Asked by Anonymous
You have clearly missed the context of how I write my posts. They are written in the moment with little to no planning, and quite often its in response to the many articles or comments I see the irritate me.
Oh and it’d also help if you would quote the post in which you are referring to.
The Dual Standards Of Many (I didn’t say all…) Feminists
Within feminism there are those who want equality and then those who claim they want equality, but really they just want somebody to point the finger at for every little thing. The second type of feminist which I just mentioned will already be writing a hasty response claiming I’m misogynistic purely on the basis that I have a penis so therefore I’m trying to oppress the female population with my views, without really reading what I’m saying or trying to understand at least my point of view.
Feminism is something I detest as a concept, not because of what it supposedly stands for but because I find it laughable that you can ever gain equality from focusing on the rights of women and not men. This is clear in all walks of life from the media to the workplace - many of which are now in the surreal position where they promote equality but only ever promote the rights of one gender.
There is a constant rage within the media about how women are portrayed as having to look a certain way if that be weight or make up. The phrase I hear and read in the news is “Real women don’t look like that”. Well “real men” don’t all walk round with finely chiseled jawlines and muscle bound bodies either, and yet that is how the media will more often than not chose to promote an aftershave for example. If you’re going to challenge how one genders image can be affected by the media you have to look at both sides. I’m a skinny bloke and since becoming single recently, my size is something that bothers me a little; not hugely but I do want to put some weight on. Is that insecurity because I’m suddenly single again after almost 3 years so i still feel somewhat shit or is that influenced by the media? I can’t really answer that one but my point remains the same - both genders are not represented in the media in the way that the majority of either genders usually look, thus creating this fallacy that you must look a certain way.
Advertising is something that has become massively sexist towards men. That Diet Coke advert for example (and several before it) is a complete piss take of what feminism apparently stands for. If an advert was aired tomorrow, where a male member of the population is shown seemingly tricking a female into removing her top, and then a group of men sat there ogling her there would be outrage, and rightly so. But why is it acceptable for a bloke to remove his top and then be ogled by women?
Then in business the new legislation soon to become law or at least being talked about in Parliament is that a board of directors must have X amount of women on the board. That isn’t equality, that’s a case of ‘sorry mate you were more qualified and better for the position, but the law states we need a vagina at meetings’. That’s basically what it is. I agree women are under represented at that level within business, but this law merely means there will be many people out there who get that big job because they have a vagina and for no other reason. That isn’t equality, that is sexist towards whomever looses out on a promotion for essentially being born with a cock.
To paraphrase what I said: You can’t promote gender quality, by focusing on the rights of just one gender.
**FINAL EPISODE OF HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER SPOILERS!**
Personally, I wasn’t actually rooting for Ted to end up with Robin. I really liked Barney and Robin as a couple. I would have much rather seen Tracy pop her head round the corner at the end and reveal that they lived happily ever after, as cheesy and safe as that ending is. Ted and Robin’s reunion felt rather shoehorned in and forced, purely because they had filmed that scene with the kids so many years ago. I know that Ted’s time with Tracy was perfect and he’ll never stop loving her, but it doesn’t mean that Robin was what the fans wanted.
Barney’s end story also felt strangely depressing.I understand why Barney and Robin split up as their relationship never quite felt perfect, and you always worried that Barney might stray or miss being single, but this entire season made it seem that they would be happy. His womanising days appear to be over, as he loves his daughter so much that she is the only girl he cares about, and doesn’t want to disrespect women any more. But the show hints that he ends up alone forever, at least until 2030 anyway, which is quite a sad end to Barney’s story. It’s also a shame that the mother of his child is unknown and just some random woman. Although they are making How I Met Your Father, which could make Barney’s ending make more sense, but that’ll have to be a short lived but epic show to pull that off.
It might have been a better final season if they had spread out the events of the finale over 24 episodes. Instead they spread out the lead-up to the wedding, for a marriage that only lasted a couple of years. They got us settled with a different kind of ending. Had they spaced it out over a whole season, we could have seen more of Tracy and Ted together, Barney and Robin’s separation would make more sense, we could have felt more of a personal connection with Tracy’s passing, and we could begin rooting for Ted and Robin again, like we used to. Instead, it all felt rather rushed and was almost the opposite of how I wanted it to end. Bitter disappointment.
