There has been a call to revise the Abortion Act 1967, on the basis that it is being abused.Under current law, a woman may have an abortion if A)her life is at risk, B) if there is grave risk of damage to her mental or physical wellbeing, C) if there is a greater risk of harm to her mental/physical wellbeing than if she does not continue the pregnancy, D) if there is a greater risk of harm to the existing children of the woman than if she does not continue the pregnancy, or E) if the foetus will be severely disabled.
Under clause A, B and E, the termination may be carried out at any time, up to 40 weeks (although the woman may struggle to find a doctor willing to certify a termination at such an advanced gestation). Under clause C and D, abortion is legal until 24 weeks.
The argument to revise the abortion act chiefly centres on Clause C. 98% of terminations are carried out under this clause. A Royal College of Psychiatry study has shown that for women with unwanted pregnancies, rates of mental
health problems were the same whether they had a termination or gave
birth. . There are calls to either tighten up legislation on under what circumstances abortions are permitted, or to reduce the gestational age limit.
24 weeks is the limit because that is considered the age at which a foetus becomes viable - i.e. it can survive outside the womb. Originally, the limit was 28 weeks, but as more technology enabled those babies to survive, it was reduced. Very few babies born at 24 weeks survive, and those that do usually suffer from disability of some type, even with modern neonatal technology. Under British law, a baby stillborn before 24 weeks is technically a miscarriage, even though the mother usually gives birth. This, again, is due to the legal definition of viability. An abortion is done before 24 weeks, ideally, because there is no duty
of care for the doctors performing the procedure to attempt to save the
foetus. Indeed, in terminations carried out after 20 weeks, foetocide is
usually performed to ensure there is no conflict of duty.
The ethics of abortion are undoubtedly a tangled and emotive web. There is no consensus on when life begins: there are arguments to call a pregnancy 'live' from ovulation (preconception), conception (within days of ovulation), implantation (4 weeks), the development of the placenta and heartbeat (8 weeks), from when it looks human (approximately 12-14 weeks), or from when kicks can be felt (approximately 16-20 weeks). From very early on in pregnancy, a woman's whole body and mind is taken over
by this bunch of undifferentiated cells within. No mother, feeling her
baby move, would tell you that it is not alive. However, legally, an unborn baby is not a citizen. It has no rights. It does not exist. It is an abstract concept, in matters of law.
For the purposes of this particular debate, the concern seems to be women recklessly getting pregnant and then having a termination for social reasons. I would argue that this is not a medical debate, or even an ethical debate. It is a moral judgement. Women should not get pregnant with babies they do not want, and in threatening to withdraw their right to terminate, women who act so recklessly in future, will be punished.The decision to terminate is rarely taken lightly. The idea that
women use termination as contraception is largely wrong. Some women feel
no emotional or moral burden over their decision, but that is their prerogative. Abortion is not painless, and there are hormonal
side effects.The later the abortion takes place, the more invasive the procedure.
Until I was 25, I was relatively pro-life. I didn't care what other people did with their bodies (though, God knows, I judged them), but I was under the impression that I would never want an abortion. Then my husband left me when I was 14 weeks pregnant. My gut reaction was to terminate. I could not fathom how I would cope, as a single mother, with my existing toddler and being pregnant, let alone with a new baby. My ex withdrew and offered no support throughout the pregnancy. I was completely alone, at least to begin with, and it was harrowing. I did not want my baby. I considered terminating in secret and telling everyone I'd miscarried through stress. I considered terminating to punish my ex. I considered terminating for the benefit of my existing son, who needed me more than ever. I had overwhelming family pressure to keep the baby, and most others simply assumed I would. After the 24 week mark passed, my mental health deteriorated, because I no longer had the comfort blanket of termination. My decision to keep my baby was not easy, but the idea of abortion was also not easy. Adoption was simply not an option, as it so frequently isn't for women with families. My baby's birth was immensely cathartic and I have never once regretted my decision to keep him.
I cannot adequately describe the emotional pain my second pregnancy caused me. I was physically attached to my ex. There could be no closure until the baby was out, and either I killed him or I let him be born and struggle as a single mother of two. I wanted to die, so I no longer had to live with the consequences - emotional, physical and economical - of what was happening.
