…without it nothing can succeed. He who molds public sentiment
goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or decisions possible or
impossible to execute.
The Daily Show has shown us how to truly regard Fox ‘News’. One of the best bits of reporting of the year. Funny, acid genius. Michael Moore wishes he was this good.
…the hardest word.
No, it isn’t.
Finally, Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, has apologised to the Aboriginal (Indigenous) population of Australia for the Stolen Generation, and for their appalling treatment in the past.
It has been a long time coming. It remains a mystery why the ex Prime Minister was such a cowardly weasel[1].
[1] I may need to apologise to weasels for the odious comparison, actually.
…cannot be removed by argument.
I belonged to a group encouraging women in a particular area of technology. (No, I am NOT going to name them, as it is very recent past, and the post is a general message now to groups of all genders, not a gripe at a particular group of people.)
Thiis group, for whatever reason, decided that it felt the need, collectively, to exclude men, as a general principle, from meetings and other events. I felt very strongly this was a dangerous path to walk down, and wrote them an email, explaining why - and then I left the group. No, I don’t think I will be missed.
I decided to post the email I sent to explain how I feel about this situation. Discrimination, no mater what positive spin we put on it, is discrimination. If, to redress appalling levels of gender imbalance in the IT industry, (and many others), we feel we need to lessen or discriminate against one group to promote another, we are just moving the problem around. The issue is to END discrimination, not rebadge it.
Basing any decision on gender, colour, nationality, religion, or sexuality is discrimination. You can say it is positive, but thats just a label hung on it to pretty up the reality. Lessening anyone is not okay.
I am all for women’s groups, to promote, support, and encourage. But when we move the cost around, so we, as women, aren’t paying anymore, we make men pay, then we are just doing the same thing we cry out against. I would rather work as people, to end discrimination, full stop.
I must state, however, that not admitting idiots, morons, and anyone who is sexist, racist, homophobic, or xenophobic, or otherwise intolerant, is always fine with me:) Why? CAUSE YOU BORE ME! Yep, I will discriminate based on anyone being a total twat. Get over it:)
So, for your edification, viewing pleasure, and an attempt to see if anyone still bothers with hate mail, the email:
I have thought a lot before responding to this. But, as a woman who has
children of both genders, I felt it important. I target noone in
particular, but am wanting the group to examine something that I find so
very disturbing. I will be leaving the group post this, as I believe I
do not belong for reasons expounded below, but wanted to state why as
clearly as possible. Please understand, it is done without rancour, or a
wish to accuse or insult. I ask only that you examine what I have said
with an open mind. You are all free to reject it, but vitriol is
unseemly for intelligent beings.
You know, I am all for a group encouraging and supporting women. I just
never get a group that is bigoted in any way. And yes, I used the word
very deliberately. I am pro woman, not anti men.
When I look at my children, I do not wish them to encounter a world
where their gender means they are discriminated against. This hope does
not apply only to my daughters, excluding my son.
I am heavily in favour of women’s groups and organisations that promote,
support, educate, and facilitate women. I can do that regardless of my
gender. If I was a man who wanted to be supportive, why would turning me
away be of value?
And don’t dally around the edges by saying that men are sometimes
acceptable at events as long as they are friends or boyfriends, and they
will be occasionally tolerated. Turn this around, people. Would this be
acceptable if a male group behaved this way towards women?
Allowing men to participate does not mean women have to be lessened. Are
we so afraid that we are weak, and would not be able to stop men taking
over? That we could not be loud and have our voices heard? People can be
asked to leave, of either gender, if their aims are not shared (yes, I
have said I am, so, fret not - what an example I set:) ).
Pro women does not have to mean anti men. To me, this is walking over a
fine line. I accept for many, probably nearly all, it isn’t. Just think
about it, please. There is a rather sweet young man who is, (along with
his sisters), being raised to respect the worth of people, not genders,
sexuality, or race. I think they all deserve equally as much respect and
value.
Thank you for listening. I have enjoyed my time. I wish you all every
success.
Blogged with Flock
…justify the means.
Do the ends really ever truly justify the means? What happens when, for fear of the monsters out there, we become the monsters ourselves?
It takes a great deal of courage to speak out against something that all around you tell you, and the rest of your country, is necessary, vital, to protect all you hold dear. A something that lets them gain information, they say, to stop the monsters attacking in the darkness.
But what do you do when you KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that this something is a heinous act in itself, that it puts you on equal footing with the same monsters you despise, that you fear, that you must stop.
And you know, because you walked into the darkness and let that something happen to YOU.
Could you do it? Could I? I can only hope enough of us could have this man’s incredible integrity, humanity, and patriotism.
Via Crooks and Liars, Keith Olbermann’s stirring commentary on someone so brave, it is astounding - and someone who then paid for his integrity in the face of the need to justify monsters.
“Daniel Levin was no theorist and no protestor.
He was no troublemaking politician.
He was no table-pounding commentator.
Daniel Levin was an astonishingly patriotic American, and a brave man.
Brave not just with words or with stances — even in a dark time when that kind of bravery can usually be scared — or bought — off.
Charged (with) assessing the relative legality (of) “Enhanced Interrogation,” Mr. Levin decided that the simplest, and the most honest, way to evaluate them… was to have them enacted upon himself.
Daniel Levin took himself to a military base and let himself be water-boarded.”
This man, this amazingly brave man, sick of faceless monsters, walked into the nightmare willingly and bravely, to understand the darkness. And for that, and for speaking out against what it taught him about how its made monsters of all around him, he was fired.
