As much as I believe that men these days are more chauvinistic than chivalrous, I still think some ladies seriously have to suck it up, princess - just a little.
We're not going to achieve gender equality if women constantly expect men to be doormats to their every whim under the pretense of 'feminism' or whatever. I mean, seriously, the way I get treated by some men, and the horrific way women across the globe are treated by some men, even equality seems like too much to ask, let alone a complete dash of the status quo.
Women have to learn to hold their own, and not expect men to give up big chances and opportunities just to give you a bit more padding. Sure, walking curbside and opening doors and offering to carry heavy goods isn't really gonna hurt nobody, but in a competition situation gender is not an excuse for dibs.
A week or so ago on Masterchef Hayden Quinn was picked on by the press for being a little snappy at about-to-be-eliminated contestant Sun Etheridge, who in the heat of the competition didn't organize her time properly and ended up being the fourth person vying for a three-person fryer. Sun later, rather understandably, described his reaction as 'suck it up, princess', but rather unreasonably some have jumped to her defence, saying that momma's-boy Hayden should have been more courteous. What was he supposed to do, lose the competition so that the weakest link won? If the genders had been switched nobody would dare jump to Sun's aide.
I do think some people are taking this a little too far, picking on contestants on reality TV shows who cry. I know this looks bad on television, especially in a competitive setting, but seriously, crying is a natural reaction to stress and we gotta be a bit more understanding. We can't automatically assume that it's all an act, or that it's all a female act - I mean, c'mon. Hayden was crying last night.
It's sad in this day and age that we expect so much and do so little for the opposite sex. I know I'm not really practicing what I preach, but the world could do with less cynicism and more kindness.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Norway Massacre
My thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the 2011 Norway attacks. Know that hearts all around the world go out to Norway tonight, and that we stand united in times of peace and in times of war. We stand united against the threat of the Extreme Right.
Lady Solitaire
July 2011
Lady Solitaire
July 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Sexy Phantom
I am, amongst other things, a huge POTO fan. But being a bit new-age, I'm actually huge fan of the movie, because I think the portrayal of Phantom and Christine, and their relationship, was right on the money.
In the book Christine is sixteen, young, beautiful, talented and sheltered. Excluding first and third point, I am Christine in the flesh and in a position to say that the Phantom is actually pretty damn appealing if he didn't look like Michael Crawford.
The Phantom is supposed to exude dark, restless masculinity and profound sexuality, and that is his appeal to
Christine, who later learns through kindness and compassion to overlook his physical deformities. To be honest, I don't think the musical really cuts it. Gerry Butler's Phantom hasn't got Luciano Pavarotti's vocal range but he's an artist, he's a composer and an architect - a really behind-the-scenes guy. If he was such a spaztastic singer why would he want Christine to sing in the first place? There's this hint of danger about the movie's Phantom, a sense of superiority coupled with vulnerability - and I think the Phantom's mystery and sheer power is what is most appealing to a girl like Christine, who, at sixteen, probably isn't the world's most butch feminist. Michael Crawford's voice is undeniable, but he hasn't got that rock star crooning that people have criticized so much about Butler. Michael Crawford's elderly uncle appearance doesn't really make him a viable love interest - the Phantom is meant to be eye candy. There's supposed to be something sinister, slightly unhealthy and Lolita about Christine and the Phantom but Michael Crawford lacked the sex appeal for the role, and it made it just too avuncular and pedophily.
So there you go - why Gerry Butler is my choice Phantom.
In the book Christine is sixteen, young, beautiful, talented and sheltered. Excluding first and third point, I am Christine in the flesh and in a position to say that the Phantom is actually pretty damn appealing if he didn't look like Michael Crawford.
The Phantom is supposed to exude dark, restless masculinity and profound sexuality, and that is his appeal to
Christine, who later learns through kindness and compassion to overlook his physical deformities. To be honest, I don't think the musical really cuts it. Gerry Butler's Phantom hasn't got Luciano Pavarotti's vocal range but he's an artist, he's a composer and an architect - a really behind-the-scenes guy. If he was such a spaztastic singer why would he want Christine to sing in the first place? There's this hint of danger about the movie's Phantom, a sense of superiority coupled with vulnerability - and I think the Phantom's mystery and sheer power is what is most appealing to a girl like Christine, who, at sixteen, probably isn't the world's most butch feminist. Michael Crawford's voice is undeniable, but he hasn't got that rock star crooning that people have criticized so much about Butler. Michael Crawford's elderly uncle appearance doesn't really make him a viable love interest - the Phantom is meant to be eye candy. There's supposed to be something sinister, slightly unhealthy and Lolita about Christine and the Phantom but Michael Crawford lacked the sex appeal for the role, and it made it just too avuncular and pedophily.
