eumelia: (valerie)
Marriage?

Ha!

Regardless as to your opinion about marriage as an institution, it exists, it has existed for thousands of years, very likely it will not be chucked away any time soon.

But you know what? It has changed. From being a contract of ownership it's now a contract of partnership - ideally speaking that it and that's the assumption I'm going with at this point in time, because that's what the, erm, struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples over the world is about.

(I don't get it, I think it's counter productive to the notion of freedom, but hey, the choice should be out there)

The BBC have this truly marvelous article out titled: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go-ahead.
The scare 'quotes' are part of the title I shit you not. Really BBC? Really? You're implying that marriage between gay people isn't real? I'd be shocked and appalled if it weren't status quo with the way they same sex partnerships are treated in the media and under the law as a rule.

I wasn't planning on reading through this article, because it's not my country and I don't find the struggle for marriage to be of great import when it comes to QUILTBAG rights the world over. But I can't fucking ignore institutionalised homophobia, especially when it's white washed by human rights discourse.

I quote the BBC article:
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, gave the news a guarded welcome.

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show he "believes in a liberal democracy, and actually wants equality with everybody" but did not want churches to be told what to do.

"You mustn't have rights that trump other rights," he added.

Hello Double Standards! Hello Hypocrisy!

Remember how I said marriage has changed over time and all that? You know what else needs to change and is long over-do for an over haul?
Religion.
Period.

As an aside, it is my personal belief that religion, does and has done more harm than good, over all, where ever it has a foot hold, that is, every where. I don't begrudge people's belief in a higher power and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in the implausible.

I don't really understand why QUITLBAG people would want to continue to put their faith in an institution that has time and time again conceived us to be deviant and sub-human, but it should be a choice available to them. Why? Because part of being an institution that lives and believe in, as the Archbishop of York says he does, in liberal democracy and equality for all, then saying that the Church trumps that and can close its gates in the face of its believers simply because of people are uncomfortable with queers... well then.

Suck it up.

It's not simple, it's not easy, but religion, as I understand it, is there to be a go between, between god and the people who worship god? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Religion is part of a culture, culture changes, and you can bet that the religion of 100, 500, 1000 years ago does not resemble the religion of today, certainly not in industrialised countries and nations.

So, BBC, when you ask there, at the bottom of your article:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry in church? Would you be affected by this proposal?
There's another implication there. That people in same-sex relationships are not the ones being asked, when they're the ones who actually are affected by this decision. The mere fact that this you are framing this as a debate is homophobic, because yes, it is quite obvious that if Britain was in fact interested in equalising marriage between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions they would pass the law, no questions asked, and any religious institutions that refused to marry two men or two women to each other would be fucking penalised for discriminatory behaviour!

As some churches are already threatening:
The [Sunday Telegraph] says the Church of England has already said it will not allow any of its churches to be used for civil partnership ceremonies.

The legislation would also cover synagogues and mosques although homosexuality is forbidden under Islam.

It's so not just Islam you moronic islamophobic racists!

The Roman Catholic Church has long held that homosexuality is a "deviation" and is not expected to agree to same-sex ceremonies.

As I said, pass the law and penalise any institution and organisations that denies gay people the rights afforded to straight people. I can't think of anything that will get these places to "see the light" faster that either cutting their funds or fining them so much, they'll need same sex couples just to make sure ends meet.

Lucky them Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews have already wised up!

Good luck to you my UK Sibs, you're going to need it.

Dear Brits

Jul. 26th, 2010 11:34 am
eumelia: (dandies)
I keep hearing and reading about this "Brokeback Coalition".

Is this as homophobic as I think it is?
eumelia: (bollocks)
*weeps*

The thing that frustrates me the most about all this, is that I will watch it.

I would have watched a UK based Season 4 sans Ianto without feeling any qualms.

If it does in fact produce episodes in America I will watch it. Very likely with something a kin to fangrrl enthusiasm.

