Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Kafria]

Hmmm!

The pressure question is a difficult one to answer, but there is little doubt in my mind that young girls feel it. On the one hand it is a very female pressure, girls are incredibly b%$&*y to each other about what they wear and how they look.

(thinking of a paritcular yr11 who just left, she didn't feel the need to conform to shaving her legs and was loudly and publicly ridiculed by those she thought of as her friends, till in the end she started saying it was a joke to see how long it would grow, and conformed, taking every opportunity to show people that is what she had done. The saddest thing is she was not one of the weak kids. She has real self confidence in every other thing she does, but by attacking her femininity her friends made her feel bad)

On the other, girls are bombarded with images of what an attractive women looks like, and for young girls this is particularly pop stars, movie stars and the telly. I think we could all agree that a lot of images of what is attractive portrayed by pop stars is the skimpy stuff (Kylies gold hot pants, Beyonces barley there skirts) or has sexual overtones (Britany writhing on the floor and panting in slave to you springs to mind!). This is also what boys see and some form their ideas on these images.

Women are judged by appearance, attractive is considered to be youth. Women are front page news when they gain or lose weight. Most 'fariy tale' endings in films / telly for youngsters invovle the ugly girl meeting the right bloke and being made pretty after all. Anti ageing products are every where with actresses who look younger than they are shown as what to aspire to. I know judging on appearances applies to both and there is growing pressure on young boys too, but the images girls see are all pervading (there are a wider variety of male images on the telly and in films than female.)

Equally the sexual revolution adds it's own pressure. Once upon a time a girl was supposed to stay secure and locked up at home till a suitable man asked her to marry him. Then women went "why should we not have the same freedom men have" and so relationships outside marriage became more common. Free choice and control, a good thing. But in today's society there is an expectation that you should as a single youngster be having sex and having it regularly or you are somehow missing out or odd. (Now I am not saying this is how it is to all people, but it is the perception some kids pick up from the magazines aimed at themselves and those slightly older than themselves and the telly/ films that they see). But any girl who does, living up to the boys bragging, she is lambasted.

(Again thinking of kids who left this year, there has been clearly a lot of hooking up, every Monday full of gossip from that weeks party and the tones of those conversations still has the congratulatory tone for the boys, backslapping and good nature ribbing and in the same conversation having a go at the girls in the room they know behaved in a similar manner! Yet even so there has been evident pressure for the girls not to be virgins, even those not part of the in crowd have been keen to share they are not, even when it has then opened them up to calls of slut! It seems this is better than being seen as prissy and uptight!)

On the issue of dress being considered as part of a trial, I have a question, could you see it happening in the case of male rape? (you had on your pulling tshirt didn't you? the one that shows off your pecs. You were looking for a date, in fact you were in your own words 'up for it'. You danced with the defendant and let him buy you drinks, you went out the back of the club with him, what was he supposed to think?) I think whether the victim was straight or not, people would be less confortable with this line of questioning, are less likely to infere the victim shares some blame.

The perpetrators of these crimes are responsible for their actions, if we continue to suggest women are in anyway to blame because of their clothing (I am not talking behaviour here as I have stated before a women needs to take responsibility for her actions.) we make it more likely that a small percentage of people will grow up thinking this is alright, we need to break this idea of clothing as a sexual green light and that is why the marches are important. (The comment in question suggested the girls shouldn't dress like sluts if they didn't want to be victimised. Problems, linking a 'negative' behaviour with a style of dress and the implied suggestion that it is their own fault).

Petty - I don't believe it is any better for a women to behave this way towards men. It is wrong. (I do however believe it from a misguided idea of, 'women have to put up with it' (and have for centuries) so why shouldn't we behave that way too. biggest problem for me with the whole 'ladette' culture. Instead of looking at what is wrong and saying it needs to stop, they decide if you can't beat them join them, adding to the problems) This is why it is important that it is made clear that this type of behaviour is unacceptable!

Sorry if I'm ranting a bit, this has touched a bit of a nerve, although i am not sure why

[Pettytyrant101]

"we need to break this idea of clothing as a sexual green light"--Kafria

I think you have touched on a central point here. The question of just what certain types of clothes do mean, if anything. I'm trying to view this as the human animal alongside other animals, and most of them have some form of visual signalling which indicates a readiness and willingness (that last bits important) to mate. Presumably this is much the same as how early humans operated and therefore, on some levels still do. (In fact certainly still do, the impressive quantities of pornography in the world are testimount to how much the male in particular is driven by visual sexual signals).
Not everyone is made the same, some men will have much more tetosterone than others, some will be intelligent some not. We have to recognise this broad spectrum exists and with it comes varying degrees of control between mind and instinct. And on a purely animal level a women in provocative clothing is signalling to the world a readiness and willingness to mate. Problem is today a woman can dress that way and not be signalling a willingness to mate. And therein lies the problem because it seems some men have a hard time overriding the instictive part that is just reading the signals. None of this is to excuse rape but I think pretending or hoping such men don't exist (and aren't in fact common) is not going to help, and woman should recognise this when they are choosing what signals they might give. (And no less so a gay man in a bar!)