So there you go - why Gerry Butler is my choice Phantom.
Honesty.
I confess I am a bit of a compulsive liar in that I may be lying dead in a ditch somewhere if I didn't tell little white lies all the time. I think I was born a storyteller, because I always exaggerate things - you know that cut? Yeah, I was gonna die of blood loss.
But this whole Murdoch phone-hacking scandal thing has made me realize that there are writer's out there that don't write honestly. Honesty is the purest, most honourable trait in a human being, especially in writing because writing is a trade in a reader's world - and readers need to trust writers, honest writers. This is a reason why I actually hate Rita Skeeter over Lord Voldemort, because Lord Voldemort never pretends he is any less grotesque than he is. But real life Rita Skeeters? This is unbelievable. I look at the people this scandal has hurt, the money it has cost, everything, and it really makes me sick. Not from a legal/ethical point of view as such, but I am a writer and this is all that is dear to me. I'm sure there are many people in the food industry who died inside when that Chinese baby formula scandal rose a few years back, purely because they have corrupted what is the pride and joy of many people - this is the same for me. I know that there are people out there hijacking writing for monetary gain, and to be honest, I don't really have a problem with that. But when you start crossing people, and when you start crossing the law...art cannot be used as an excuse for criminal behaviour.
I acknowledge that art is essentially lying, especially in acting and writing - but there's a right way to do it. There's a difference between fiction and backstabbing. There's a difference between fantasy and reality. There's a difference between killing off characters and hurting real people and I'm shocked that grown men and women fail to see this.
I know I'm a little green - I'm young, I haven't even graduated, I don't write for money because at this point I don't really need to. I write because I love it, and because I'm good at it, but I know that there are others who do not have this luxury and I respect that. But there are plenty of writers - artists - who have a roof over their head, food on their tables and a clear conscience. Writing should not be about backstabbing, about infringing privacy and damaging lives and reputations. Writing shouldn't be about law suits and angry parliamentary debates and uproar. I write because I love it - and everything I write comes from my heart and soul. Writing is something I hold dear to me; it is my weapon through this war of life, and my friend through times of utter desperation and heartbreaking loneliness. Writing is something very personal, but also very pure, and it kills me that people abuse such a talent in such a way. I acknowledge that Murdoch and the people in his empire must be incredibly talented people, but talented people don't hurt others; talented people don't get thrown into jail and splashed across the news because they have broken an artist's code.
But this whole Murdoch phone-hacking scandal thing has made me realize that there are writer's out there that don't write honestly. Honesty is the purest, most honourable trait in a human being, especially in writing because writing is a trade in a reader's world - and readers need to trust writers, honest writers. This is a reason why I actually hate Rita Skeeter over Lord Voldemort, because Lord Voldemort never pretends he is any less grotesque than he is. But real life Rita Skeeters? This is unbelievable. I look at the people this scandal has hurt, the money it has cost, everything, and it really makes me sick. Not from a legal/ethical point of view as such, but I am a writer and this is all that is dear to me. I'm sure there are many people in the food industry who died inside when that Chinese baby formula scandal rose a few years back, purely because they have corrupted what is the pride and joy of many people - this is the same for me. I know that there are people out there hijacking writing for monetary gain, and to be honest, I don't really have a problem with that. But when you start crossing people, and when you start crossing the law...art cannot be used as an excuse for criminal behaviour.
I acknowledge that art is essentially lying, especially in acting and writing - but there's a right way to do it. There's a difference between fiction and backstabbing. There's a difference between fantasy and reality. There's a difference between killing off characters and hurting real people and I'm shocked that grown men and women fail to see this.
I know I'm a little green - I'm young, I haven't even graduated, I don't write for money because at this point I don't really need to. I write because I love it, and because I'm good at it, but I know that there are others who do not have this luxury and I respect that. But there are plenty of writers - artists - who have a roof over their head, food on their tables and a clear conscience. Writing should not be about backstabbing, about infringing privacy and damaging lives and reputations. Writing shouldn't be about law suits and angry parliamentary debates and uproar. I write because I love it - and everything I write comes from my heart and soul. Writing is something I hold dear to me; it is my weapon through this war of life, and my friend through times of utter desperation and heartbreaking loneliness. Writing is something very personal, but also very pure, and it kills me that people abuse such a talent in such a way. I acknowledge that Murdoch and the people in his empire must be incredibly talented people, but talented people don't hurt others; talented people don't get thrown into jail and splashed across the news because they have broken an artist's code.
