Recently, it seems like a lot of people that I know are taking the plunge and deciding to get married (which is not surprising I guess, given that I am getting older) and the conversation inevitably turns towards the changing-of-the-name.
Having got engaged myself a few months ago, I've always made it clear that I would not be changing my name. I am myself - that's the way it's going to stay. What's odd though, is how unusual I seem to be in that respect. I'd thought that actually, I'd be in the majority - that most women nowadays wouldn't change their name. Obviously, I was wrong. The reasons for changing their name go like this:
(1) So our whole family has the same name
(2) I'm proud to be Mrs-so-and-so
(3) He was upset when I said I wouldn't change my name
(4) I haven't really thought about it, it's just what people do
I can see that (1) might have held more sway in the past - people I know who have older children with different names have told stories of trying to go to the doctors/school with different names and the fight they had to be recognised. (2) just seems bizarre - marrying someone is hardly an achievement but you know, whatever. Similarly (3) - my response would be "don't marry him then" but it's not as though I'm the most tolerant person around, nor would I marry someone likely to make that argument. (4) is lazy, but doesn't seem any worse than the others for all that. At least it's honest.
Still, there you go. My own mother suspects that I will cave in and change my name, but quite frankly, she's so glad my feminism hasn't turned me into a lesbian that she's not going to complain either way. She also pointed out that it would be quite rude to send post to friends who have changed their name in their maiden name, but given the amount of times I already get called by my partner's name (and we're not anywhere near married), I don't buy this argument. Sod it - as an act of rebellion it's quite lame, but I'm all for fighting false consciousness anyway I can.
So: congratulations guys, but be prepared...
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Told you so...
After a few months (well, it's nearly been two) of pointless acts of what can only be random malevolence, we have this
Makes one wonder who exactly Johnson would call a racist.
Perhaps he has some special power that allows him to see deep into the soul of people? Until we all have the special mind-ray, the rest of us will just have to keep making our judgements based on what people actually say.
Makes one wonder who exactly Johnson would call a racist.
Perhaps he has some special power that allows him to see deep into the soul of people? Until we all have the special mind-ray, the rest of us will just have to keep making our judgements based on what people actually say.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The downside
of blogging is that there are certain things that one cannot blog about and maintain a sort-of-anonymity.
Sadly, it is precisely one of those unbloggable things that is annoying me right now. It's been a stressful day and this is just. not. helping.
Fucking arse.
Sadly, it is precisely one of those unbloggable things that is annoying me right now. It's been a stressful day and this is just. not. helping.
Fucking arse.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Things I now know...
that I didn't before:
1) When you quit your job, people send you nice emails and thus boost your ego. I should resign more often. The CEO has stopped talking to me, but it is debatable as to whether that's a bad thing.
2) World of Warcraft is not just for teenage boys who have no social skills. It's fun and worryingly addictive. Good for rainy weekends when you can't be bothered to do constructive things like paint the bathroom or hoover, bad if you get tempted to log in when working at home. Don't do it.
3) Kidney infections really hurt.
4) I'm easily impressed by bald, scottish, buddhist women who talk about the importance of being myself. I can't tell if this means I'm naive, completely self-absorbed, or both.
5) Changing a tire is not as difficult as it looks, but there is the ever present fear of being smooshed by a lorry going along the A34.
6) Driving on my own is a lot less stressful than driving with the SO in the car. Especially when attempting to reverse out of the tire-garage and some wanker has parked their car across the middle of the forecourt.
7) Working for the Electoral Commission would be rewarding and terrifying. I was speaking to a guy who was in Kenya for the election in December and had a policeman stoned to death beside him. He's holding out for Florida in the US Nov elections, but suspects he'll get somewhere like Nebraska.
1) When you quit your job, people send you nice emails and thus boost your ego. I should resign more often. The CEO has stopped talking to me, but it is debatable as to whether that's a bad thing.
2) World of Warcraft is not just for teenage boys who have no social skills. It's fun and worryingly addictive. Good for rainy weekends when you can't be bothered to do constructive things like paint the bathroom or hoover, bad if you get tempted to log in when working at home. Don't do it.
3) Kidney infections really hurt.