I have suffered no lasting mental illness, but that does not negate the fact that I was suicidal intermittently throughout the third trimester. A termination on account of the risks to my mental health would have been justified, I may even have been able to get one under Clause B, as grave risk to mental health.Not so, if the law is changed to reflect the study by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Women should not have to jump through psychiatric hoops to be granted an termination, within the legal time limit. Whether a woman should abort or not is an individual, subjective decision. Doctors have a right to refuse to authorise, or perform abortions, on personal ethical grounds. Nobody is forcing anybody to have or perform a termination.
Any alteration to abortion law is eroding the rights of women to dictate what happens within their own body, a right women did not even get until 1967.There does not seem to be a great deal of evidence in favour of changing the law as it currently stands, just a lot of hand-wringing moralising, from people who have likely never been in the unenviable position of carrying an unwanted pregnancy.
4 Feb 2013
16 Jan 2013
Obesity...and horses
Have you ever heard of the term food poverty? What images spring to mind? Starving children in Africa, for a guess. Homeless people, slum children, picking food out of bins. Well, you're not wrong. Food poverty means having insufficient money to buy the food necessary for good health. However, there is a swathe of people that you probably don't consider as particularly food impoverished, and that's people on a very low income, for example on benefits or only doing very low paid work.
This means people eating something on toast for tea, every day. People being unable to afford fruit and vegetables because they are more expensive, per calorie, than processed food and because they don't necessarily have access to them. My local shop sells a bit of manky fruit and veg, usually on the very edge of mouldy, at a very inflated price. I am lucky: I live within walking distance of a Morrisons and have the internet so get my shopping delivered. If I was dependent on what was available at the Nisa, I'd almost never eat fruit or veg. A diet of processed food, because is cheap and definitely going to be eaten. If you cannot afford to have extra food in the house and a meal is uneaten because nobody likes it, that's a waste of money with nobody being fed.
And what is the upshot of this unhealthy lifestyle? It means eating more sugar, salt and saturated fat than a higher income family. It means an increased likelihood of heart disease, cancer, infant and child malnutrition, increased risk of osteoporosis in the elderly, lowered birthweight (which is linked to higher mortality in general). It means obesity.
So, what are our benevolent leaders planning to do to combat the problem of food poverty? Well, they're planning to cut the benefits of obese people who refuse to exercise. Obesity, and it's attendant health problems, costs the NHS millions. However, unlike cigarettes, you cannot merely tax people for being fat, so instead they must be punished in the only way this government knows how - by cutting yet more benefits. This fails to take into account WHY people are obese - the health, cultural and emotional factors involved. Well over half the population are overweight or obese, yet only the poor are being punished for it.
I can think of several different ways to combat food poverty. Make fruit and vegetables part of a community growing initiative. People on income support can get vouchers for fruit and vegetables, why not extend that to all on a low income? Children are no longer being taught to cook at school, and may be raised by parents who also have no idea to cook, so put food back on the curriculum and hold cooking classes - not "How To Bake Artisan Bread' style ones - in community centres. Only by moving away from dependance on processed food can food poverty and linked obesity start to change.
Speaking of processed food, SHOCK and it's sister OUTRAGE have been expressed about horse DNA being found in bargain burgers at various national supermarkets. The false advertising element of this case is pretty shocking, but not exactly unique. Unless stated otherwise, you can guarantee that the meat you buy has led a shit, factory-farmed life. This is especially true in processed food. Those chicken nuggets? Unless it says otherwise, the meat was jetwashed off the battery-farmed carcass and then reformed. Battery farming means your chicken was raised in an area the size of a sheet of A4 paper, standing in it's own shit, being pumped full of hormones and water for three months. There's a reason we don't get chickens with the lower legs and feet left on, like on the continent - the ammonia burns would seriously put people off buying them.
Your bacon is full of water. Your sausages are full of cereal and gawd only knows where the meat originated. Your pork is similar to the poor chicken. And your beefburgers may, apparently, be full of horse.
What I don't understand is why the idea of eating horse shocks people so badly. A cow is no less an animal than a horse. You could probably ride a cow, if it'd let you, but we don't. Cows are, in British culture, meat. Horses are pretty things we ride around on. But when, as a nation, we are unwilling to treat the animals destined for our table with anything like the respect we treat our pets, we can't be overly surprised if we get what we pay for.
