbers, there are 151 electorates in Australia, 30 of these are in Queensland, it is a fifth of the electorates. What about the rest of the country? What about the other states? There are more electorates in Victoria and New South Wales. To gain what it required the Labour-National Party would require more than just Queensland. The evidence points to them getting it too (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-19/federal-election-map-coalition-defies-polls-retains-power/11127084?section=politics).
So before everyone tries to go blaming one state for the failure of an election maybe they should look at home first for the blame, if any blame should be leveled at all. Clearly the Coalition ran a better campaign than did Labor and other parties. What now?
My question for all those people who don't like it is, what are you going to do about it? When these politicians do something you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Just sit there and complain? When was the last time you wrote to your local Minister or Shadow Minister? When was the last time you marched? Australia is generally politically apathetic, and our politicians know it. This is the reason why the know they can get away with what they do. If you think that the vote is your only power then you are underestimating yourself.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday 19 March 2019
Too Many "-ists" ... and Mostly Extreme"-ists"
Greetings,
There has been much said in the media about politics and religion over the past months, indeed over the past years. It seems that we are in a period of history in which tension, in one form or another, is the "normal" state of being. Is it any wonder that we have global rates of suicide increasing every year? Politics and religion seem to, once again, or even permanently have been mixed up together.
There just seems to be too much of each within the other. Religion seems to have gone political and politics have become, in many instances, of a religious nature, or at least based on a particular religion. This is not even the real problem. It is just scratching the surface of the problem in my view. The problem is extremism.
The problem is extremism in all of its forms. It does not matter whether it is religious extremism of political extremism. When a position is taken where there the options are "Us" and "Them" and nothing in between there becomes no place for negotiation no place where compromise can be made so agreement can be had. I has been said that uncompromising people are easy to admire. They are also easy to hate as well, and this is also the problem, such extremism breeds with it the seeds of hate.
What there is are too many "-ists" that people tie themselves to and too many radicals of these "-ists", and it does not matter what form of "-ist" it is. Once a radical position is taken where everything concerns this particular "-ist" and can be turned to be about this particular "-ist" then there are problems. Once the views about this "-ist" become radicalised there are problems because there is very little room to move, the word extrem-ist becomes appropriate.
The easy one, at this point in history to point at is fundamental-ist. For the most part when this word is used the first thought is regard to Muslims, and the various acts of terror which have been more recently perpetrated around the world. But, a person must be cautious because the same word can also be applied to Christian, and then a person can talk about Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians. With regard to fundamental-ists, there are very few religions that can claim absolute purity that they have not had theirs.
So, religion and fundamental-ists, are not a great thing, but the "-ists" of politics are not so squeaky clean either. So we can point to the obvious "dangerous" one anarch-ist, had most of their "fun" back in the nineteenth century with a small spate of activity which was claimed anarchist in the 1960s. There were social-ist terrorists who went on sprees throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These are but a few examples, of course there is also the environmental-ist, which for most people brings to thought the peace-loving flower-children, but not all of them were. The history books are dotted with examples of what is called eco-terrorism. In each case the radical element of these "-ists" took it upon themselves to perform criminal acts to make their points. In all cases they are extrem-ists.
Where does this leave us? The most important "-ist" that people should be concerned with is coex-ist. This is not possible where there are lines drawn and two distinct sides and "Us" and "Them" determined. In every case there must be room for negotiation and compromise on both sides. There needs to be room for at least the acceptance of the other's point of view, even if there is no agreement. Extremism in all its forms is damaging. Extreme positions about subjects leave little room for negotiation and differing points of view.
In light of recent occurrences in New Zealand, we must take a stand against all forms of terrorism regardless of its cause, political or religious. This is to demonstrate to those who would attempt to use such methods that it is not a legitimate means of getting what they want. Thus we must take a stand against all forms of terror tactics which would attempt to subvert our way of life or our thoughts.
Each form of terror tactic feeds another which feeds another in an endless cycle of fear and oppression, it is up to us to take a stand against it NOW. The easiest way of taking this stand is through denial. We deny the terrorist their names in public. We deny them publication of their manifestos. We deny them publication of their acts.
What this also means that we need to take a stand against much of our modern media who use such sensationalist stories to prop up their ratings. They would claim that they are merely informing their public of what is happening with regard to the incident and the results of it, but it is not. If this was the case then why does the same story get played over and over again? Why does every story for the next week get related back to the same incident? Having such material in our faces does nothing but increase the tension in our communities. Switch them off. Having such material causes distress to those who may have been involved or who know those who were involved. Don't share their stories. Terrorism feeds on publicity and modern media is feeding it. Don't feed it, starve it. Let our media outlets know that will not be party to it.