4) I'm easily impressed by bald, scottish, buddhist women who talk about the importance of being myself. I can't tell if this means I'm naive, completely self-absorbed, or both.
5) Changing a tire is not as difficult as it looks, but there is the ever present fear of being smooshed by a lorry going along the A34.
6) Driving on my own is a lot less stressful than driving with the SO in the car. Especially when attempting to reverse out of the tire-garage and some wanker has parked their car across the middle of the forecourt.
7) Working for the Electoral Commission would be rewarding and terrifying. I was speaking to a guy who was in Kenya for the election in December and had a policeman stoned to death beside him. He's holding out for Florida in the US Nov elections, but suspects he'll get somewhere like Nebraska.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Pointless Creativity
Recently I crocheted myself a 1940's style capelet (with some interesting lacy stitches as well - get me). It was technically a waste of time for two reasons:
1) I made it in mohair. I can't wear mohair - it makes me itch. Especially if it's anywhere near my neck.
2) Capelets make me look like an american football player - I have rather broad shoulders. And, more to the point - when would I ever wear a 1940's style capelet?
When it comes to knitting and crocheting (which I have recently taught myself) I've got a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, I really enjoy doing it - I've got fidgety hands so crocheting is perfect - and feel close to my grandmother, who used to always have a knitting project on the go. On the otherhand, how can I justify my hobby to myself in feminist terms? Sometimes I wonder if I'm as bad as the women who buy those make-household-tasks-more-complicated items and flowery garden tools. I guess I try to think that as I don't *need* to crochet capelets, this is okay. No-one expects me to crochet (most people are unflatteringly astonished that I have the coordination to do so) and I'm not made to.
What I'm really trying to say is that I don't have an answer to this question. Or, similarly, to whether it's okay that I've suddenly got the urge to start making chutney and other preserves. Heh. Let's just change the subject...
1) I made it in mohair. I can't wear mohair - it makes me itch. Especially if it's anywhere near my neck.
2) Capelets make me look like an american football player - I have rather broad shoulders. And, more to the point - when would I ever wear a 1940's style capelet?
When it comes to knitting and crocheting (which I have recently taught myself) I've got a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, I really enjoy doing it - I've got fidgety hands so crocheting is perfect - and feel close to my grandmother, who used to always have a knitting project on the go. On the otherhand, how can I justify my hobby to myself in feminist terms? Sometimes I wonder if I'm as bad as the women who buy those make-household-tasks-more-complicated items and flowery garden tools. I guess I try to think that as I don't *need* to crochet capelets, this is okay. No-one expects me to crochet (most people are unflatteringly astonished that I have the coordination to do so) and I'm not made to.
What I'm really trying to say is that I don't have an answer to this question. Or, similarly, to whether it's okay that I've suddenly got the urge to start making chutney and other preserves. Heh. Let's just change the subject...
Monday, June 09, 2008
Older but not wiser...
During our Monday meeting (whilst talking about diversity, of all things) someone remarked positively on Clinton's comment on the cracks in the glass ceiling from her concession speech. Our company directors jumped in eagerly:
A: Yes! Yes, I heard that!! He's such an idiot!
my colleagues and I look at each other in puzzled concern. Surely A is not saying...
B:I know! It'd be better if he'd not said anything at all, through the whole campaign!
horrified enlightenment is dawning...
A:Hah! Apparently it's his medications, you know.
Brave Colleague: erm, we're talking about Senator Clinton. Hillary. She said it.
A:Yes, right. (pauses) We know that.
The meeting ended soon after.
A: Yes! Yes, I heard that!! He's such an idiot!
my colleagues and I look at each other in puzzled concern. Surely A is not saying...
B:I know! It'd be better if he'd not said anything at all, through the whole campaign!
horrified enlightenment is dawning...
A:Hah! Apparently it's his medications, you know.
Brave Colleague: erm, we're talking about Senator Clinton. Hillary. She said it.
A:Yes, right. (pauses) We know that.
The meeting ended soon after.
I don't like Mondays...
But before I take my hot, sorry self onto a train to the capital for my disastrous Monday meeting:
(1)Good article about Clinton (probably more to write about this later, but I've probably been writing too much about US politics recently...)