This means people eating something on toast for tea, every day. People being unable to afford fruit and vegetables because they are more expensive, per calorie, than processed food and because they don't necessarily have access to them. My local shop sells a bit of manky fruit and veg, usually on the very edge of mouldy, at a very inflated price. I am lucky: I live within walking distance of a Morrisons and have the internet so get my shopping delivered. If I was dependent on what was available at the Nisa, I'd almost never eat fruit or veg. A diet of processed food, because is cheap and definitely going to be eaten. If you cannot afford to have extra food in the house and a meal is uneaten because nobody likes it, that's a waste of money with nobody being fed.
And what is the upshot of this unhealthy lifestyle? It means eating more sugar, salt and saturated fat than a higher income family. It means an increased likelihood of heart disease, cancer, infant and child malnutrition, increased risk of osteoporosis in the elderly, lowered birthweight (which is linked to higher mortality in general). It means obesity.
So, what are our benevolent leaders planning to do to combat the problem of food poverty? Well, they're planning to cut the benefits of obese people who refuse to exercise. Obesity, and it's attendant health problems, costs the NHS millions. However, unlike cigarettes, you cannot merely tax people for being fat, so instead they must be punished in the only way this government knows how - by cutting yet more benefits. This fails to take into account WHY people are obese - the health, cultural and emotional factors involved. Well over half the population are overweight or obese, yet only the poor are being punished for it.
I can think of several different ways to combat food poverty. Make fruit and vegetables part of a community growing initiative. People on income support can get vouchers for fruit and vegetables, why not extend that to all on a low income? Children are no longer being taught to cook at school, and may be raised by parents who also have no idea to cook, so put food back on the curriculum and hold cooking classes - not "How To Bake Artisan Bread' style ones - in community centres. Only by moving away from dependance on processed food can food poverty and linked obesity start to change.
Speaking of processed food, SHOCK and it's sister OUTRAGE have been expressed about horse DNA being found in bargain burgers at various national supermarkets. The false advertising element of this case is pretty shocking, but not exactly unique. Unless stated otherwise, you can guarantee that the meat you buy has led a shit, factory-farmed life. This is especially true in processed food. Those chicken nuggets? Unless it says otherwise, the meat was jetwashed off the battery-farmed carcass and then reformed. Battery farming means your chicken was raised in an area the size of a sheet of A4 paper, standing in it's own shit, being pumped full of hormones and water for three months. There's a reason we don't get chickens with the lower legs and feet left on, like on the continent - the ammonia burns would seriously put people off buying them.
Your bacon is full of water. Your sausages are full of cereal and gawd only knows where the meat originated. Your pork is similar to the poor chicken. And your beefburgers may, apparently, be full of horse.
What I don't understand is why the idea of eating horse shocks people so badly. A cow is no less an animal than a horse. You could probably ride a cow, if it'd let you, but we don't. Cows are, in British culture, meat. Horses are pretty things we ride around on. But when, as a nation, we are unwilling to treat the animals destined for our table with anything like the respect we treat our pets, we can't be overly surprised if we get what we pay for.
14 Jan 2013
Attack of the feminist journalists...on women
Feminism:the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. You'd think this would equate to some form of solidarity. Not according to the national press it doesn't.
In the RED corner, self professed militant feminist Julie Burchill aggressively attacked transsexual women, apparently in defence of her friend Suzanne Moore. Moore's crime was to say that one of the idealised body images for women was that of a Brazillian transsexual. The twitter community got cross (they do that) and Moore left twitter. Now, rather than commenting on how twitterstorms can reduce us to a baying mob, or elevate us in unity over a subject, Burchill decided to attack female transsexuals as an aberration. According to Burchill's article (which you can read in full over here), transsexuals PLAGUE her friends. Not only this, but they label 'born women' as CIS, which sounds like CYST or SYPH.Cis is derived from Latin meaning 'on the same side', rather than cyst, which means bag or syph which is merely a short form of syphillis and of no etymological note. Being cisgendered or cissexual means that your genitals match up to your self-perception It's not a perjorative term. However, she liked this as akin to calling transsexuals 'shims', which most definitely IS perjorative. After insulting transsexual women (women only, whether Burchill's never heard of female to male transsexuality or if she simply thinks they don't count, who can tell?) she goes on to say, and for this I think we need the full quote
Shims, shemales, whatever you're calling yourselves these days – don't threaten or bully us lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we've experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching.
That's right. All women - all of us - are menopausal and terrified of transsexuals. One would think that Burchill, as a bisexual feminist with a torrid personal life, would show a little more empathy.