"This is why it is important that it is made clear that this type of behaviour is unacceptable!"- Kafria

I know exactly how it would go if I reported it to management. Assuming I wasn't told to get over it and act like a man (the most likely thing to happen) and management took it up, no witness would back me and it would be dropped for lack of evidence and I would make my everyday work a living hell as in care you can't not work as a team. As it happens I have worked with women long enough to give as good as I get in a manner which is not offence or corssing the line, but I've seen other men in care work, particularly young lads coming into been made anything from very embarrassed to humilated by female workers.

[odo banks]

My gawd, I go to bed, and I come back to this, with some of it essay length to boot, and GB not even in sight!

So much of the trouble - re getting raped - seems to not be the clothing (in the final analysis) but where and when the clothing is worn, whether females (with short skirts) or males (with or without pectorals). Where and when is it safe to wear what? I think Ally mentioned this, and the point is well made (wonderful girl, that Ally! )

As to peer group pressure, Kafria, rightly or wrongly, I feel that in this fast paced, complicated, image concious world, it's dangerous for anyone to do anything in any area of life, without being pressured in some way about it by someone. Fitting in with all the fashion changes going on, day to day, is a tricky business - and not just for young girls. (Fashion goes further than fashion btw, let's not see this whole issue of Peer Group too narrowly).

[Pettytyrant101]

File under remarkable but weird;

'A single living cell has been coaxed into producing laser light, researchers report in Nature Photonics.
The technique starts by engineering a cell that can produce a light-emitting protein that was first obtained from glowing jellyfish.
Flooding the resulting cells with weak blue light causes them to emit directed, green laser light
The cells were then placed one at a time between two tiny mirrors, just 20 millionths of a metre across, which acted as the "laser cavity" in which light could bounce many times through the cell.
Upon bathing the cell with blue light, it could be seen to emit directed and intense green laser light.
The cells remained alive throughout and after the process. The authors note in an accompanying interview in the journal that the living system is a "self-healing" laser; if the light-emitting proteins are destroyed in the process, the cell will simply produce more.'

Is there a moral dimension here to creating living cells as useful tools?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13725719

[Eldorion]

Is there a moral dimension here to creating living cells as useful tools?

We already do that to produce vaccines, and you know, food.

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm just not sure in the future I want my pc to be made of actual living components- seems odd.

[Pettytyrant101]

Ever wonder what makes us Scots so crabbit? Yup its the English! Or to be more fair the English/UK government.
Tiny bit of background. More than a year ago, before the last Scottish elections when Scottish Labour were in power with the Lib Dems they passed The Scotland Bill, approving some minor new powers for the Parliament to be devolved from London. The SNP voted against it presented an alternative in their election manifesto which included getting more stuff back so they could carry out manifesto promises. These included a Scottish Broadcaster, control of Crown Estates (our seabed) and control of Corporation Tax. All of which he presented to the electroate and for which the SNP got a landslide election victory.

But now we get to crunch time and the Westminister Parliament has to hand over the powers. And guess what? They don't want to. Even more ridiclously the Coaltion UK govenrments Scottish Minister says the Scotland Bill, decided before the last election, is the 'settled will of the Scottish People' on the basis that if you add together the seats of all the parties that voted for it its a majority. Now leaving aside that you don't count these things that way, the figures he is using is for the Scottish Parliament before the election, and before the elctorate roundly rejected it in favour of the SNP plan.
On top of that the SNP proposed referendum on independance, which Westminister said it would stay out of as it was a matter for the Scottish People, we are now told they want 2 referendum, with the first run by the Scottish Parliament whose result would only be a provisonal, a second one would be held under the control of London later to verify it. How insulting is that? And if London runs it they can control the questions, the timing, and set the rules (there was such a referendum before when I was a child and the UK government set the required votes at higher than attendance had ever been, so despite a majority voting for Independce it still counted as a loss. We won't wear these games again this time. If the secret plan is to break up the UK London couldn't have found a better way than how they are handling this.

edit- Addin insult to injury the UK governemnt announced as if it was a good thing that they are giving the Scottish Parliament more financial controls. They trumpet bond issueing and limited tax powers. They have so far not given an answer to all the other stuff and when you look into closer the new powers come with this caveat;
"The Government will extend Scottish Ministers' powers where this does not undermine the overall UK fiscal position or have a negative impact on total UK borrowing."