I fear though, that FOX will take all that is good about Tochwood - the relationship stuff (which was weird and complicated and not at all clear cut as to what everyone felt towards one another), the queer sexuality, the dark character arcs (Cyberwoman made people laugh? Seriously?!) and, well, UK sensibility.
Welsh sensibility.
That understated equanimity that comes from being so elegantly arrogant it gets you into tight spots just so you can ingeniously get out of them!

Tell me, did James Bond have to move to the CIA in order to be the coolest man alive?
He did not!
Why does Torchwood, created out of the Doctor's stupidity and hubris, have to move across the pond in order to be "significant" to entertainment?

Yeah, I'm an Anglophile, I fully admit that, perhaps it comes from being a colonialist myself.

Britannica is no less authentic entertainment than Americana.

That, and I hate FOX.

They will make Jack into a womaniser rather than the equal opportunity flirt/shagger that he is!

*stomps foot!*
eumelia: (Default)
This is one of the best things I've read and seen in a while.
I generally don't trust the Daily Telegraph but the added footage is just too good.



Cross-dressing cage fighters turn tables on yobs
[...]
CCTV footage shows the pair approach one of the men – dressed in a pink wig, miniskirt and boob tube – before Gardener throws a punch at him.

But the fight is over in a matter of seconds as the other cage fighter, sporting a wig and a sparkling black dress, floors both the assailants with two lightning-quick punches.

One of the cross-dressers then casually picks up his bag before the pair strut off, leaving [the attackers] Gardener and Fender lying on the pavement.

The way they describe the incident along with the footage is just too hilarious.
Not the incident itself, because fuck those two idiots wanted to attack people because they didn't conform to arbitrary gender ideals... and then they kicked ass!
Just, fuck yeah man.
That sort of thing, I like knowing about it, that these homophobic and transphobic sacks of shit don't get to do what they feel they're entitled to do based on the fact that they have a penis and wear trousers.

Of course the Telegraph has to make sure that the cross-dressers do in fact gender conform:
The attackers are arrested by police as they stagger down the road. Officers later learned the cross-dressers were actually cage fighters on a fancy dress stag night out.

Add to that, that the two idiots who tried to assault them were stinking drunk and are thus excused for the behaviour and they were sentenced with curfew, electronic tagging and community service for four moths.

I'm wondering what would have happened if the would-be victims were trans and/or genderqueer people and not two men out for a lark (according to the article... it very well could be that the two cross-dresseres told the police that in order to make themselves appear "gender conforming" on a regular basis in order to avoid being interrogated themselves).

However, like was said at the Magistrate's court:
"You know it cannot have been a good night when you get into a fight with two cross-dressing men".

It really, really can't.

h/t [livejournal.com profile] mao4269
eumelia: (Default)
Yesterday No. 10 Downing Street released a statement regarding the treatment of Alan Turning post-WWII.

It's quite amazing.

The UK campaign was made public only last month, the international one just a few weeks after that.

The power of community, historical perspective and guilt can sure work fast.

More on that subject later, for now this is a Public Service Announcement.
eumelia: (Default)
I have a lot to blog about, but this is possibly the most optimistic piece of News that came my way today.

About six or seven years ago I was in England visiting my sister who was living there at the time. One of the weekends I spent there, the family went on a day trip to Bletchly Park.
This was very exciting for me, as the family as a whole are history buffs (to some extent) and if there was something I wanted to see it was Enigma.

I knew who Alan Turing was merely as the genius who cracked the code, as an unsung hero of WWII, I was about to enter my IDF service as an Air-Force Intelligence NCO.
I was excited at being in a place of historical gravitas.

I was unaware of what had been done to that hero and as a young, partially closeted, queer woman, this is not surprising as I did not know the history of my people before me.

For those who do not know, or were only peripherally aware, in 1952 Alan Turing was incarcerated for gross indecency under the same law that put Oscar Wilde in jail half a century earlier. He was given the choice of jail or chemical castration.

This ended his career as a scientists and more than likely brought about the end of his life two years later. He died at the age of 41, from cyanide poisoning.
The death was deemed a suicide.