In the BLUE corner sits another self-proclaimed feminist, the poisonous Liz Jones of the Daily Fail. Last year, Liz Jones attracted some ire after ripping into Holly Willoughby for daring to post a makeup-free picture. The bitter spiel (which you can read here, but be warned, it's the Daily Mail) claimed that Holly, at the time aged 31, could not possibly be a real woman because Jones - a rather older 52 - looked shit when she got out of bed in the morning. She went on to say that women who don't wear makeup are not *real* women. As a woman who has never worn makeup and has amazing skin, I can say that maybe if Jones had worn less, she wouldn't look quite as rough as she does now. Anyway, that aside, this week Jones has decided to attack Clare Balding. Ostensibly, this is because Balding, whose father is a racehorse trainer, likes horse racing. Jones thinks horse racing is barbaric. However, instead of just saying "I don't like Clare Balding because horseracing is vile.", which would be a fair statement, she tells us that her dislike of Balding has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to with her CHEAP OUTFITS and LESBIANISM. On further reading (again, be warned, it's the DM), it becomes clear that the real reason Liz Jones (who identifies with some mythical reading public of women who can afford facelifts and Prada) hates Clare Balding is because Clare Balding refused to be interviewed by her. Otherwise, I daresay it would have been an article of gushing praise. Liz Jones has essentially made a living by saying "Oooh, I'm such a mess me! I hate men, but I need them, even though I am RICH and I can afford a FACELIFT so I can be beautiful, unlike you PLEBS" under the thin guise of speaking up for WIMMINZ EVERYWHERE. Vile woman.
There are not enough female journalists in the mainstream media. Maybe, in trying to make a point, those that have achieved a column in a national feel they have to be as outrageous as possible to keep a hold of their place - especially for Liz Jones, who manages to score a massive hit rate from the Ms Angrys of Twitter. All they do is spew hatred and bile for women all over the press, in the name of feminism. It is they who give feminists a bad name. Feminism simply means that women want the same opportunities as men, rather than being treated as inferior. However, in Burchill's case, this means finding transsexual women inferior because they aren't 'born women', and in Jones' case it means finding ANYONE WHO ISN'T LIZ JONES inferior, because she is apparently a paragon of womanhood.
In the RED corner, self professed militant feminist Julie Burchill aggressively attacked transsexual women, apparently in defence of her friend Suzanne Moore. Moore's crime was to say that one of the idealised body images for women was that of a Brazillian transsexual. The twitter community got cross (they do that) and Moore left twitter. Now, rather than commenting on how twitterstorms can reduce us to a baying mob, or elevate us in unity over a subject, Burchill decided to attack female transsexuals as an aberration. According to Burchill's article (which you can read in full over here), transsexuals PLAGUE her friends. Not only this, but they label 'born women' as CIS, which sounds like CYST or SYPH.Cis is derived from Latin meaning 'on the same side', rather than cyst, which means bag or syph which is merely a short form of syphillis and of no etymological note. Being cisgendered or cissexual means that your genitals match up to your self-perception It's not a perjorative term. However, she liked this as akin to calling transsexuals 'shims', which most definitely IS perjorative. After insulting transsexual women (women only, whether Burchill's never heard of female to male transsexuality or if she simply thinks they don't count, who can tell?) she goes on to say, and for this I think we need the full quote
Shims, shemales, whatever you're calling yourselves these days – don't threaten or bully us lowly natural-born women, I warn you. We may not have as many lovely big swinging Phds as you, but we've experienced a lifetime of PMT and sexual harassment and many of us are now staring HRT and the menopause straight in the face – and still not flinching.
That's right. All women - all of us - are menopausal and terrified of transsexuals. One would think that Burchill, as a bisexual feminist with a torrid personal life, would show a little more empathy.
In the BLUE corner sits another self-proclaimed feminist, the poisonous Liz Jones of the Daily Fail. Last year, Liz Jones attracted some ire after ripping into Holly Willoughby for daring to post a makeup-free picture. The bitter spiel (which you can read here, but be warned, it's the Daily Mail) claimed that Holly, at the time aged 31, could not possibly be a real woman because Jones - a rather older 52 - looked shit when she got out of bed in the morning. She went on to say that women who don't wear makeup are not *real* women. As a woman who has never worn makeup and has amazing skin, I can say that maybe if Jones had worn less, she wouldn't look quite as rough as she does now. Anyway, that aside, this week Jones has decided to attack Clare Balding. Ostensibly, this is because Balding, whose father is a racehorse trainer, likes horse racing. Jones thinks horse racing is barbaric. However, instead of just saying "I don't like Clare Balding because horseracing is vile.", which would be a fair statement, she tells us that her dislike of Balding has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to with her CHEAP OUTFITS and LESBIANISM. On further reading (again, be warned, it's the DM), it becomes clear that the real reason Liz Jones (who identifies with some mythical reading public of women who can afford facelifts and Prada) hates Clare Balding is because Clare Balding refused to be interviewed by her. Otherwise, I daresay it would have been an article of gushing praise. Liz Jones has essentially made a living by saying "Oooh, I'm such a mess me! I hate men, but I need them, even though I am RICH and I can afford a FACELIFT so I can be beautiful, unlike you PLEBS" under the thin guise of speaking up for WIMMINZ EVERYWHERE. Vile woman.