While walking round town, my mother and I got caught by some Christians preaching. They were chatting on how God is all loving blah blah blah. So I informed them that actually god is quite clearly not all loving. To which they asked the fatal question: “Why do you believe that, sir?”
Well, its easy. Let us take the scenario that a woman is being raped, and her young son forced to watch. After they will be murdered. Why does god allow that? Christian “Well god will not interfere with our free will.” The woman does not want to be raped, her child will not want watch and neither will want to be murdered. So their free will is being affected. Because he does not stop it, he is siding with the rapist and murderer. Christian: “God sends these trials and tribulations to test our faith and make us stronger.” So what about somebody with terminal cancer, maybe a child. That child has not had the chance to experience some of the magnificent things that life can offer. Will the cancer make that child stronger? No, that child will die a horrible agonising death while their family are forced to watch helpless. Christian: “Its a part of gods greater plan, he works in mysterious ways.” Well no, it isn’t mysterious at all. If he was all loving then he wouldn’t allow people to go through such barbaric ‘tests’ such as being raped. Diseases that kill would not exist. And you’re argument that god doesn’t get involved is untrue. After all, didn’t Jesus go round performing miracles to prove who he was. So from all of this, it is obvious that god is inconsistent with his own rules, values the free will of the evil over anybody else and from that we can conclude that god in fact is not all loving. Thank you for your time, I do hope you have learned a great deal from this conversation.
Then we walked away like absolute bosses. Well I felt like a boss, my mum called me a smart arse.
I would also like to mention I do not have a problem with somebody who is religious, I understand it can give a person great comfort. However what I do have is a problem with having ANY religion shoves down my throat, respect my views and I’ll respect yours, but try and convert me to your way of thinking and I will retaliate with my way of thinking.
A month ago, “Fat Shaming Week” was a thing, created by some blog purely to ridicule people they deem as fat. Supposedly in an effort to make them see the error of their ways and loose weight. Hurting people’s feelings is the quickest way to make them change is a direct quote from the website.
Anyway, the hashtag FatShamingWeek got pretty big on Twitter, and it gave arse holes the chance to tweet horrible shit for a week. So not much difference to any other week of the year.
Now as anybody who has been shamed, having your feelings hurt doesn’t exactly do much to motivate you, especially if you’re insecure about the thing you’re being shamed for. Instead it will probably make you feel more depressed and worthless, thus making it even more likely that you’ll indulge in the very thing they’re shaming you for as a coping mechanism. I suspect most participants in fat shaming week know this, or at least don’t give a shit. And really it was used as an excuse to be a arsehole to people. But hey, that’s what happens on the internet.
I’d now like to share my views on the subject. Really, its a bunch of people being cruel to other people. That’s really nothing new. And fuck them. Arseholes don’t get to start conversations. It isn’t really worth a real response, let them get on with it while the more intelligent people have a conversation, because the debate between fat Shaming and fat acceptance is an interesting one. So lets talk about it.
Now obviously fat shaming and being a dick to people is not something I support at all, but personally I am ambivalent to the whole fat acceptance movement. I don’t like the term fat anyway, because that implies that there is a cosmic mandate to maintain some kind of constant weight. Which is absurd. But if we’re talking about things such as being unhealthy, lazy or being irresponsible; Then that’s something society shouldn’t be expected to accept. But, if we’re trying to pressure people into looking a certain way, weighing a specific number of pounds then that’s arbitrary and ridiculous. Telling somebody they look ugly or nasty, that’s not a fact based observation. That’s just being a douche. It is a tricky subject, because being overweight is not always based on lifestyle choices. Yes, sometimes it is, but not always. And that’s what makes it tricky. And, because of this the fat acceptance movement is very fragmented, different people with different ideas as to what constitutes fat acceptance. Some ignore the correlation between weight and health, which is both dishonest and dangerous. Some ignore the importance of eating disorders, which is an entirely new issue. But that’s also dangerous. A lot of people who are apart of this movement are obsessed with convincing the world that they don’t need to be cured. The fact of the matter is, some people are sick and do need help, and they should be able to seek that help without being marginalised. Many members of the movement use the term “Thin Privilege” and that in itself is reverse bigotry.