If you need to talk about the incidents, talk about the victims and the families. These are the people who need our support. Deny the terrorist name and fame. Let them be forgotten. Let the real heroes of the day be remembered. The greatest effect of the stand can only be achieve through unity. Not one faith, or one colour or one gender, or one ethnicity, but the unity of all humanity.
Cheers,
Henry.
There has been much said in the media about politics and religion over the past months, indeed over the past years. It seems that we are in a period of history in which tension, in one form or another, is the "normal" state of being. Is it any wonder that we have global rates of suicide increasing every year? Politics and religion seem to, once again, or even permanently have been mixed up together.
There just seems to be too much of each within the other. Religion seems to have gone political and politics have become, in many instances, of a religious nature, or at least based on a particular religion. This is not even the real problem. It is just scratching the surface of the problem in my view. The problem is extremism.
The problem is extremism in all of its forms. It does not matter whether it is religious extremism of political extremism. When a position is taken where there the options are "Us" and "Them" and nothing in between there becomes no place for negotiation no place where compromise can be made so agreement can be had. I has been said that uncompromising people are easy to admire. They are also easy to hate as well, and this is also the problem, such extremism breeds with it the seeds of hate.
What there is are too many "-ists" that people tie themselves to and too many radicals of these "-ists", and it does not matter what form of "-ist" it is. Once a radical position is taken where everything concerns this particular "-ist" and can be turned to be about this particular "-ist" then there are problems. Once the views about this "-ist" become radicalised there are problems because there is very little room to move, the word extrem-ist becomes appropriate.
The easy one, at this point in history to point at is fundamental-ist. For the most part when this word is used the first thought is regard to Muslims, and the various acts of terror which have been more recently perpetrated around the world. But, a person must be cautious because the same word can also be applied to Christian, and then a person can talk about Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians. With regard to fundamental-ists, there are very few religions that can claim absolute purity that they have not had theirs.
So, religion and fundamental-ists, are not a great thing, but the "-ists" of politics are not so squeaky clean either. So we can point to the obvious "dangerous" one anarch-ist, had most of their "fun" back in the nineteenth century with a small spate of activity which was claimed anarchist in the 1960s. There were social-ist terrorists who went on sprees throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These are but a few examples, of course there is also the environmental-ist, which for most people brings to thought the peace-loving flower-children, but not all of them were. The history books are dotted with examples of what is called eco-terrorism. In each case the radical element of these "-ists" took it upon themselves to perform criminal acts to make their points. In all cases they are extrem-ists.
Where does this leave us? The most important "-ist" that people should be concerned with is coex-ist. This is not possible where there are lines drawn and two distinct sides and "Us" and "Them" determined. In every case there must be room for negotiation and compromise on both sides. There needs to be room for at least the acceptance of the other's point of view, even if there is no agreement. Extremism in all its forms is damaging. Extreme positions about subjects leave little room for negotiation and differing points of view.
"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinkingA new definition for humanism needs to be coined, focussing on the individual whose focus is on humanity, and the humanity in each individual. This is the sort of thought that we need to day a thought process which overrides politics and religion and focuses on the common aspects of humanity to find the commonality amongst us all. This individual would in their most radical form be of a sort to seek what universal commonality can be found amongst all and how to achieve this.
and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." - Wikipedia
In light of recent occurrences in New Zealand, we must take a stand against all forms of terrorism regardless of its cause, political or religious. This is to demonstrate to those who would attempt to use such methods that it is not a legitimate means of getting what they want. Thus we must take a stand against all forms of terror tactics which would attempt to subvert our way of life or our thoughts.
Each form of terror tactic feeds another which feeds another in an endless cycle of fear and oppression, it is up to us to take a stand against it NOW. The easiest way of taking this stand is through denial. We deny the terrorist their names in public. We deny them publication of their manifestos. We deny them publication of their acts.
What this also means that we need to take a stand against much of our modern media who use such sensationalist stories to prop up their ratings. They would claim that they are merely informing their public of what is happening with regard to the incident and the results of it, but it is not. If this was the case then why does the same story get played over and over again? Why does every story for the next week get related back to the same incident? Having such material in our faces does nothing but increase the tension in our communities. Switch them off. Having such material causes distress to those who may have been involved or who know those who were involved. Don't share their stories. Terrorism feeds on publicity and modern media is feeding it. Don't feed it, starve it. Let our media outlets know that will not be party to it.
