Thursday, November 08, 2012
Feminist gets incoherent about pornography
Feminists mostly are. They preach sexual liberation but don't like what it produces. Liberation for me but not for thee, seems to be their gospel. They are prudes without moorings. Just some excerpts below. In the second last paragraph she says she has no problem with pornography -- as long as it is "nice" pornography, apparently. She'd make a good little Fascist: Cheerfully intolerant of other people's choices and preferences. Nobody forced her to buy a lads' magazine. She is just a self-righteous busybody
By Clementine Ford
I’ve spent the past few weeks monitoring the hideous mess that is the Zoo Weekly Facebook page, a group which currently boasts more than 33,000 members.
As far as I can tell, the group’s updates seem to divide their time between two things. Firstly, inviting female fans to submit half naked photographs of themselves to be ‘liked’ and commented on by the group’s members, presumably with the purpose of being later featured in the magazine itself for the financial reimbursement of ‘Validation’. And secondly, to conduct a complicated game called ‘Left or Right’ in which members are presented with two images (mostly of women) and asked to choose which side they’d prefer. While the game seems to mostly preoccupy itself with the challenge of choosing between which of the attractive women in the pairings the members would most like to insert their penises into, the occasional inclusion of morbidly obese women seems designed to elicit sophisticated responses like this: “I’ve got a awesome pick up line for the one on the right.. I’d just roll up with “Geeze you don’t sweat much for a fat mole”” and I’ll smashing it all night..”
Ladies, form an orderly queue.
Unfortunately, this isn't just about the antics of a bunch of perpetually juvenile men and their light-hearted fondness for female objectification. It's also part of a much broader attempt to limit the roles women are allowed to play - to offer a retro system of reward for those who play along, and punishment for those who don't. It explains why a handful of fans and commenters on Zoo Weekly's Facebook page are women, why so many of them send free photos of themselves in g-strings and disembodied poses, and why these things leap so jarringly off the page with the palpable desperation to be noticed by the discerning critics around them. The world is full of the kind of female chauvinist pigs that Ariel Levy wrote about in her polemic of the same name; women who prostrate themselves before a cavalcade of men, whose mutually shared view of their value is inherently tied up in female willingness to subjugate itself for approval.
Let me be clear about one thing. I have no problem with sexting, pornographic photographs or women getting off on being looked at and sexually desired. But the mass objectification that takes place in a realm like Zoo Weekly is something different, and sits uncomfortably in any kind of dialogue trying to pass it off as empowered sexual expression. Getting off on being fantasised about is one thing. Facilitating a system that sees your ONLY value as being how much its male participants want to ‘smash you’ is another thing entirely.
At the end of the day, we can talk all we like about empowered choice and sex positive feminism. These things have no currency in a model that thrives on offering women up on a platter to cater to the sexual fantasies men who will never respect them. It doesn’t matter how many enthusiastic endorsements a woman might get for how her bottom looks in a lacy g-string. At the end of the day, she’s still nothing more than a vagina that can't talk back or a torso that can't run away.
Bus driver who was fired for being in British anti-immigration party wins human rights case
The sacking of a bus driver for being a member of the far-right BNP was a breach of his human rights, the European court of human rights has ruled.
The decision by judges in Strasbourg follows a long legal battle by Arthur Redfearn, 56, who was sacked in 2004 from his job in Bradford, West Yorkshire, driving mainly Asian adults and children with disabilities.
The court ruled the actions of Serco breached Article 11 – the freedom of assembly and association – because he was sacked only because of his membership of a political party. The seven judges reached their decision on a 4-3 majority.
The court said it was "struck by the fact that he had been summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role".
It added: "In fact, prior to his political affiliation becoming public knowledge, neither service users nor colleagues had complained about Mr Redfearn, who was considered a 'first-class employee'."
It said the right to freedom of association "must apply not only to people or associations whose views are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those whose views offend, shock or disturb".
The judgment also criticised the fact Redfearn could not bring a case of unfair dismissal against Serco in 2004 because UK law said he had not worked long enough for the firm. The driver was forced to claim race discrimination because no unfair dismissal claim was allowed within the first year of employment.
The court said the UK had to "take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect employees, including those with less than one year's service, from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation, either through the creation of a further exception to the one-year qualifying period under the 1996 Act or through a freestanding claim for unlawful discrimination on grounds of political opinion or affiliation".
The court heard how Redfearn worked for Serco as a driver from December 2003 until his dismissal on June 30, 2004.
In its judgment, the court said there had been no problems with his work but other employees and trade union complained after his BNP membership was revealed in a local paper. He was summarily dismissed when he was elected as local councillor for the BNP.
In August 2004 he lodged a claim of race discrimination which was dismissed by an employment tribunal which found that any discrimination against him had been on health and safety grounds.
The tribunal found his continued employment could cause considerable anxiety among Serco's passengers and their carers and there was a risk vehicles could come under attack from opponents of the BNP.
In July 2005 Mr Redfearn successfully appealed against this decision after an appeal tribunal heard no consideration had been given to any alternatives to dismissal.
But, in May 2006, the court of appeal allowed Serco's appeal, finding that Mr Redfearn's complaint was of discrimination on political and not racial grounds, which fell outside anti-discrimination laws. He was also refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
British council bans war veterans from marching through village because they had not completed extraordinary list of 'elf and safety demands
War veterans were banned from walking through a village to honour fallen comrades because they had not completed an extraordinary list of council ‘elf and safety demands.