Look, people and especially women have to deal with others policing and criticising their bodies everyday. This is not a problem that is unique to fat people, and its a bit disingenuous to claim that it is. But at the end of the day bigger people deserve the same respect as a smaller person. Being an arsehole should be the thing we’re shaming, not being fat.
Two men and a woman (a “mystery blonde” no less …) stretch out their arms, a mobile phone clasped in their hands, and smile as they take a picture.
Oh come on … you must have done it … especially when you have been lucky enough to attend a special event?
The Olympics? The Queen’s jubilee concert? The X Factor tour?
So surely we can handle Barack Obama, David Cameron and that woman (Helle Thorning-Schmidt - the Danish Prime Minister - for crying out loud!) taking a snap of themselves at the Nelson Mandela memorial?Barack Obama with the ‘mystery blonde’ aka the Danish Prime Minister
Ermm no, apparently we can’t.
"IDIOTIC!" screamed one front page, warning that the image had sparked a "firestorm of criticism". (@toxicsayonara told her 54 followers that the world leaders had shown "zero class or decorum". Another zoomed in on a Michelle Obama looking "VERY unamused".)
Eh? What? You cannot be serious.
The only thing that picture made me feel was that for a moment they did not look like the THREE world leaders (did I mention, she is the Danish Prime Minister?) that they are. They looked human; excited; in awe of their surroundings.
And who wouldn’t be? It was a memorial for the world’s most loved and respected statesman. A political giant - who might himself have been amused to watch the US President and two prime ministers smile for the camera.
Having worked in mental health setting before, I know there are good days and bad days in the job. Monday wasn’t a good one for those still working within the mental health sector, nor those suffering with mental health conditions; with the Sun’s headline claiming 1200 people had been killed by ‘mental patients’ in the last ten years.
After so much improvement in the way the media reports mental illness in recent years, it felt like a huge step back to the bad old days of headlines like ‘Bonkers Bruno locked up’. In this world of sensationalist reporting, violence is the only prism through which mental illness is viewed.
This is not in any way, to downplay the terrible tragedy of a young life lost. Or indeed the urgent need to address failings in the system which so often play a part in incidents of this nature. And I’m not saying that murders involving people with mental illness should not be reported, of course they should. What I am saying is that they should be reported responsibly and in a way which does not reinforce the stereotype that equates mental illness with violence.
While of course there are cases where people with mental illness commit serious acts of violence, we must keep the real risk in perspective. Ninety-five per cent of murders are committed by people who do not have a mental illness. In the vast majority of those 5 per cent of cases, there are other factors at play such as alcohol or drug misuse.
When the coverage of an issue is as crude and sensationalist as it was on Monday, everyone with a mental health diagnosis suffers. It has been moving to see the reaction from people with mental illness themselves. Many have taken to social media to explain how this kind of reporting compounds the social isolation which mental illness can cause.
As a suffer with mental health problems put it: “Feeling exposed, vulnerable, persecuted, threatened and fearful, thinking that everyone knows you are evil, is a common part of the paranoid symptoms I and others experience. Having it shouted in the headlines that all this is really true, that you really are dangerous to others, and everyone knows, is a sick joke.”
The Sun may argue that they are only highlighting this issue because services are failing and something needs to be done. While I agree that mental health services badly need to improve, I would argue that coverage of this kind is not the place to start the argument.
We need to start with the enormous human suffering which can be caused by mental illness when decent treatment isn’t available. We should be talking about how people with serious mental illness are being let down by the NHS and social care system. We should be talking about the many thousands of lives lost every year to suicide.
I’d like to see the Sun run a headline highlighting the 30,000 people with mental health problems who are dying needlessly every year from preventable physical health problems. Or a front page splash about the excellent report produced this week by Victim Support and Mind which shows that people with mental illness are three times more likely to be the victims of crime.
Last year our Schizophrenia Commission highlighted the way in which we are systematically letting down the 300,000 people in England who have schizophrenia or psychosis and their families.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can do so much more to improve the lives of people with severe mental illness. Schizophrenia and other conditions do not need to be diagnoses of despair and fear.
A constant focus on a small number of cases involving violence reinforce fear and despair. Instead we need to see a wider debate about the individual and societal costs of mental illness and what can be done about it. A debate prompted by compassion, not fear.
I have to agree.
As a child I was completely influenced by Tom and Jerry and now spend all of my spare time hitting cats in the face with frying pans while dogs chase me with baseball bats.