(2)Mmm... bilberries. Ate quite a lot last summer whilst out walking, without really knowing whether they were edible. So tasty. Sell them in the south!
(3)Am I the only one who is quite impressed that the death toll in Afganistan is only 100? Yes, every death is a tragedy, but as this has been going on since 2001 it is a lot less than I was expecting. Go to war - people die. It's just the way it is (which sounds very cavalier, but it's not quite what I'm intending).
(4)I love my new Asus Eee PC 900. It's so lovely. I may even write a review of it on the train - who knows? Admittedly, my intention of working on it this morning was scuppered by the fact that I fell asleep as soon as I sat down - but I will be using it to work. I will.
(1)Good article about Clinton (probably more to write about this later, but I've probably been writing too much about US politics recently...)
(2)Mmm... bilberries. Ate quite a lot last summer whilst out walking, without really knowing whether they were edible. So tasty. Sell them in the south!
(3)Am I the only one who is quite impressed that the death toll in Afganistan is only 100? Yes, every death is a tragedy, but as this has been going on since 2001 it is a lot less than I was expecting. Go to war - people die. It's just the way it is (which sounds very cavalier, but it's not quite what I'm intending).
(4)I love my new Asus Eee PC 900. It's so lovely. I may even write a review of it on the train - who knows? Admittedly, my intention of working on it this morning was scuppered by the fact that I fell asleep as soon as I sat down - but I will be using it to work. I will.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Moving Forward
Now that Hillary has conceded and pulled out of the race (very graciously and with a commendable strong endorsement of Obama) you'd think it would finally put a stop to all those Clinton supporters who claimed that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama in the general election. A brief moment of insanity, you might think, to illustrate how upset they are that their chosen candidate didn't make it through.
Yeah. You'd think.
Instead, it seems that the insanity is here to stay. There are still plenty of Clinton supporters (I won't say Clintonites because I'd actually question their commitment to Clinton the actual person, given that they are still prepared to disregard her very-clearly-stated wishes) who are even more determined than ever to vote JM rather than BO at the general election. For a full explanation of why (not that much substantive explanation is ever given) – the crazy can be located here. Otherwise, I shall explain “why” given the evidence available.
(1)It seems that a lot of women are upset that their next president will not also be a woman. This seems fairly understandable, given that there has been a tendency amongst american feminists to attack women who decided against voting for Clinton – one could extend that (without too much difficulty) and claim that it was purely misogyny that stopped Clinton from being nominated, thus the other democratic candidate should not be voted for. It's still insane though. The whole idea that Clinton should be voted for because she is a woman and that-is-what-a-feminist would do was completely insane (I articulated this in an earlier post). It wouldn't happen in the UK because (a) we've already had a woman PM and (b) this leads us to think that just having A.Woman in post is not preferable to having the right woman in post. Thus (I hypothesise) feminists in the UK would be more likely to make the claim (as I did) that treating Clinton's policies with the same scrutiny you would for any other candidate and deciding on that basis is actually more respectful and feminist than anything else. As I said before, I'd guess that this is down to differing experiences, so the insanity is relative.
So, we're at the point where a lot of women will not vote for Obama because of perceived misogyny from that campaign (I won't even explore that claim here as this post is already too long). So instead they'll vote for a crazy republican – republican party being the one that wants to erode women's rights. Yeah – makes sense. Get your shit together, ladies.
(2)There are a lot of comments on these pro-clinton vote mccain websites that are along the lines of “Obama will be the worst President ever and is doing horrendous things to the Democratic party” without ever explaining what these horrendous things are or how he would be the worst President. The fact that no-one can articulate what these terrible things actually are leads me to what is really an horrible conclusion: a lot of these people are racist. Not openly, perhaps not even consciously, but I can't see that there's any other conclusion to come to. How else does one explain that voting republican is SO MUCH BETTER than voting for someone your chosen candidate endorses? Is it 'coz he is black? Erm... yes, I suspect it is.
I know that I am/would be biased – I cannot imagine voting Conservative in an UK election because of what the Conservatives stand for, even if the candidate for Labour is not to my own personal taste. If I was in the US, I can imagine that emotions run high during primaries – it was tough (wonderfully so – there was real choice) and there was history to be made every step of the way. But in the end, it was only a primary. The real fight, the important fight, is yet to be had. Whatever differentiated Clinton and Obama, what unites them is a belief in change and that four years of a democrat president would be better than four more years of a republican. Most supporters of Clinton know this and embrace this. To those who don't – really, I think you totally deserve whatever shit you get and you certainly deserve the shit you've received in the last eight years.
Yeah. You'd think.
Instead, it seems that the insanity is here to stay. There are still plenty of Clinton supporters (I won't say Clintonites because I'd actually question their commitment to Clinton the actual person, given that they are still prepared to disregard her very-clearly-stated wishes) who are even more determined than ever to vote JM rather than BO at the general election. For a full explanation of why (not that much substantive explanation is ever given) – the crazy can be located here. Otherwise, I shall explain “why” given the evidence available.
(1)It seems that a lot of women are upset that their next president will not also be a woman. This seems fairly understandable, given that there has been a tendency amongst american feminists to attack women who decided against voting for Clinton – one could extend that (without too much difficulty) and claim that it was purely misogyny that stopped Clinton from being nominated, thus the other democratic candidate should not be voted for. It's still insane though. The whole idea that Clinton should be voted for because she is a woman and that-is-what-a-feminist would do was completely insane (I articulated this in an earlier post). It wouldn't happen in the UK because (a) we've already had a woman PM and (b) this leads us to think that just having A.Woman in post is not preferable to having the right woman in post. Thus (I hypothesise) feminists in the UK would be more likely to make the claim (as I did) that treating Clinton's policies with the same scrutiny you would for any other candidate and deciding on that basis is actually more respectful and feminist than anything else. As I said before, I'd guess that this is down to differing experiences, so the insanity is relative.
So, we're at the point where a lot of women will not vote for Obama because of perceived misogyny from that campaign (I won't even explore that claim here as this post is already too long). So instead they'll vote for a crazy republican – republican party being the one that wants to erode women's rights. Yeah – makes sense. Get your shit together, ladies.
(2)There are a lot of comments on these pro-clinton vote mccain websites that are along the lines of “Obama will be the worst President ever and is doing horrendous things to the Democratic party” without ever explaining what these horrendous things are or how he would be the worst President. The fact that no-one can articulate what these terrible things actually are leads me to what is really an horrible conclusion: a lot of these people are racist. Not openly, perhaps not even consciously, but I can't see that there's any other conclusion to come to. How else does one explain that voting republican is SO MUCH BETTER than voting for someone your chosen candidate endorses? Is it 'coz he is black? Erm... yes, I suspect it is.
I know that I am/would be biased – I cannot imagine voting Conservative in an UK election because of what the Conservatives stand for, even if the candidate for Labour is not to my own personal taste. If I was in the US, I can imagine that emotions run high during primaries – it was tough (wonderfully so – there was real choice) and there was history to be made every step of the way. But in the end, it was only a primary. The real fight, the important fight, is yet to be had. Whatever differentiated Clinton and Obama, what unites them is a belief in change and that four years of a democrat president would be better than four more years of a republican. Most supporters of Clinton know this and embrace this. To those who don't – really, I think you totally deserve whatever shit you get and you certainly deserve the shit you've received in the last eight years.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Know thyself...
I've been thinking quite a bit about why private sector companies should care (or at least think) about diversity when recruiting. Mostly because this is an argument that I'm having to make a lot recently and I'm not sure I've yet come up with an answer that is completely convincing.
The line that people in the private sector take is that they are, effectively, blind to diversity. They don't care who the candidate is, as long as they are the best candidate for the job. This strikes me as old-fashioned and naive for two reasons.
1)It assumes (rather like basic economic principles) that we live in a completely rational world. Thus, if one could guarantee that the short list of candidates that they have to choose from are indeed the best 3 or 4 candidates for the job (selected without bias from the HR universe, or whatever function is being recruited from) then yes, their attitude would be positive and sensible. I don't think we can safely assume that market forces are completely objective and free from societal prejudice. To pretend that they are, or to act as if they are, is therefore irresponsible.
2)A recruiter to the private sector can repeat this belief, based on the idea that if they themselves are without prejudice, then the list of candidates they present will be The Ideal list of candidates. However, as above, I don't think that anyone can trust themselves to that degree. Although we may try and act as if we are not discriminatory on any grounds, the truth is that most (and I would go further and say *all* of us) do hold some beliefs either subconsciously or consciously, that would bias the selection we make. This doesn't make us bad people - we are bad people if we accept these beliefs without question or if we pretend that we don't hold these beliefs because we do not want to feel uncomfortable.
Given both (1) and (2) I think the private sector would do better to admit that there could be some bias to what is supposedly an objective process and to make sure that this is redressed to some degree by having a system of checks in place. Thus, if a short list of Finance Directors is presented that consists only of white men, I don't think it's at all wrong to question why that is - in fact, I think that's the responsible option. The sooner that this sort of response is made part of the typical recruitment process in the private sector, the sooner they will be approaching the stage where they really are selecting the best candidate. To deny that the private sector has an interest in diversity is completely counter-productive.
The line that people in the private sector take is that they are, effectively, blind to diversity. They don't care who the candidate is, as long as they are the best candidate for the job. This strikes me as old-fashioned and naive for two reasons.
1)It assumes (rather like basic economic principles) that we live in a completely rational world. Thus, if one could guarantee that the short list of candidates that they have to choose from are indeed the best 3 or 4 candidates for the job (selected without bias from the HR universe, or whatever function is being recruited from) then yes, their attitude would be positive and sensible. I don't think we can safely assume that market forces are completely objective and free from societal prejudice. To pretend that they are, or to act as if they are, is therefore irresponsible.
2)A recruiter to the private sector can repeat this belief, based on the idea that if they themselves are without prejudice, then the list of candidates they present will be The Ideal list of candidates. However, as above, I don't think that anyone can trust themselves to that degree. Although we may try and act as if we are not discriminatory on any grounds, the truth is that most (and I would go further and say *all* of us) do hold some beliefs either subconsciously or consciously, that would bias the selection we make. This doesn't make us bad people - we are bad people if we accept these beliefs without question or if we pretend that we don't hold these beliefs because we do not want to feel uncomfortable.
Given both (1) and (2) I think the private sector would do better to admit that there could be some bias to what is supposedly an objective process and to make sure that this is redressed to some degree by having a system of checks in place. Thus, if a short list of Finance Directors is presented that consists only of white men, I don't think it's at all wrong to question why that is - in fact, I think that's the responsible option. The sooner that this sort of response is made part of the typical recruitment process in the private sector, the sooner they will be approaching the stage where they really are selecting the best candidate. To deny that the private sector has an interest in diversity is completely counter-productive.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
"Fire when ready..."
Captain Jean-Luc Picard would know what to do in this kind of situation. He is completely the best Star Trek captain of all time.
(It was Star Trek or watching Justin Timberlake and Madonna in their completely incomprehensible and most likely extremely *wrong* music video. What can I say, there was no competition.)
(It was Star Trek or watching Justin Timberlake and Madonna in their completely incomprehensible and most likely extremely *wrong* music video. What can I say, there was no competition.)
When real life gets unbearable
it's time to switch off BBC Parliament. When ND got up to speak, it was just too awful (especially when you can hear Ann Widdecombe agreeing with her in the background - a sure sign to anyone sane that the right view to take is the opposite to that being expressed) - it can't be just me that thinks she's completely betraying all of womenkind? She has a *daughter* for god's sake.
I'm so appalled by the banality of the erosion of liberty these days (she looks just like an ordinary woman - maybe I expected her to have horns?). You'd think these kind of things ought to be heralded with thunder etc etc.
Come on parliament - you can do it. 2 good decisions made, one more to go...
I'm so appalled by the banality of the erosion of liberty these days (she looks just like an ordinary woman - maybe I expected her to have horns?). You'd think these kind of things ought to be heralded with thunder etc etc.
Come on parliament - you can do it. 2 good decisions made, one more to go...
Monday, May 19, 2008
On the same topic
If you haven't read Kira Cochrane's article in the Guardian today, you really should. She's really captured just how bleak and terrifying the whole situation is.