There are not enough female journalists in the mainstream media. Maybe, in trying to make a point, those that have achieved a column in a national feel they have to be as outrageous as possible to keep a hold of their place - especially for Liz Jones, who manages to score a massive hit rate from the Ms Angrys of Twitter. All they do is spew hatred and bile for women all over the press, in the name of feminism. It is they who give feminists a bad name. Feminism simply means that women want the same opportunities as men, rather than being treated as inferior. However, in Burchill's case, this means finding transsexual women inferior because they aren't 'born women', and in Jones' case it means finding ANYONE WHO ISN'T LIZ JONES inferior, because she is apparently a paragon of womanhood.
5 Jan 2013
20 Dec 2012
Shout it from the rooftops?
Yesterday, Ian Watkins of Lostprophets was charged and remanded over sexual offences.
I loved Lostprophets when I was a teenager. I first heard them in sixth form when a boy I had a crush on lent me their EP. I then rather adored them until around 2006. Then, I got married and had kids and whatnot and stopped paying much attention to the music industry. However, I had a massive crush on Ian Watkins.
And, according to the response of social networks to the charges, so did many other teenagers and adults alike. The overwhelming response, before the charges were detailed in full, was "NO! HE CAN'T HAVE! HE'S TOO FIT/NICE/GOOD AT MUSIC TO BE A PAEDO! IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOME SLUTTY FANGIRL!"
Then, the charges were released. Initially, the charges were those of possessing illegal images and sexual charges concerning a "child under 13 years old". Legally, there is a difference between a child under 13 and a a child between 13 and 16 insofar as their ability to give sexual consent. A child between 13 and 16 can give sexual consent in certain situations, for example with a partner of similar age, though with a partner over 16, it's statutory rape.. Someone between 16 and 18 cannot give consent to a person in authority (e.g. their teacher, their GP).
A child under 13 CANNOT give consent. Sex with someone under 13, even if their 13th birthday is a week away, is rape. So, all children under 13 are grouped together, in sexual offence classification. In this case, it was interpreted by many to mean a 12 or 13 year old girl. On this alone, victim blaming sprang up across twitter. References to slutty fangirls, bullshit lies, belief that he would 'never' do such a thing went viral.
And then the charges were clarified:
A charge of conspiracy to rape a one year old girl
A separate charge of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with another child under 13
Four offences relating to possession and distribution of indecent images of children.
Conspiracy to rape a one year old. A baby.
A baby cannot invent a sexual assault, or a conspiracy to assault. A baby cannot be a crazed or rejected fan.
AND YET, the youth of the internet continues to deny that he could do any such thing. The diehard fans, who cannot fathom that their idol could be something other than what he portrays through interviews, lyrics or stage performances. Well, that's what they thought about Jimmy Savile when his offences first came to light. Jimmy Savile is now universally portrayed as a monster, and it's easy to see why. He dressed strangely, had a penchant for cigars and bling, and was known to be a bit of a weirdo. Since the truth was slowly outed, media figures have come out in force to say they 'never liked him'. He was no sex symbol to the youth of today.
Ian Watkins very much IS a sex symbol. A tattooed, moody skater, who has the girls screaming. He does not look like a monster. He is not easy to revile. As far as the public know, he's had normal relationships, he doesn't have a nasty reputation. It is far easier to assume that his victims are liars, than to wonder if he might be a sexual predator. Until you find out there's no way at least one of his potential victims could have even known he was planning to rape her.
We still have this image that paedophiles and rapists are deformed men, skulking on corners and offering sweets to little girls. Why would a good looking young man resort to attempting to rape a child? Surely only people who are evil and rejected would do such a thing, people who can't get anything else?