Why is all this important, you ask?

Last month in Britain, a petition to issue a posthumous apology to Alan Turing was put into motion.
An international treasure was lost due to bigotry and homophobia.
These two blights of humanity are not gone, they still affect our lives and they have affected history. We do not know what Turing could have done in the years he did not live, we can only mourn the life of a man who was persecuted because he did not fit the cultural and societal norms and mores.
Those norms and mores still hold strong and are still lethal.

An international petition has been set up as well (info, links etc).

As long as some people are considered more human than others, simply because they do not fit the little boxes deemed "appropriate", noise must be made about this.

A big resounding shout in the dark.

Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] rm for the heads up and the link to [livejournal.com profile] xtricks' post on the matter.
eumelia: (Default)
Ever since (in)famous(?) Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi threw his shoe at Former (hooray!) President Bush, there have been a number of copy cats.

A shoe was thrown at the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao on Monday at his talk in Cambridge University. Unlike Mr. al-Zaidi, this protester did not manage to aim quite so squarely at Mr. Wen.

And just today a shoe and two books were thrown at Israel Ambassador Mr. Benny Dagan in Sweden.
The shoe and two books were thrown by two protesters at the University of Stockholm where Mr. Dagan was giving a talk about the upcoming elections.
I can only assume that the items were thrown in protest to the violence in Gaza.

Or Antisemitism.

Who can tell.

Although, it would appear that unlike the shoes thrown at Bush and Wen, these ones actually hit their target.

Here is a short video of the incident:


And on a more ludicrous note: books! They threw books?! Dude, shoes is one thing - it's dirty and out right disrespectful, but books! That's just disrespecting yourself.
eumelia: (Default)
Generally speaking, I ignore things that are written in the Daily Mail(1).
Also the Hitchens brothers (Peter and Christopher) are two Brits I tend not to notice, because I'm not British and I don't care for either of their politics or anything they have to say.

But this little Gem written by Peter Hitchens really takes the cake at deliberate misogyny and unabated reactionary Right-wing paranoia.

The majority of article dubbed, "How the Left censored the blindingly obvious truth about rape", is the same old, same old victim-blaming nonsense that men (and women) in positions of power spout off because it suits their interests to keep the victims of rape (the vast majority of them women) silent, ashamed and generally weakened.

What's really effed-up in this already dubious(2) piece of writing is this:
Women who get drunk are more likely to be raped than women who do not get drunk.

No, this does not excuse rape. Men who take advantage of women by raping them, drunk or sober, should be severely punished for this wicked, treacherous action, however stupid the victim may have been.

But it does mean that a rape victim who was drunk deserves less sympathy.

Emphasis mine.

It is, simply put, one of the most misanthropic (forget misogynist!) things I've ever had the misfortune to read.
Not only does it reduce the phenomena of rape to men taking "advantage" of women, as though people (women and men) who are raped or sexually assaulted merely showed lax judgment and weren't assaulted, violated and their humanity trampled, ignored and generally taken from them.
It also emphasises the fact that a woman who is intoxicated should have known this would happen. Should have expected something bad would happen because she put herself in a compromising position by being intoxicated/high/stoned/whatever.

Oh, yes there is a qualifier here, men should be punished should they happen to rape someone, no matter how stupid the victim.

Let me ask this.
Perhaps, ummm, these men shouldn't rape anyone in the first place?
No, really, is this too much to ask that when a woman is in a "compromising" position one doesn't fucking assault them!

It's all very well to teach women that we need to protect ourselves, that we shouldn't walk alone at night, to make sure we never accept a drink from someone you don't know, that you are more likely to get raped by someone you do know.

To me, the bottom line of all this is the policing of women's bodies and women's behaviour - despite rape being a phenomena that can be found in every social class, race, sexuality and gender, it is women (the future/current/constant victims of rape, assault, abuse and harassment) who are forced to modify their behaviour so that rape doesn't happen to them.