Rome: Naming Conventions
Okay, I was writing something about Roman naming conventions - I'll get back to that.
But firstly
How cute is Hayden from Masterchef?
But firstly
How cute is Hayden from Masterchef?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Rome: Borders
The borders of the Roman Republic is hard to gauge as Rome had differing levels of power over different parts of what is now considered the Mediterraenean (can never spell it) and Europe - for example, Egypt maintained its monarchy but was obliged to supply vital grain to Rome in exchange for military support, and was thus considered a 'vassal' of Rome, and this continued until the death of Cleopatra which coincided nicely with the rise of the Roman Empire. By my reckoning Rome controlled, either as 'client states', provinces or vassal states, the entire Mediterreanean by the eve of the assassination of Julius Caesar - this included Spain (Espania), the Italian penninsula, Northern Africa (Numidia), Egypt, Turkey (Asia), and Gaul, which is essentially France and Belgium. There is other stuff, but I'm lazy. It is said that Rome controlled one-quarter of the known population - the rest were tribal or Chinese :)
Rome was a city state so was not considered a 'capital' as it is today, but as a state within itself. Only those born in Rome and descended from Romans were considered true Romans, and they were fiercely proud of this fact, although other places in Roman control, especially the Italian penninsula, were given full or partial citizenship.
Rome was a city state so was not considered a 'capital' as it is today, but as a state within itself. Only those born in Rome and descended from Romans were considered true Romans, and they were fiercely proud of this fact, although other places in Roman control, especially the Italian penninsula, were given full or partial citizenship.
Rome: The Late Republic.
The History of Rome is divided into basic eras:
A popular era of study is referred to by Scullard as 'From the Gracchi to Nero'. This refers to the time of the Brothers Gracchi (2nd century BC) to the Emperor Nero (1st century AD), and so is the late Roman Republic to the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty of the Roman Republic. So far I have studied up to the First Triumvirate, but my particular area of interest is from the First Triumvirate to the fall of the Fall of the Roman Republic.
Please don't feel bad if you didn't understand any of the above.
I don't really want to zero in on particular events or dates because, to be honest, I'm neither an expert at those nor am I particularly interested. However, as a rough guide, my writing should apply to the period from the Brothers Gracchi to the fall of the Roman Republic - the period which I consider to be the Late Roman Republic.
- The Roman Kingdom (753 BC - 509 BC) and the Etruscan civilization (800 BC - 300 BC)
- The Roman Republic (509 BC - 27 BC)
- The Roman Empire (27 BC - AD 476) and the Western Roman Empire (285-476)
- The Byzantine Empire (395 - 1453)
A popular era of study is referred to by Scullard as 'From the Gracchi to Nero'. This refers to the time of the Brothers Gracchi (2nd century BC) to the Emperor Nero (1st century AD), and so is the late Roman Republic to the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty of the Roman Republic. So far I have studied up to the First Triumvirate, but my particular area of interest is from the First Triumvirate to the fall of the Fall of the Roman Republic.
Please don't feel bad if you didn't understand any of the above.
I don't really want to zero in on particular events or dates because, to be honest, I'm neither an expert at those nor am I particularly interested. However, as a rough guide, my writing should apply to the period from the Brothers Gracchi to the fall of the Roman Republic - the period which I consider to be the Late Roman Republic.
Rome: My Study
I grew up not knowing much about Rome, not being very interested in Rome - my main passion, history wise, was, is and always will be the Tudor Dynasty of Renaissance England. But yeah, I knew who Caesar was.
I didn't study history formally at school until this year because a) my primary school sucked and all we did was Australian history, which is so short and so boring especially studied seven years straight at a primary school level and b) because I wanted to dabble in other social science subjects last year like politics and philosophy and the history classes were full anyway - if I had applied I probably would have ended up in economics or geography.
Last year I chose my six subjects for the next two years: Literature, English, Modern History, Ancient History, Politics & Law and Psychology - and history has been a huge part of all six subjects. Modern and Ancient History speaks for themselves, but you'll be surprised how much history pops up in the others. One thing I love about history is that it encapuslates everything - everything you study, or listen to, or read, every person you meet, has a history.
My study of Ancient History got off to a shaky start. One thing that got to me was that world was so long ago, and so different from ours - other problems included everybody had the same name (seriously) and the sources are not as clear as I was used to in my self-study of later eras.