With Jimmy Savile, there has been a discussion that suggests that, during the 70s, it was culturally acceptable to treat women as pieces of meat, as if this somehow exonerates him from guilt. However, even in today's culture, it is easier to decide a girl or woman is lying about sexual assault than to admit that someone you like (or love) is a rapist, or a paedophile. Every day, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of women and girls who are terrified to tell the truth about what has happened to them, because they fear not being believed, being called a lying slut, or being vilified when it is THEY who have suffered.
Ian Watkins has been denied bail, and will appear in court again on 31st December.
I loved Lostprophets when I was a teenager. I first heard them in sixth form when a boy I had a crush on lent me their EP. I then rather adored them until around 2006. Then, I got married and had kids and whatnot and stopped paying much attention to the music industry. However, I had a massive crush on Ian Watkins.
And, according to the response of social networks to the charges, so did many other teenagers and adults alike. The overwhelming response, before the charges were detailed in full, was "NO! HE CAN'T HAVE! HE'S TOO FIT/NICE/GOOD AT MUSIC TO BE A PAEDO! IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOME SLUTTY FANGIRL!"
Then, the charges were released. Initially, the charges were those of possessing illegal images and sexual charges concerning a "child under 13 years old". Legally, there is a difference between a child under 13 and a a child between 13 and 16 insofar as their ability to give sexual consent. A child between 13 and 16 can give sexual consent in certain situations, for example with a partner of similar age, though with a partner over 16, it's statutory rape.. Someone between 16 and 18 cannot give consent to a person in authority (e.g. their teacher, their GP).
A child under 13 CANNOT give consent. Sex with someone under 13, even if their 13th birthday is a week away, is rape. So, all children under 13 are grouped together, in sexual offence classification. In this case, it was interpreted by many to mean a 12 or 13 year old girl. On this alone, victim blaming sprang up across twitter. References to slutty fangirls, bullshit lies, belief that he would 'never' do such a thing went viral.
And then the charges were clarified:
A charge of conspiracy to rape a one year old girl
A separate charge of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with another child under 13
Four offences relating to possession and distribution of indecent images of children.
Conspiracy to rape a one year old. A baby.
A baby cannot invent a sexual assault, or a conspiracy to assault. A baby cannot be a crazed or rejected fan.
AND YET, the youth of the internet continues to deny that he could do any such thing. The diehard fans, who cannot fathom that their idol could be something other than what he portrays through interviews, lyrics or stage performances. Well, that's what they thought about Jimmy Savile when his offences first came to light. Jimmy Savile is now universally portrayed as a monster, and it's easy to see why. He dressed strangely, had a penchant for cigars and bling, and was known to be a bit of a weirdo. Since the truth was slowly outed, media figures have come out in force to say they 'never liked him'. He was no sex symbol to the youth of today.
Ian Watkins very much IS a sex symbol. A tattooed, moody skater, who has the girls screaming. He does not look like a monster. He is not easy to revile. As far as the public know, he's had normal relationships, he doesn't have a nasty reputation. It is far easier to assume that his victims are liars, than to wonder if he might be a sexual predator. Until you find out there's no way at least one of his potential victims could have even known he was planning to rape her.
We still have this image that paedophiles and rapists are deformed men, skulking on corners and offering sweets to little girls. Why would a good looking young man resort to attempting to rape a child? Surely only people who are evil and rejected would do such a thing, people who can't get anything else?
With Jimmy Savile, there has been a discussion that suggests that, during the 70s, it was culturally acceptable to treat women as pieces of meat, as if this somehow exonerates him from guilt. However, even in today's culture, it is easier to decide a girl or woman is lying about sexual assault than to admit that someone you like (or love) is a rapist, or a paedophile. Every day, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of women and girls who are terrified to tell the truth about what has happened to them, because they fear not being believed, being called a lying slut, or being vilified when it is THEY who have suffered.
Ian Watkins has been denied bail, and will appear in court again on 31st December.
4 Dec 2012
Module Results
Of the 1500 students that took the K101 exam, around 6% got a first (85-100%).
I was one of them.
So, that's K101 done and dusted. My first year complete, my first module attained. Only seven more to do...
I was one of them.
I cannot believe it. I got 90%!
Added to my TMA average of 69%, I got a PASS! No distinction, coz my TMA scores weren't high enough, but I don't care. 90%. It's unbelievable. On all three questions, I got a first (they don't give you exact percentages, just the marking band your answer was in).So, that's K101 done and dusted. My first year complete, my first module attained. Only seven more to do...