Let's get something straight, rape doesn't "happen".
Rape is committed.
And it is those who commit rape that should be blamed and not the victim who was forced, coerced and generally disempowered into a situation that s/he really has no control over.

So for fuck's sake, stop blaming the victim and controlling the behaviour of those perceived to be in constant danger due to what's between their legs and start teaching those who are told, constantly, by society that they are entitles to take whatever they want due to what between their legs.

Oh, and fuck Peter Hitchens *flips the two finger salute*

Notes
(1) The whole Holocaust off the curriculum thing notwithstanding... I should have been more critical of the article, but like most things to do with the Holocaust the first things that comes to mind is paranoia and Antisemitism.

(2) My own opinion here as I'm aware that Peter Hitchens (and Christopher) seem to have some kind of journalistic/political clout in the UK, as much as this boggles me.
eumelia: (Default)
Mother unit is learning to play Bridge with a bunch of friends, while Moi is blogging about it in the corner of the living room, having been moved away from my regular spot behind the couch because the whole furniture arrangement had to be changed.

I dunno why.

Mummy is on a bit of a moving around spree because we're going to get the whole house (my room not included as it was painted less than two years ago) so there is a cleaning frenzy because this is an opportunity to get rid of things she had been trying to for years.
Personally, this is a chance to, um, attain more books from the old bookshelves in the various (every single one of the) rooms that contain books.

There is something to be said about "Summer Cleaning".

For instance, I found a book I forgot I had and got another in, oddly, the same subject: Nonie Darwish's "Now They Call Me Infidel" and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali's "Infidel", respectively.
I have issues with some of their politics, but as women from "Muslim" countries now living in the "West" they have a unique perspective of those countries and I think a lot of people on the Left choose to ignore what these women say because they're used (and enable) certain aspects of media to use their (valid, in their experience) criticisms of Islam and the cultures they come from to show Islam as entirely anti-Woman and incapable of evolving from the "Barabrism" it's currently in - yeah, I know, *vomit*.
None the less, if you can, it's important to read what they have to say, even if I disagree with a lot of their politics.

And here's something interesting; it would appear that British Muslims feel like European Jews. This was said by First British Muslim Minister Shahid Malik who is basically saying that Muslims are targets of prejudice and discrimination, etc. etc.
Links to the articles in The Independent and Reuters.

Now, while no doubt Minister Malik has legitimate claims of discrimination towards Muslims, I mean, duh. I have a problem with the comparison to Jews. I mean, the Jews of Europe were and are treated like European Jews, just because there was an eradication attempt doesn't mean there aren't any left and in England there are quite a few Jews.
I'm sorry to say that antisemitism really isn't gone and to compare the rise in anti-Muslim and anti-Islam sentiment to the fact that antisemitism in it's current (racial) form has been around for nearly 200 years.
The anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is on the rise and has risen because of the West's (re: the USA since the Second World War and became the planet's most destructive butt-insky) constant need of an Evil Enemy.

It's West bloc vs. East bloc.

What I'm saying is, like a lot of things to do with Jews, Antisemitism is uniqe and to try and pretend it doesn't exist anymore by trying to say that Jews have been replaced by a new scapegoat doesn't sit well with me.

Huh.
This entry turned much longer than I intended... forgive me folks, my rants tend to get the better of me.
eumelia: (Default)
What is the world coming to, I ask you?
Is nothing "sacred" any longer?
Have we lost all sense of proportion when it comes to historical perspective?
Or just plain common sense?
The 14-year-old girls, whose actions were supported by their parents, The Independent said were protesting antisemitism in Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. The exam questions they refused to answer were actually about The Tempest, a different work of Shakespeare's.
"Many Jewish people would not listen to Wagner on the same grounds," The Independent quoted school principal Rabbi Abraham Pinter as saying. "I do not see an exact comparison and I don't share their view, but their decision is something I respect," he said, adding "I think Shakespeare was reflecting the ethos of the time in his portrayal of Shylock. If he was alive today, he would probably be going on anti-war marches."