My lifesaver was the TV series ROME, which as an R-rated epic saga of the late Roman republic I had affectionately nicknamed 'prehistoric porn'. But it really made me see into the world and mindsets of the Ancient Romans, who can blame Shakespeare and Hollywood for attempting to marry a savagely pre Judeo-Christian polytheistic society with the virtues of modern-day Christian capitalism. First Man In Rome was on my booklist because my teacher is a fan of Colleen McCullough, and although it took me a little while to hack into I enjoyed it very much, and I've now read Caesar's Women which I also liked a lot - I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the rest of the series.
I am currently (narrowly) at the top of my Ancient History class, and I believe that to study history successfully you need the help of all kinds of media, even media that is more on the high-budged fictionalized side of things (but let's face it, Plutarch is hardly unbiased or reliable either) and something which I still feel is lacking: sources written at your level - sources that are easy to understand.
I am by no means an expert in this field, but I am attempting to create a set of sources that cover the society and culture of the late Roman republic aimed at high school and upper-primary school students. Please don't use this for PhDs...although given the academic inflation recently, why not?
I didn't study history formally at school until this year because a) my primary school sucked and all we did was Australian history, which is so short and so boring especially studied seven years straight at a primary school level and b) because I wanted to dabble in other social science subjects last year like politics and philosophy and the history classes were full anyway - if I had applied I probably would have ended up in economics or geography.
Last year I chose my six subjects for the next two years: Literature, English, Modern History, Ancient History, Politics & Law and Psychology - and history has been a huge part of all six subjects. Modern and Ancient History speaks for themselves, but you'll be surprised how much history pops up in the others. One thing I love about history is that it encapuslates everything - everything you study, or listen to, or read, every person you meet, has a history.
My study of Ancient History got off to a shaky start. One thing that got to me was that world was so long ago, and so different from ours - other problems included everybody had the same name (seriously) and the sources are not as clear as I was used to in my self-study of later eras.
My lifesaver was the TV series ROME, which as an R-rated epic saga of the late Roman republic I had affectionately nicknamed 'prehistoric porn'. But it really made me see into the world and mindsets of the Ancient Romans, who can blame Shakespeare and Hollywood for attempting to marry a savagely pre Judeo-Christian polytheistic society with the virtues of modern-day Christian capitalism. First Man In Rome was on my booklist because my teacher is a fan of Colleen McCullough, and although it took me a little while to hack into I enjoyed it very much, and I've now read Caesar's Women which I also liked a lot - I'm looking forward to getting my hands on the rest of the series.
I am currently (narrowly) at the top of my Ancient History class, and I believe that to study history successfully you need the help of all kinds of media, even media that is more on the high-budged fictionalized side of things (but let's face it, Plutarch is hardly unbiased or reliable either) and something which I still feel is lacking: sources written at your level - sources that are easy to understand.
I am by no means an expert in this field, but I am attempting to create a set of sources that cover the society and culture of the late Roman republic aimed at high school and upper-primary school students. Please don't use this for PhDs...although given the academic inflation recently, why not?
ROMEY
Well, you may or may not have noticed that I was trying to write something about Rome.
I will still do it, but at the moment I've deleted that post because, well, I haven't actually gotten around to writing anything yet, and I think that post will look stupid just by itself. But it is the holidays, I have got a lot of time to play with and I don't underestimate my knowledge of Roman society (even if I suck at names and such) so I will do it. Promise.
I will still do it, but at the moment I've deleted that post because, well, I haven't actually gotten around to writing anything yet, and I think that post will look stupid just by itself. But it is the holidays, I have got a lot of time to play with and I don't underestimate my knowledge of Roman society (even if I suck at names and such) so I will do it. Promise.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Can of Worms #2
Worm #6: Should you allow your seventeen-year-old to drink alcohol?
The long and short of it: Yes
My Say: I know there is a huge drinking culture here and around the world, especially amongst teenagers, and I do not condone it at all. I am fifteen and still a good three years off the legal drinking limit, and even though I'll be in uni for a whole year under the legal drinking age I don't think I have it in me to be such a delinquent - I mean, hey, I'm surviving year eleven with a whole cohort of horny sixteen-year-olds (16 is the legal age of consent here). That being said, I am a teenager, I have tasted alcohol several times before, I do quite like it and I do look forward to a time when I can drink openly - in moderation, of course. Anyway, it is inevitable that teenagers (who, on the whole, go out a lot more than I do) will run into alcohol and I think the important thing is to educate, accept the inevitable and take the novelty off alcohol - I think part of the slight temptation for me now to drink is the fact that it is illegal and it is something my parents probably would not approve of. An important factor to consider is that alcohol and teenagers is dangerous, but alcohol, teenagers and secrecy is worse. I think if parents and children can be more open about the drinking habits of all involved it would be very healthy - certainly much more healthy than a blanket ban and secret underaged drinking, which happens more often than parents like to think. Kids these days think outside the box - I know a boy who, aside from bringing his own teabags to school, also makes his own liqueur from fermented lime juice - the edibility and alcohol content of his concoction is debatable, but the thrill is there, and that's what matters. Binge drinking should never be encouraged or tolerated, but if your child would rather shoot himself than admit he had a glass of wine or half a lager to his own parents then, really, is that good?