…because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.
Ten Reasons Not To Support Gay Marriage.
Hehehe. If you can still say you are against Gay Marriage because of these reasons, then you, my friend, are a total and utter smeghead.
…and every person should try.
Are you outraged by what is happening in Burma(Myanmar)? If not, what in hell is wrong with you? Because we who are lucky enough to be free enough to protest should be very concious of what can happen when that freedom is removed.
Resources:
…that you can’t face reality.
Over in the increasingly surreal theme park that is the USA, there is a HUGE fuss over the somewhat rational stance by Presidential candidate Barrack Obama. When asked by a reporter why he was not wearing the US Flag pin that candidates seemingly can’t leave home without, his response was :
“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead,” he said, “I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”
Of course, this is far too sane for the right wing noisemakers. Obviously, the man is terribly unpatriotic.
Here is my response:
Your Flag Decal Won’t Get You Into Heaven Anymore
And while I am at it:
…no destruction of cities and temples by the hostile forces of nature, has deprived man of so many noble lives and impulses as those which his intolerance has destroyed.
This is for the homophobes out there. Don’t know the origin, but saw it on Fark.
…where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
There is an intruiging article about blindly stupid decisions made in German law that claims to show you can have Multiculturalism, or Equal Rights - not both, as respecting religious differences in a multicultural society means accepting violations of normal human rights.
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that the judges in these cases have been total morons, no two ways about it. But to claim that this means you cannot have multiculturalism at all, is like the old saw: ‘Alma Cogan is dead, therefore all dead people are Alma Cogan’. It’s muddy thinking. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some other appropriate cliche.
Society is made up of elements, all agreed upon by society. They evolve, as societies do. Slavery is a prime example of that. It was once acceptable, even endorsed by the common religious beliefs of the time. But both the society, and the religious beliefs, evolved, matured, changed, and it was recognised as inherently abhorrent.
In a monocultural society, assimilation is expected, and, from the Wikipedia entry on Multiculturalism : ‘Assimilation implies the need for groups that fall out of the homogeneous norm to fully embrace and accept the dominant cultural paradigm as their own without concurrent adjustments from the dominant group‘. However, conversely, Multiculturalism is then about groups embracing the dominant cultural paradigm, while the dominant group makes concurrent adjustments. Its like any relationship, adjustments, compromise, workable solutions. Groups have blended in, accepted the laws and ways of the land - the first generation finds it harder, but the second and successive find it easier, while bringing the rich gifts of their cultural history. However, it was always with the proviso that the law of the land held sway, priority over formerly known laws. Again, subsequent generations had found it easier, normal, natural to follow that. Not always, there will always be elements that have trouble with that transition - criminal gangs, extreme religious factions etc. But in the majority - which, after all, is what defines society.
But a monoculture is stagnant and doomed to failure. Evolution, as with any species, is vital. However, the evolution of a society is comparable to artificial selection in much of its working, with elements of natural selection occuring as part of that process. People decide the progression of their society. Laws and rules, acceptable mores and customs change. Fashions change. Hairstyles change. Umm, where was I? Oh yes, change is VITAL, but, in societal terms, is, or at least MUST be, directed.
But while change is occuring, and this change is defined by the society, it does not mean blind acceptance of all elements of a migrating group is required for multiculturalism. Society should be grown based on the BEST elements of each culture. Pick and choose. From the Wikipedia article on artificial selection : ‘[Darwin] originally coined the term as an illustration of his proposed wider process of natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.‘
Desirable characteristics folks. It’s all about whats desirable. And I completely fail to see how retrogressive steps in human rights could be regarded by any reasonable society as desirable. So lets chuck that one out right away, shall we? Also,while it is bad for a society in its lessening of rights, it also leads to discord and disharmony when one group or another has their particular beliefs given precedence over the laws of the lands. If the majority agree the law is wrong, as with slavery, it gets changed. However, what if immigrants decided (as in the case of these women, it is not far from), that slavery is acceptable. Do we allow them to keep slaves? No, they must change their ways. Part of the concurrent adjustment to the dominant paradigm, accepting the laws of their new society. They have the RIGHT to try and influence society to change, but they MUST accept the outcome, whatever that may be. Tht is how bad laws get changed, after all.
In short, while Multiculturalism is good for a society, blindly allowing groups priority over the greater good of the community is foolish, AGAINST the tenets of multiculturalism, and dangerous. It leads to discord, racism, group against group, element against element. Immigration is nto the problem. Extreme ends of the scale are - all groups given the freedom to do as they wish, or demands they give up ALL that was good about their society, and blindly follow this new one absolutely.
And if you have read this far, it is time for a nice cup of tea. If more people did that, sat down and paused with a cuppa before being silly, dangerous, or violent, what would the world be like?:)
…is the basic principle of all social progress.
From Reproductive Rights, via Feministing:
” Two months pregnant and bleeding, Yanira Then says she went to a clinic in her low-income Santo Domingo neighborhood, where her doctor said she had suffered a miscarriage.
Then was still in her hospital gown that February morning when her doctor’s office was stormed by police, prosecutors and television news cameras. Accused of having had an abortion, Then, a 27-year-old law student, was arrested along with two other patients, the nurses and her physician.
She faces 3 to 10 years in prison. The doctor faces 50.”
A miscarriage is a traumatic enough event. This, this is just piling vile abuse of human rights on top. Vile, wrong, apalling…
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.
it's about time is powered by WordPress 2.6 and Unnamed One 0.4.3 beta by iqwolf
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).