On the one hand, you have to admire the ingenuity of the girls' reason (though I suspect it was the parents who gave them the idea) to get Shakespeare out of their hair. On the other hand, what kind of education is these girls (and other kids in UK schools) are getting?!

This little article made me think how lucky it is that Cats is no longer showing on the West End anymore.

Via.
eumelia: (Default)
First week of Uni is over.
It was also the beginning of the Senior Lecturer's Strike, which I agree with in principle, but aaargh, it's my first week of my first year, worst timing ever... for me!

Moving on from my self-centered University Woes.

I had two classes this week, both in Gender Studies, which were fun, I have some reading to do, which is what the weekend is for obviously. So far there's not much reading seeing as there aren't actually any classes, but I'll take advantage of the huge amounts of time I have and continue to procrastinate as I do best.

Hopefully the strike won't last more than this week, though truth be told, I'm not that hopeful since the demands will most likely not be met and the government and ministry of education will, as per usual, continue to do nothing that will actually benefit this country in the long run.

Tomorrow is Friday, with a slight chance of laziness and seeing friends I hadn't seen in two weeks and perhaps cinema and coffee.
Not everything is right with the world, but at least my little micro-cosmos is doing well.

In addition, the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

וכמו כן, צריך לעצור את רצח העם בדרפור.
eumelia: (Default)
I am obviously truly back home when I find websites to link to.
This one is important.
Most of you know that various British Institutions (universities) and Organizations (the journalists) have been calling to boycott Israel because of Human Rights Issues.
My regular readers know what I think, so it's really silly for me to repeat myself ad infinitum about the subject of the Occupation, War, Peace and Ideals.

There is a call to boycott Israel, but not China. There is a massive media attention towards the Occupied Territories, but in Sudan, Darfur has been "somewhat" ignored since 2003.

Fight the Boycott and find out what issues you really care about.

In addition, the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

וכמו כן, צריך לעצור את רצח העם בדרפור.
eumelia: (Default)
This I find worrisome.
My appreciation of things British is lessening as the days go by, because friends, a boycott of this nature does nothing but create worse conditions in Israel for people wanting higher education.

What good, really? What good would a sweeping boycott of Israeli scholars do to help with the conflict?
What would boycotting apolitical educational institutions accomplish? Other than lower the academic standards of Universities which are slipping anyway?

Dear British Academia,

If you want to help with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, come here, seriously, come here and teach and research and bring revenue into Israeli AND Palestinians Universities.
If you feel so strongly that Israel is to blame in everything wrong in Palestine (which it isn't if you bothered to read or watch the news beyond the Guardian), please, go into Gaza and the West Bank and help raise the standard of living and of education.
How about petitioning your government to boycott Arms dealing with Israel, oh but no, that's a little over your head isn't it, it isn't "micro" enough.

Seriously.

Now, I'm not one to cut myself or Israel any slack when it comes to responsibility in the Occupied Territories, but please this is just ridiculous and spiteful and ultimately it can only do harm to everyone involved.
And if you're going to boycott, how about boycotting against things that are actually hurtful to Palestinians, like goods made in Jewish Settelemnts beyind the green line.
Boycotting academics does nothing but hurt academics and nothing to help those who the Israeli Government and Army are hurting.

Text of the link: )
And just as a footnote: Lest we forget that the Palestinians hurt and kill each other (Fatah and Hamas) just fine and that they (the Hamas Al-Quasam unit) provoke Israel so that the world can ignore that oh so little fact.

Open your eyes. A conflict can never be one sided, if it was it would be an assault. There is a weaker side and stronger side, but ultimately there are two sides and both must held accountable.

In addition, the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

וכמו כן, צריך לעצור את רצח העם בדרפור.
eumelia: (Default)
The Guardian published an article calling to boycott the Israeli Medical Association.

One of our Doctors, who is a Emergency Pediatrician at Tel Ha'Shomer Hospital, put a minute and a half video on YouTube: Medicine not Politics.