Terrifying Times...
I haven't blogged for a while, mainly because everything is a little bit too depressing (or too frustrating) to want to write about it. However, it does feel that I'm not doing my bloggerly-duty: here is an important issue for me to write about on my supposedly feminist blog and I shirk it. So here we go.
The Embryology Bill is due to be voted on, as well as the terrifying amendment to cut the abortion time limit to twenty weeks. In this post, I think I'll focus mostly on the amendment - mainly because it's an area I feel very strongly about and because to discuss the whole bill would take more time than I currently have available.
Okay - so cutting the time limit. 3 Reasons why it's bad:
1)It's just intrinsically a bad thing. It feels as though any ground that we give on this issue will inevitably lead to a strengthening of the anti-abortion movement and (I fear) gradually, eat away at women's right to choose. I'm using the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" as I think that the latter is misleading in terms of casting the pro-choice lobby as "anti-life" when clearly, that is not the case.
2) Most abortions that take place during the later weeks of the limit are done for medical reasons and *all* for important reasons, not just on a whim. Cutting the time limit will ultimately lead to more distress for those women who have to make these difficult choices. Arguing that the scan for genetic deformations etc takes place at 20 weeks and therefore that's when the abortion should take place if needed is, in my opinion, cruel and callous. It seems to suggest that it's an easy decision to make (which is pretty hypocritical, as they don't seem to think it *is* an easy decision at any other point in the pregnancy).
3) A lot of the reasoning behind this amendment is misleading. Yes, there may well be an increase in survival rates at 24 weeks, but there is not at 23 weeks and those who do survive at 24 weeks often have severe learning disabilities and/or development problems. It's not as though you can give birth at 24 weeks and then it's all very straightforward. This also seems very cruel - to those people who *do* have the misfortune of a very premature birth and have had their expectations raised to unrealistic levels by this kind of statistic.
Obviously there are more, and I could go into it in more detail. However, for the moment, this will have to suffice.
The Embryology Bill is due to be voted on, as well as the terrifying amendment to cut the abortion time limit to twenty weeks. In this post, I think I'll focus mostly on the amendment - mainly because it's an area I feel very strongly about and because to discuss the whole bill would take more time than I currently have available.
Okay - so cutting the time limit. 3 Reasons why it's bad:
1)It's just intrinsically a bad thing. It feels as though any ground that we give on this issue will inevitably lead to a strengthening of the anti-abortion movement and (I fear) gradually, eat away at women's right to choose. I'm using the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" as I think that the latter is misleading in terms of casting the pro-choice lobby as "anti-life" when clearly, that is not the case.
2) Most abortions that take place during the later weeks of the limit are done for medical reasons and *all* for important reasons, not just on a whim. Cutting the time limit will ultimately lead to more distress for those women who have to make these difficult choices. Arguing that the scan for genetic deformations etc takes place at 20 weeks and therefore that's when the abortion should take place if needed is, in my opinion, cruel and callous. It seems to suggest that it's an easy decision to make (which is pretty hypocritical, as they don't seem to think it *is* an easy decision at any other point in the pregnancy).
3) A lot of the reasoning behind this amendment is misleading. Yes, there may well be an increase in survival rates at 24 weeks, but there is not at 23 weeks and those who do survive at 24 weeks often have severe learning disabilities and/or development problems. It's not as though you can give birth at 24 weeks and then it's all very straightforward. This also seems very cruel - to those people who *do* have the misfortune of a very premature birth and have had their expectations raised to unrealistic levels by this kind of statistic.
Obviously there are more, and I could go into it in more detail. However, for the moment, this will have to suffice.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Hammer-time...
You could be flippant and say that everything that is wrong with Hillary Clinton's campaign is embodied in the fact that she chose a Celine Dion song for her campaign theme tune.
Obviously, that's not entirely true, but it's still a bizarre choice. Why not go for something a little bit jazzier, that doesn't turn the brain into instant mush? Simply the Best by Tina Turner, for example - strong woman, powerful message.
My own vote would have been for MC Hammer "Can't touch this" (can you imagine how entertaining that would have been?) and this goes some way to explain why I have never been asked to run a campaign.