For almost 80 years, a small group of former servicemen in Warton, North Warwickshire, has marched with pride along a road in their town to lay wreaths at a local war memorial on Remembrance Sunday.
This year, however, the group’s seven remaining members were told they would have to use the pavement instead - because they had not provided an event plan, risk assessment forms, emergency contact details, marshals, event traffic management procedures, road closure applications, an evacuation plan and public liability insurance.
The staggering list of demands was eventually withdrawn after a campaign from outraged locals - but the British Legion veterans are still being made to fill in the ‘risk assessment’ forms before they can complete their five minute walk.
The men have now spoken of their ‘disgust’ at the way they have been treated. They added that they never had to complete ‘health and safety’ forms when they fought for their country and would have marched on the road regardless of the council’s decision.
In previous years, two local councillors have briefly stopped traffic so members of the Warton Royal British Legion could perform their traditional walk. This year, however, they were told it was unsafe to do so without applying for the road to be closed and marshalling the ‘event’ themselves.
‘With only seven active members, if we had acted as marshals there would be no-one left to march,’ said Terry Casey, a former Royal Air Force electrical mechanic who fixed Canberra bombers, Javelin Fighters and Lightnings.
‘It’s the first year we’ve had to do all this paper work. I didn’t deal with anything like that when I was in the RAF.’ Mr Casey, who is the branch secretary of the local British Legion, added: ‘I’m really angry and upset that this has happened. ‘It is a less than five minutes march from the school to the memorial. Then we hold the Act of Remembrance, then it’s a short march to the church - ten minutes at the most. ‘Normally we just notify the police that we are going to hold our parade and they say that’s fine, do you want us to come?’
Warton Royal British Legion membership secretary Alf Webber said: ‘We’re very pleased the council has finally seen sense. The parade in Warton has been going on since the war memorial was put up and when we thought we wouldn’t be able to do it, we were disgusted. ‘I wouldn’t have walked on the footpath, I’d have walked straight up the road regardless and placed my wreath on the memorial.’
A spokesman for the council said: ‘The Warton Parade will now go ahead this Sunday. We’ve spoken to the organiser and offered to help with his risk assessment. ‘Marshalling will be provided by the Parish Council.’
A spokesman for Warwickshire Police added: ‘We have the highest regard for the Royal British Legion and all those involved in the organisation of the annual events and throughout Warwickshire officers will be joining them on November 11 to pay our respects to those who have lost their lives in conflict.’
British newsagent bans children from buying shooting magazines
The country's biggest newsagent WH Smith has banned children from buying shooting magazines, even though it is legal for them to hold a shotgun licence.
It is a sport enjoyed by thousands of children, and one which gained Britain a gold medal at the Olympics.
But children have been banned from buying shooting hobby magazines by Britain’s biggest newsagent - even though it is entirely legal for them to own a gun.
WH Smith, Britain’s biggest chain of newsagents, has banned youngsters from buying copies of country sports magazines after a campaign by animal rights activists.
The retailer, whose founding family owned a highly prized shoot in Buckinghamshire, says it has introduced an age limit on such magazines as Shooting Times because children are not allowed to obtain a firearms certificate until they are 14.
However, sports enthusiasts point out that this is wrong. There is no minimum age for holding a shotgun licence in Britain, although children below 18 cannot buy or own a gun themselves and under-14s must be supervised by an adult.
They question why the high street chain does not restrict the sale of motoring magazines such as TopGear to those old enough to drive.
“It is extraordinary that in WH Smith you can buy a car magazine at any age, despite the age limit of 17 for driving,” said Christopher Graffius, of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.
“You can also buy numerous war magazines which depict the killing of people, yet WH Smith is concerned about children buying shooting magazines, a legal and an Olympic sport. “They are also causing enormous offence to adult shooters who are stopped at auto-scan tills.”
Thousands of youngsters take part in the sport at shooting clubs across the country and with the Cadet corps and Scouts.
“At the recent party conferences, front-bench spokesmen and Government ministers sang the praises of shooting sports for the sense of responsibility and discipline that they encourage in the children who take them up,” Mr Graffius added. “Yet WH Smith is trying to keep the magazines that encourage that approach out of children’s hands.”
British shooting achieved prominence at the Olympic Games when Peter Wilson won gold in the double trap, having begun shooting when he was still at school.
There are no legal restrictions on magazine purchasing. Legally acceptable pornographic magazines can be sold to customers of any age. Newsagents display them on the top shelf only by convention, so that children cannot reach them, while WH Smith voluntarily imposes a ban on them being bought by under-18s.
Earlier this year, Animal Aid, Britain’s largest animal rights organisation, published a report which claimed that the “lurid, pro-violence content” of country sports magazines could have a “corrosive, long-lasting effect on impressionable young minds”.
The report, Gunning For Children: How the gun lobby recruits young blood, argued that titles promoting guns should be put on the top shelf alongside pornography and banned for sale to under-18s.
It claimed that the magazines showed pictures of young children holding up or standing over shot pheasants, rabbits, foxes and pigeons and “glorified” cruelty.
A WH Smith spokesman said: “As part of our commitment to operate our business responsibly, we have a till prompt on shooting titles. "It asks our store teams to check that the customer is 14 years old or over, based on this being the legal age at which someone can possess a firearms certificate.”
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.