Worm #7: Is lying good for a relationship?
The long and short of it: No.
I've lied once in a relationship, and I've been lied to once in a relationship - sad, isn't it? I've only had two, and really, both don't count once I get someone who sits and stays for more than a bloody fortnight. I lied that I was ready for a relationship at the age of eleven and I was lied to by the age of thirteen and ended up being the rebound girl. So in my experience, lying and relationships never work. Then again, two for two is hardly reliable data.
I tell white lies all the time - I think we all do. If we didn't, we all would have shot each other. I have no qualms telling white lies to even my closest friends and family, because it's natural and human and necessary and frankly, I do it because I can. But I have the stomach for honesty, and I think if you don't, or you don't think your partner does, then that is a serious flaw in any relationship - I would much rather a boyfriend said that I looked terrible and I changed before we went out rather than look unwittingly atrocious in public. Cheating is bad but lying about it is worse - cheating is a dealbreaker for me no matter what excuses he can spout but lying about it will be the motive in my murder trial.
I will continue posting all the worms in the Can of Worms series but if you have any questions of a similar nature or anything about anything juicy and controversial - like feminism, religion, etc. - please comment and I would love to give my opinion and hear yours.
The long and short of it: Yes
My Say: I know there is a huge drinking culture here and around the world, especially amongst teenagers, and I do not condone it at all. I am fifteen and still a good three years off the legal drinking limit, and even though I'll be in uni for a whole year under the legal drinking age I don't think I have it in me to be such a delinquent - I mean, hey, I'm surviving year eleven with a whole cohort of horny sixteen-year-olds (16 is the legal age of consent here). That being said, I am a teenager, I have tasted alcohol several times before, I do quite like it and I do look forward to a time when I can drink openly - in moderation, of course. Anyway, it is inevitable that teenagers (who, on the whole, go out a lot more than I do) will run into alcohol and I think the important thing is to educate, accept the inevitable and take the novelty off alcohol - I think part of the slight temptation for me now to drink is the fact that it is illegal and it is something my parents probably would not approve of. An important factor to consider is that alcohol and teenagers is dangerous, but alcohol, teenagers and secrecy is worse. I think if parents and children can be more open about the drinking habits of all involved it would be very healthy - certainly much more healthy than a blanket ban and secret underaged drinking, which happens more often than parents like to think. Kids these days think outside the box - I know a boy who, aside from bringing his own teabags to school, also makes his own liqueur from fermented lime juice - the edibility and alcohol content of his concoction is debatable, but the thrill is there, and that's what matters. Binge drinking should never be encouraged or tolerated, but if your child would rather shoot himself than admit he had a glass of wine or half a lager to his own parents then, really, is that good?
Worm #7: Is lying good for a relationship?
The long and short of it: No.
I've lied once in a relationship, and I've been lied to once in a relationship - sad, isn't it? I've only had two, and really, both don't count once I get someone who sits and stays for more than a bloody fortnight. I lied that I was ready for a relationship at the age of eleven and I was lied to by the age of thirteen and ended up being the rebound girl. So in my experience, lying and relationships never work. Then again, two for two is hardly reliable data.
I tell white lies all the time - I think we all do. If we didn't, we all would have shot each other. I have no qualms telling white lies to even my closest friends and family, because it's natural and human and necessary and frankly, I do it because I can. But I have the stomach for honesty, and I think if you don't, or you don't think your partner does, then that is a serious flaw in any relationship - I would much rather a boyfriend said that I looked terrible and I changed before we went out rather than look unwittingly atrocious in public. Cheating is bad but lying about it is worse - cheating is a dealbreaker for me no matter what excuses he can spout but lying about it will be the motive in my murder trial.
I will continue posting all the worms in the Can of Worms series but if you have any questions of a similar nature or anything about anything juicy and controversial - like feminism, religion, etc. - please comment and I would love to give my opinion and hear yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)