Obviously, that's not entirely true, but it's still a bizarre choice. Why not go for something a little bit jazzier, that doesn't turn the brain into instant mush? Simply the Best by Tina Turner, for example - strong woman, powerful message.
My own vote would have been for MC Hammer "Can't touch this" (can you imagine how entertaining that would have been?) and this goes some way to explain why I have never been asked to run a campaign.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Last Bastion of Sanity
At least in Oxford, the Conservatives got completely purged in the local elections. Quite incredible given the way the elections worked out elsewhere, but shows I'm living in the right place.
Not quite enough to make up for the fact that Boris Johnson got London Mayor. Now I'm left with the sinking realisation that the transport infrastructure within London that I depend on is going to flounder and ultimately degenerate into complete shite. Quite aside from the fact that the Conservatives don't run things but ruin them, whoever voted for BJ because he is "funny" ought to be lined up and shot. They may as well have just brought in Mr. Blobby (presumably some people also find him funny - I don't, but I don't find incompetence funny either, so what do I know?) put the whole of the GLA in a gunge machine and then dunked TFL in a vat full of snakes. I'm sure that within a year or so, it will have turned out to be more cost effective.
Quandary of the week: do I hope that...
(a) BJ gets run over by a bendy-bus during his first week of office
or
(b) he actually turns out to be good.
(a) would be more personally satisfying but might end in his martyrdom. (b) would make me want to tear off my own face, but my journey to work might be quite smooth.
Decisions, decisions...
Not quite enough to make up for the fact that Boris Johnson got London Mayor. Now I'm left with the sinking realisation that the transport infrastructure within London that I depend on is going to flounder and ultimately degenerate into complete shite. Quite aside from the fact that the Conservatives don't run things but ruin them, whoever voted for BJ because he is "funny" ought to be lined up and shot. They may as well have just brought in Mr. Blobby (presumably some people also find him funny - I don't, but I don't find incompetence funny either, so what do I know?) put the whole of the GLA in a gunge machine and then dunked TFL in a vat full of snakes. I'm sure that within a year or so, it will have turned out to be more cost effective.
Quandary of the week: do I hope that...
(a) BJ gets run over by a bendy-bus during his first week of office
or
(b) he actually turns out to be good.
(a) would be more personally satisfying but might end in his martyrdom. (b) would make me want to tear off my own face, but my journey to work might be quite smooth.
Decisions, decisions...
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Conundrum
Is it giving in to the patriarchy to let it slide when the security guard at the entrance to your work building makes sexist comments? Admittedly, they only get as far as "Give us a smile love" (inherently annoying as this may be when you've just struggled for 2 hours to get there) and "all right, darlin'" but they are sexist.
On the one hand, I know I should really be stamping out this kind of behaviour whenever I encounter it. On the other, if I did try and stamp it out, they might prevent (or at least make it difficult) me from entering my building with minimum fuss. Yes, I could protest about this, but let's face it - I don't have the energy.
For the moment at least, I shall swallow my pride, principles and moral standing and content myself with grunting non-commitally as I stomp up the stairs to the office.
On the one hand, I know I should really be stamping out this kind of behaviour whenever I encounter it. On the other, if I did try and stamp it out, they might prevent (or at least make it difficult) me from entering my building with minimum fuss. Yes, I could protest about this, but let's face it - I don't have the energy.
For the moment at least, I shall swallow my pride, principles and moral standing and content myself with grunting non-commitally as I stomp up the stairs to the office.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Sexism and the City
There are times when I love my job - not least when I get to do things I'm interested in on work time and it's still actually work. The latest of these (admittedly rather rare) occurances happened on Tuesday, when I attended the launch of the Fawcett Society's Sexism and the City campaign.
It was definitely worth going to, especially as it reminded me that not all (probably the vast majority in fact) of the people who work in the city are earning millions and are at the most basic - and arguably the most brutal - end of sexism. I think it's something that's very easy to forget when you're lucky enough to have a decent job that pays good money - as suddenly the aspects of sexism that are of primary concern become whether or not Henry got promoted before you because he's a man, rather than having to work a badly paid night-time cleaning job so that you be at home during the day because you can't afford childcare. That the campaign has the breadth to cover both ends of the spectrum is admirable, not to mention ambitious (and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing).