27 Nov 2012
Women and video games
I love video games. I have loved video games since I was old enough to boot up my grandparent's Amiga and learn DOS commands. I would have been about eight (circa 1993). Before then, my earliest memories are playing Alex Kidd in Miracle World on the Mastersystem II. I used to play Zork, and various other interactive fictions, the original Civilization and Eye of The Beholder. It sparked an interest in fantasy RPGs that hasn't gone away. We didn't own a family PC until I was 14, but my older brother went through consoles like other people go through socks. We had (at various points) a NES, a SNES, a Playstation and an N64 (my favourite console of all time). Once we got hold of a PC, I started playing games like Baldur's Gate, Theme Hospital and SimCity. I spent HOURS of my life on there. My very first blog was a gaming blog, written in HTML from scratch and published on the burgeoning school intranet. Nobody read it, obviously. Now, I have been through various gaming PCs and consoles and have an XBox 360, and an Inspiron One, which is shite for gaming - I only use it to play The Sims 3. I intend to upgrade in the next year.
However, as a female gamer, I've always been aware of heavy bias towards male gamers. As a child, I wasn't allowed to play on my brother's consoles unless he needed someone to make up the numbers on four player Goldeneye. I was a girl, the games were for him and my younger brother. It would certainly never have occurred to my parents to buy me a console in my own right. My family thought I was a bit strange for spending so much time on the old computer at my Gran's house, and then later doing the same at home. I was supposed to be into makeup, and clothes (PAH!), not hacking and slashing away in forbidden realms.If I joined in playing Quake on the school computers, there would be one or two girls and fifteen boys. I rarely chose to play as a female character, as they were inevitably crappier than the male characters. Look at bloody Princess Peach in the Mario series - she was never where she said she was going to be and seemingly incapable of just NOT getting abducted by Bowser. In Street Fighter, it took them years to have more than one female character, and then it was the semi-naked Cammy. Even in Baldur's Gate, the women were either irritating (Imoen), mental on religion (Jaheira/Branwen) or vile tempered (Viconia).
I always felt like I was on the fringe, only allowed into the male dominated sector of gaming because they hadn't noticed I was there.
Now, of course, I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of my leisure activities, and games are certainly more inclusive than they used to be. On my shelf at the moment, I have the following games (not many, coz I trade in as soon as I'm done): Oblivion, Skyrim, Soul Calibre IV, Lego Harry Potter 1-4, Sims 3, Sims Medieval. The latter three games are genuinely genderless. Harry Potter is aimed at kids, and the Sims games are (almost by definition) inclusive. Oblivion and Skyrim are slightly orientated to male gamers. Soul Calibre is a sexist piece of junk, full of heaving bosoms, short skirts and camel toes. I play it because I'm amazing at it, and it amuses me to kick ass.
Sexism, however, continues. There are games that are basically developed on the premise of sexism, like Leisure Suit Larry (which I loved, rather hypocritically). Consider GTA, one of the more popular video game franchises. Screw a hooker, run her over and get your money back! Almost every interactive NPC is male. I grant you, part of GTA's charm is it's wholehearted lack of political correctness. It makes crime fun, and allows you to be someone you would never want to be in reality. However, its misogyny goes beyond what it necessary to stay in the character of the game.
Tomb Raider is another subtly (or not so subtly) sexist game. At first glance, it seems fine. A female protagonist, doing all manner of traditionally male activities, shooting guns and fighting tigers (and whatever other bollocks she got up to). But the game's biggest selling point is Lara Croft: fantasy woman. Make her do a backflip and watch her boobs bounce. See also: Dead or Alive.
Even in Sims 3, a game I usually consider to be admirably inclusive, has sliders on the female characters to make their breasts bigger or smaller.
It is rare that a video game has a female protagonist that is not incredibly sexually attractive. The only reason I can think for this is to tailor it to the men who want to game. You don't generally get cut scenes lingering over the male character's arse or crotch.
Sexism is alive and well in videogames. But why? Are female gamers so incredibly rare that they should be discounted altogether? I'd have to say no to that. When I was growing up, I certainly felt like the only girl who knew how to use WASD (or even QWOP), but now I know it's just not true. Women do not just play Brain Training on DS, or have a go on a WiiFit every now and then. Some of us have racked up 100+ hours on Skyrim, and completed Mass Effect on insanity (not me though, I hate Mass Effect). Some of us get really angry when Fable sequels just keep getting crappier, and Hitman tries too hard. Thousands, if not millions of us play Xbox Live. We are no longer the minority group.