Or in other words they havent actually given us the powers back at all as they claim but retain the right to refuse at any point and take the powers back to London.

[Eldorion]

Is there a lot of oil in Scotland that would make London so clingy, or is this just typical hypocrisy from first world governments about the right of people to choose their own forms of government?

I feel justified in calling this hypocrisy since the UK government has recognized Kosovo as being independent after they broke away from Serbia, and Kosovo did so in a much less conciliatory way than the SNP is trying to, as far as I can tell.

[Pettytyrant101]

Second largest source of oil in Europe next to Ringdrottens lot. Our biggest fear if we get independance is that the US invades.


edit add- also a lot of hydro electric, water supplies and wind and wave developments.

[Eldorion]

Second largest source of oil in Europe next to Ringdrottens lot. Our biggest fear if we get independance is that the US invades.

Heh, I don't know if you or the Norwayans should worry more, since they (and/or their Danish Overlords) might be even dirtier Communists than you Scots with your universal health care and socialized medicine. We should start calling you the People's Republic of Scotistan.

[Ringdrotten]

I reckon that's why our government keeps kissing the USA's a** all the time - fear of invasion

[Ringdrotten]

Heh, I think the Norwayans might have to worry more, since they (and/or their Danish Overlords) are even dirtier Communists than you Scots with your universal health care and socialized medicine.

[Pettytyrant101]

I think Norway has all that too but Ringdrotten will know. You got socialist health care etc in Norway?

[Eldorion]

Let freedom ring, from the fjords of Norway to the lochs of Scotland! Social safety nets are only ropes binding you down from the freedom to pick your own gutter to starve in!

[Ringdrotten]

Yes, and no. Basically everything is free, except some (quite a lot of, actually) medicines you have to pay for, but they're quite cheap. And for some reason, your eyes and your teeth aren't parts of your body in Norwegian health care - you have to pay for all that.

Edit: What I said about dentistry (correct word?) isn't entirely true - it's free until you reach age 18, and you get huge discounts when you're 19 and 20. After that, you pay the full price.

[Eldorion]

And for some reason, your eyes and your teeth aren't parts of your body in Norwegian health care - you have to pay for all that.

See? Communazis don't even know anatomy!

[Pettytyrant101]

Call me crazy but for some strange reason I just like to know if I end up in a hospital that they will check my pulse before my wallet.

How oddily similar Ringdrotten (eyes and teeth here too for some bizarre historic reason are not covered in the NHS (well your eyes are if they need medical attention, but not if you need glasses or even just an eye test)).

[Ringdrotten]

"well your eyes are if they need medical attention, but not if you need glasses or even just an eye test" - Petty

Same thing in Norway. The tax rates are huge here, so it's really quite frustrating that everything isn't covered.

[Pettytyrant101]

SNP has been quite good on tax- the main one Council Tax they froze for the last few years and have promised to keep it frozen. Taxes on everything else however (set by Westminister), especially fuel is huge, and as with everywhere right now food and heating prices are soaring far ahead of wages.

[Eldorion]

Oh dear, Freedom76 seems to have escaped the sock drawer and taken over my main account.

[Ringdrotten]

Food prices here have been more than acceptable for a while, but it seems they won't be in near future. Heating prices have gone through the roof, though - we could barely cover it this winter, and the newspapers even wrote about elderly people who had frozen to death in their homes because their power had been shut off since they couldn't pay the bill. So much for social welfare. It all went downhill when electricity got privatised, huge f***ing mistake

[Pettytyrant101]

Well having Freedom76 about gives us social democratic types an excuse to point out everything wrong with flag waving, gun supporting, racists in pick up trucks.

Yeah same here with electricity and gas privatisation. Big mistake. Fortunetly when the rest of the UK sold the water supplies off Scotland refused, as a result we have the best water quality in the country. Water you can actually drink straight from the tap, unlike partsof England where the water from the tap will leave a white residue on a glass!

[Ringdrotten]

Exactly how water is supposed to be

[Pettytyrant101]

Indeed. I was shocked the first time I went to England got a glass of water from the tap and it was cloudy. Privitisation of most things in the UK has not been good. The railways are a mess and the immediate effect of it when sold was a series of disastrous and fatal incidents. Now they seem to have stopped that in favour of huge hikes in fares for trains that are always late.
The only successful privatisation I can think of offhand was the telephone system, its much better with a lot of competition, especially in an internet age where one state provider is not really tenable. Some things though it just doesn't seem to work for.

[Ringdrotten]

The only successful privatisation I can think of offhand was the telephone system

It's been great for us, the customers, but it seems it will be the downfall of the telephone companies (at least in Norway). Calling, messaging and browsing the internet has become ridiculously cheap over the last couple of years, I really can't see how any of the companies are making profits.