If you need to talk about the incidents, talk about the victims and the families. These are the people who need our support. Deny the terrorist name and fame. Let them be forgotten. Let the real heroes of the day be remembered. The greatest effect of the stand can only be achieve through unity. Not one faith, or one colour or one gender, or one ethnicity, but the unity of all humanity.
Cheers,
Henry.
Thursday 14 February 2019
Stop Biting My Fingers I am Trying to Help
Greetings,
I like to think that I am a reasonably open-minded sort of individual. I do not think that some mob of middle-aged men should be determining what is right for women's bodies. I also think that the same women should be paid the same as their male counter-parts for the same job. One could say that I am a believer in equity between the sexes because equality is just not possible because we are different, and this is an awesome thing.
Of course I like to treat people equally as well. Then I get bombarded by articles such as this one: "That's not what chivalry is, but OK" (https://goingmedievalblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/thats-not-what-chivalry-is-but-ok/). An article which is written by a qualified individual in academia, and it does a wonderful job of beating up on the male counter-part for their misunderstanding of "chivalry" and how it does not apply today. Well, let me just say, I have some corrections for the article, and some updates which need to be said.
First of all, the aspects of "chivalry" said "Nice Guys" are hitting you with are not the historical versions at all. Yes, there they have it wrong. It is because they have been hit with the romanticised Victorian ideal of chivalry rather than what it actually was. This is a concept, by the way, which is bred into many of us so that we will treat women with respect. That being said, let us move on.
Now we have diffused some of the bit where we understand that the "Nice Guy" has no concept of "real" chivalry, let's look at some places where the author also needs to have a bit of a fact check. The author states that, "War horses, who were big bois, because they had to carry the weight of all that armour, were incredibly expensive, as was armour in and of itself." Yes, armour was expensive and so were horses. On the other hand, armour, as has been soundly proven by actual collections of actual artefacts is not all that heavy. I recommend looking at some of the brilliant research embarked upon by Daniel Jaquet, especially his obstacle run in armour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw) to have an idea about armour in the real world.
With regard to horses, the weight of the horse was to increase the weight of the charge against the opponent, not because the armour was so heavy. Likewise, the destrier was designed for battle, not for wandering around the countryside, which would be the reason for the palfrey for daily work, and not suitable for carrying an armoured man. Once again, in both cases, academia demonstrates its lack of knowledge of actual medieval martial arts and warfare.
Then there is a long list of discussion about various papers of courtly love, however they conveniently stop before the beginning of the 15th-century, so Castiglione, Erasmus and various Renaissance authors conveniently miss out. Thus we miss out on the High Middle Ages and the development of the courtier and his training, and further along the gentleman. So thus the relationship through the Victorian ideals to the modern era is conveniently missed.
Just to finish this particular article off the author signs of with, "The TL/DR? That’s not what chivalry is, and you are being a sexist muppet right now. Off you pop." Great way for an academic of any kind to sign off, trying to stay in with the "in" crowd? Well, you will pretty much marginalise the entire male audience with that one. Even if, like myself, they would be really interested in hearing stories of women's achievements in medieval history and have written about such subjects (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2018/05/myth-debunking-female-combat-training.html).
It is exactly this sort of article which immediately puts men offside with regard to the sexism debate. There is no question of middle ground, there is only one and that states all men are inconsiderate and should be shunned. It is the case that the "feminazi" is just as bad as the chauvinist/misogynist and as far as I am concerned are just as bad as one another. Two extremists, just at opposite ends of the scale.
Where does all of this lead? It leads to some very simple things. There are men out there who do respect women and who are looking out for their best interests the best that they can, and that they are interested in women's history. Of course these same men do prefer not to have the misdeeds of men of the past shoved down their throats nor where their ancestors did things in inconvenient ways.
People are interested in historical and current social phenomenon, but they are much more interesting when the whole story is told so that we can understand how we came to the place where we are now. Not skipping over a couple of hundred years and just saying that something is being used wrongly. They say that only through understanding the past can we not make the same mistakes in the future, well all of that past must be told, not just snippets which suit the social/political rantings at an author's convenience.
Understanding is important. You cannot understand the "Nice Guys'" understanding of chivalry unless you look at the entire picture and how it was fed to them. Understand that it is not the medieval version. How can it apply? Understand it is a version of the concept which has filtered through the humanism of the Renaissance and also the Romanticism of the Victorian age to an ideal of what it was. Take these things into account and you will find it is quite positive not only toward women, but people in general. Once there is even a little more understanding between the sexes things will improve quite a bit.