So, go to the website, read the manifesto and see if you can persuade your organisation (or yourself!) to do something to help.
It was definitely worth going to, especially as it reminded me that not all (probably the vast majority in fact) of the people who work in the city are earning millions and are at the most basic - and arguably the most brutal - end of sexism. I think it's something that's very easy to forget when you're lucky enough to have a decent job that pays good money - as suddenly the aspects of sexism that are of primary concern become whether or not Henry got promoted before you because he's a man, rather than having to work a badly paid night-time cleaning job so that you be at home during the day because you can't afford childcare. That the campaign has the breadth to cover both ends of the spectrum is admirable, not to mention ambitious (and I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing).
So, go to the website, read the manifesto and see if you can persuade your organisation (or yourself!) to do something to help.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Why should not having finished them stand in the way of denouncing them?
I was given yet another business book to edumacate me in the ways of big business. Needless to say, I got about one page into the book before I got incredibly angry, skimmed the rest of the chapter and then gave up. I decided to review the book on this blog, then wondered whether that was completely fair, given I hadn't read anywhere near the whole thing. After a moment's pause, I came to the conclusion that if the first chapter - where they lay out their theory for the rest of the book - is a load of shite, it is somewhat unlikely that it will get any better. So it's fine. It got me wondering about other business-books-I-have-hated-without-reading-them-all-the-way-to-the-end.
Here is my top three:
(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.
Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.
I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.
2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.
3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.
The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.
The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.
Here is my top three:
(1) Inside Her Pretty Little Head: I think I hate this one the most, simply because it seemed rather promising. It's written by women who have set-up their own company to market things to women, as they got tired of the traditional advertising approach, which was to make it pink. I am also tired of this. I haven't mentioned here how much I hate the idea of a pink blackberry pearl, mainly because every time I think about it, I can't contain my own bile. Needless to say, if anyone tries to suggest I should have a pink blackberry pearl to show how much of an empowered career woman I am, I will forcefully insert it into their anus.
Anyway, a promising start. But then, you start the first chapter and there is a chart of ways in which women are different to men. Including the fact that women "tend and befriend" rather than experiencing the "fight and flight" instinct which men apparently developed on the veldt to defend their womenfolk.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they would just say "selling princesses to young girls works" but they seem to feel the need to justify this claim with some absolutely ridiculous evolutionary psychology bullshit. I hate evolutionary psychology even more than I hate pink blackberry pearls and tools with flowers on the handles, which is saying something.
I was so outraged that I didn't bother to read the rest of the book, which seemed suspiciously like it was starting from the "let's not just make things pink" stance and then going on to justify that we should in fact just make things pink.
2) Life's a Pitch: short summary of this could be described as - success in business takes the form of a misogynistic pig trying to get sex on the first date. Whatever. I have to say, that given any dates *I* have been on are nothing like the general experience ascribed to dates in the book, it seems unlikely that any success I have in business will resemble it either. Case Closed.
3) Things they don't teach you at Harvard Business School: if I'd wanted to watch smug men wave their cocks around I'd have rented some niche porn. Enough said.
The lesson here is probably that I should stop reading business books. Especially ones recommended by my employer.
The good news is that I've ordered a copy of Deborah Cameron's latest book which I will be able to review at a later date.
Friday, March 07, 2008
This week in the news
A great article on how Norway is getting women into the boardroom.
It would be great to set up something similar over here, except the positive discrimination ruling wouldn't hold up. Still, as the new Equality and Diversity Head in my workplace, maybe I can come up with something that is slightly more helpful than researching the addresses of people to invite to a dinner event, which is my current task. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and try not to throw myself out of the window first.
It would be great to set up something similar over here, except the positive discrimination ruling wouldn't hold up. Still, as the new Equality and Diversity Head in my workplace, maybe I can come up with something that is slightly more helpful than researching the addresses of people to invite to a dinner event, which is my current task. I suppose I just have to grit my teeth and try not to throw myself out of the window first.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)