Despite the institutionalised sexism, and the downright misogyny of many games, women still play and enjoy them. There is little alternative, when female developers are treated like crap. If women are massively underrepresented at a development level, the end product is going to be male orientated at best, vilely sexist at worst. And until there is a major backlash, nothing will change. I sincerely hope that #1reasonwhy starts the ball rolling.
However, as a female gamer, I've always been aware of heavy bias towards male gamers. As a child, I wasn't allowed to play on my brother's consoles unless he needed someone to make up the numbers on four player Goldeneye. I was a girl, the games were for him and my younger brother. It would certainly never have occurred to my parents to buy me a console in my own right. My family thought I was a bit strange for spending so much time on the old computer at my Gran's house, and then later doing the same at home. I was supposed to be into makeup, and clothes (PAH!), not hacking and slashing away in forbidden realms.If I joined in playing Quake on the school computers, there would be one or two girls and fifteen boys. I rarely chose to play as a female character, as they were inevitably crappier than the male characters. Look at bloody Princess Peach in the Mario series - she was never where she said she was going to be and seemingly incapable of just NOT getting abducted by Bowser. In Street Fighter, it took them years to have more than one female character, and then it was the semi-naked Cammy. Even in Baldur's Gate, the women were either irritating (Imoen), mental on religion (Jaheira/Branwen) or vile tempered (Viconia).
I always felt like I was on the fringe, only allowed into the male dominated sector of gaming because they hadn't noticed I was there.
Now, of course, I don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of my leisure activities, and games are certainly more inclusive than they used to be. On my shelf at the moment, I have the following games (not many, coz I trade in as soon as I'm done): Oblivion, Skyrim, Soul Calibre IV, Lego Harry Potter 1-4, Sims 3, Sims Medieval. The latter three games are genuinely genderless. Harry Potter is aimed at kids, and the Sims games are (almost by definition) inclusive. Oblivion and Skyrim are slightly orientated to male gamers. Soul Calibre is a sexist piece of junk, full of heaving bosoms, short skirts and camel toes. I play it because I'm amazing at it, and it amuses me to kick ass.
Sexism, however, continues. There are games that are basically developed on the premise of sexism, like Leisure Suit Larry (which I loved, rather hypocritically). Consider GTA, one of the more popular video game franchises. Screw a hooker, run her over and get your money back! Almost every interactive NPC is male. I grant you, part of GTA's charm is it's wholehearted lack of political correctness. It makes crime fun, and allows you to be someone you would never want to be in reality. However, its misogyny goes beyond what it necessary to stay in the character of the game.
Tomb Raider is another subtly (or not so subtly) sexist game. At first glance, it seems fine. A female protagonist, doing all manner of traditionally male activities, shooting guns and fighting tigers (and whatever other bollocks she got up to). But the game's biggest selling point is Lara Croft: fantasy woman. Make her do a backflip and watch her boobs bounce. See also: Dead or Alive.
Even in Sims 3, a game I usually consider to be admirably inclusive, has sliders on the female characters to make their breasts bigger or smaller.
It is rare that a video game has a female protagonist that is not incredibly sexually attractive. The only reason I can think for this is to tailor it to the men who want to game. You don't generally get cut scenes lingering over the male character's arse or crotch.
Sexism is alive and well in videogames. But why? Are female gamers so incredibly rare that they should be discounted altogether? I'd have to say no to that. When I was growing up, I certainly felt like the only girl who knew how to use WASD (or even QWOP), but now I know it's just not true. Women do not just play Brain Training on DS, or have a go on a WiiFit every now and then. Some of us have racked up 100+ hours on Skyrim, and completed Mass Effect on insanity (not me though, I hate Mass Effect). Some of us get really angry when Fable sequels just keep getting crappier, and Hitman tries too hard. Thousands, if not millions of us play Xbox Live. We are no longer the minority group.
Despite the institutionalised sexism, and the downright misogyny of many games, women still play and enjoy them. There is little alternative, when female developers are treated like crap. If women are massively underrepresented at a development level, the end product is going to be male orientated at best, vilely sexist at worst. And until there is a major backlash, nothing will change. I sincerely hope that #1reasonwhy starts the ball rolling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)