Ask yourself, what does writing the article serve? And please try not to bite the fingers of those who are actually trying to help.
Cheers,
Henry.
I like to think that I am a reasonably open-minded sort of individual. I do not think that some mob of middle-aged men should be determining what is right for women's bodies. I also think that the same women should be paid the same as their male counter-parts for the same job. One could say that I am a believer in equity between the sexes because equality is just not possible because we are different, and this is an awesome thing.
Of course I like to treat people equally as well. Then I get bombarded by articles such as this one: "That's not what chivalry is, but OK" (https://goingmedievalblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/thats-not-what-chivalry-is-but-ok/). An article which is written by a qualified individual in academia, and it does a wonderful job of beating up on the male counter-part for their misunderstanding of "chivalry" and how it does not apply today. Well, let me just say, I have some corrections for the article, and some updates which need to be said.
First of all, the aspects of "chivalry" said "Nice Guys" are hitting you with are not the historical versions at all. Yes, there they have it wrong. It is because they have been hit with the romanticised Victorian ideal of chivalry rather than what it actually was. This is a concept, by the way, which is bred into many of us so that we will treat women with respect. That being said, let us move on.
Now we have diffused some of the bit where we understand that the "Nice Guy" has no concept of "real" chivalry, let's look at some places where the author also needs to have a bit of a fact check. The author states that, "War horses, who were big bois, because they had to carry the weight of all that armour, were incredibly expensive, as was armour in and of itself." Yes, armour was expensive and so were horses. On the other hand, armour, as has been soundly proven by actual collections of actual artefacts is not all that heavy. I recommend looking at some of the brilliant research embarked upon by Daniel Jaquet, especially his obstacle run in armour (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAzI1UvlQqw) to have an idea about armour in the real world.
With regard to horses, the weight of the horse was to increase the weight of the charge against the opponent, not because the armour was so heavy. Likewise, the destrier was designed for battle, not for wandering around the countryside, which would be the reason for the palfrey for daily work, and not suitable for carrying an armoured man. Once again, in both cases, academia demonstrates its lack of knowledge of actual medieval martial arts and warfare.
Then there is a long list of discussion about various papers of courtly love, however they conveniently stop before the beginning of the 15th-century, so Castiglione, Erasmus and various Renaissance authors conveniently miss out. Thus we miss out on the High Middle Ages and the development of the courtier and his training, and further along the gentleman. So thus the relationship through the Victorian ideals to the modern era is conveniently missed.
Just to finish this particular article off the author signs of with, "The TL/DR? That’s not what chivalry is, and you are being a sexist muppet right now. Off you pop." Great way for an academic of any kind to sign off, trying to stay in with the "in" crowd? Well, you will pretty much marginalise the entire male audience with that one. Even if, like myself, they would be really interested in hearing stories of women's achievements in medieval history and have written about such subjects (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2018/05/myth-debunking-female-combat-training.html).
It is exactly this sort of article which immediately puts men offside with regard to the sexism debate. There is no question of middle ground, there is only one and that states all men are inconsiderate and should be shunned. It is the case that the "feminazi" is just as bad as the chauvinist/misogynist and as far as I am concerned are just as bad as one another. Two extremists, just at opposite ends of the scale.
Where does all of this lead? It leads to some very simple things. There are men out there who do respect women and who are looking out for their best interests the best that they can, and that they are interested in women's history. Of course these same men do prefer not to have the misdeeds of men of the past shoved down their throats nor where their ancestors did things in inconvenient ways.
People are interested in historical and current social phenomenon, but they are much more interesting when the whole story is told so that we can understand how we came to the place where we are now. Not skipping over a couple of hundred years and just saying that something is being used wrongly. They say that only through understanding the past can we not make the same mistakes in the future, well all of that past must be told, not just snippets which suit the social/political rantings at an author's convenience.
Understanding is important. You cannot understand the "Nice Guys'" understanding of chivalry unless you look at the entire picture and how it was fed to them. Understand that it is not the medieval version. How can it apply? Understand it is a version of the concept which has filtered through the humanism of the Renaissance and also the Romanticism of the Victorian age to an ideal of what it was. Take these things into account and you will find it is quite positive not only toward women, but people in general. Once there is even a little more understanding between the sexes things will improve quite a bit.
Ask yourself, what does writing the article serve? And please try not to bite the fingers of those who are actually trying to help.
Cheers,
Henry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)