A group of British physicians published a letter in the guardian — claiming that the Israeli medical association should be expelled from the international community for being inhumane
You have seen the facts. Don’t the British doctors know the facts? Don’t they understand the facts? Do they distort the truth for political reasons? I urge our British colleagues to withdraw heir letter. We are not politicians, we are physicians and we do everything in our power to help all people.


I'd also like to mention that a large portion of the medical population in Israel is Arab, in Senior Positions as well as first year interns. Many Arabs are nurses and other caregivers with in the medical population.

I ask you to spread this around, to leave a comment, to get this out there. What the British physicians are asking for will be even more detrimental to the all Palestinians (living within the Green line and across it) and all Israelis.

ETA:The original story can be found here - Hebrew link.

In addition, the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

וכמו כן, צריך לעצור את רצח העם בדרפור.
eumelia: (Default)
I get angry a lot.
No denying it.
But let me tell you what pisses me off.
Really pisses me off.
Cencorship.
And make no mistake that is exactly what it is, deciding to put away "offensive" material. Making sure the public remains ignorant and washing history in order to "smooth" things over.

And I'm afraid that is this instance I will not be excused, no, not one bit.
Ignoring History in order to be "politically correct" is the opposite of what political correctness is.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see, someone insisting that we teach the truth, show courage in the face of bigotry masked as "multi-culturalism".
True tolerance and multi-culturalism would be wanting to study history and learning from it, trying to make sure that what "went around, doesn't come around" again to bit us on the ass.
Dropping a part of Human History in school is an offense to the institute of education.

I'm keen to remind people that the Holocaust is not merely a "Jewish" experience, but a Human one and it is hardly the first genocide to appear in Human History.

In addition, why are they letting religion dictate what is taught and not taught is public schools!? You don't like what your child is learning, then either take them out of the school or phone/write/contact your MP with your complaint and see what they can do. If nothing can be done well, then bummer for you! Seriously, are these people right in the head?!

By the way, does anyone remember Darfur?.
I do.

Body of the article: Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims )

Profile

eumelia: (Default)
Eumelia

June 2015

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

V and Justice

V: Ah, I was forgetting that we are not properly introduced. I do not have a name. You can call me V. Madam Justice...this is V. V... this is Madam Justice. hello, Madam Justice.

Justice: Good evening, V.

V: There. Now we know each other. Actually, I've been a fan of yours for quite some time. Oh, I know what you're thinking...

Justice: The poor boy has a crush on me...an adolescent fatuation.

V: I beg your pardon, Madam. It isn't like that at all. I've long admired you...albeit only from a distance. I used to stare at you from the streets below when I was a child. I'd say to my father, "Who is that lady?" And he'd say "That's Madam Justice." And I'd say "Isn't she pretty."

V: Please don't think it was merely physical. I know you're not that sort of girl. No, I loved you as a person. As an ideal.

Justice: What? V! For shame! You have betrayed me for some harlot, some vain and pouting hussy with painted lips and a knowing smile!

V: I, Madam? I beg to differ! It was your infidelity that drove me to her arms!

V: Ah-ha! That surprised you, didn't it? You thought I didn't know about your little fling. But I do. I know everything! Frankly, I wasn't surprised when I found out. You always did have an eye for a man in uniform.

Justice: Uniform? Why I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. It was always you, V. You were the only one...

V: Liar! Slut! Whore! Deny that you let him have his way with you, him with his armbands and jackboots!

V: Well? Cat got your tongue? I though as much.

V: Very well. So you stand revealed at last. you are no longer my justice. You are his justice now. You have bedded another.

Justice: Sob! Choke! Wh-who is she, V? What is her name?

V: Her name is Anarchy. And she has taught me more as a mistress than you ever did! She has taught me that justice is meaningless without freedom. She is honest. She makes no promises and breaks none. Unlike you, Jezebel. I used to wonder why you could never look me in the eye. Now I know. So good bye, dear lady. I would be saddened by our parting even now, save that you are no longer the woman I once loved.

*KABOOM!*

-"V for Vendetta"

Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Page generated Mar. 29th, 2017 07:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios