March 2, 2010
Public Service Announcement
For some reason a lot of comments are ending up in the spam net.
I’m not sure why this is. If your comment disappears after you hit “submit”, then bung me an email to alert me that it has probably been captured by the spam filter.
paul [at] the bad conscience [dot] com
March 26, 2009
Victory
Last January I urged readers to make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency regarding a series of adverts by Maximuscle Protein on the London Underground. I know from checking the “links clicked” function that a fair number of people did.
Well, today I received a letter from the ASA saying:
“As we advised, we contacted Maximuscle Ltd to request substantiation for the claims made in their posters. Maximuscle responded by acknowledging the potential problem presented by the posters in their present form. They advised us that the posters would be removed by their media provider. They also signalled their willingness to follow our advice on how future posters could be amended to avoid the impression that the use of their products and two gym sessions a week could achieve the results implied by the gneral message of the ad.
We have obtained their written assurance that they will make more prominent the other factors, such as diet, involved in achieving the results. We have also asked them to clarify the length of time taken for the results to become apparent as this is clearly a relevant qualification to claims highlighting the benefits of their products. We shall keep a copy of their assurance on file and close the investigation on that basis.”
Which has cheered me up no end. I do suspect Maximuscle’s ad run had already finished by the time they “agreed” to remove the posters, but the point is that if they try it again, the ASA are watching them.
Thanks to everyone who helped.
March 1, 2009
Trimble Part II
I’m still smarting about the treatment of Gail Trimble. Not helped by comment pieces such as this.
Here’s another take.
Last Monday Gail Trimble captained Corpus Christi to victory over Manchester in the University Challenge final. The match was gripping. Manchester led until the final 10 minutes, before Corpus unleashed intellectual thunderbolts to win decisively.
Much has been written about Trimble’s formidable intellect – and her looks. As Trimble herself has pointed out, it’s unlikely she would have been referred to as “Tasty Trimble”, or described as “very sexy” [cf Sunday's Observer article in main section] if she were a man. Actually, there’s proof of this. Last year’s winning captain, Christ Church’s Max Kaufmann, was arguably as smart as Trimble – but nobody passed comment as to whether or not he was “a mite sexy”.
So in 2009 one of the most intelligent people ever to grace our screens cannot be discussed simply in terms of her formidable intellect. Rather, some comment must be made regarding her status as on object of male desire. Indeed, Trimble has apparently reached the heights of approval for a society obsessed with presenting women as sexually available automatons for male satisfaction: it has emerged that “lads’ mag” Nuts offered her a nude photo shoot. [cf BBC Oxfordshire, The Independent]
On the subject of magazines and social attitudes, if asked what the main contributing factors to attitudes holding women to be ever-willing receptacles for male appendages, most people would probably cite lads’ mags like Nuts.
As it happens, I have a magazine on my desk. Opening it, I find a stunningly attractive woman in a white bikini. Turning the page there is another beautiful girl, her hair wet as she stares up at me longingly. Reading the articles, I find this: “Forget thigh boots, fearsome whips and scary spike devices. Fetish is going mainstream.” Another article intones “I’ve had erections in church. I admit it, I’ve had one on the Nemesis ride at Alton Towers, upside down, pulling G4s”.
What am I reading? FHM? Nuts? Maxim? Zoo? All wrong. It’s not a lads’ mag at all. It’s a mainstream “women’s lifestyle” magazine. You know the kind; glossy, small enough to fit in a handbag, stuffed with sex and shopping.
Such magazines repeat a series of core messages:
1) The object of a woman’s life is to find “the one” (translation: rich, good-looking man) and keep him. Everything else is secondary.
2) It is essential to always be sexually desirable. Ideally: large breasts and small waist. If you can’t meet this ideal naturally, consider surgery.
3) You must never show insecurity to a potential “one”, or he will flee. This means concealing many of your emotions despite being in a (supposedly) intimate relationship.
4) Never refuse sexual advances from your partner, or else he will go elsewhere. You can have no complaints about infidelity if you don’t put out.
Etcetera.
These magazines are written by women and read by millions more. Yet the message they convey is indistinguishable from lads’ mags: that a woman’s purpose and function is to be an object of male desire. Actually, they may be worse. Lads’ mags just have pictures of tits, these lifestyle publications provide direct written instruction.
There are those who will use my words as a way of attacking women and vindicating demeaning patriarchal attitudes. To do that is to argue two wrongs make a right.
What we have is a sorry state of affairs: a society where no matter what a woman achieves, she is forever subjected to the scrutiny of male sexual desire. Even a bona fide genius like Trimble is not exempt.
And this malaise runs deep. This is not a state of affairs forcefully imposed by men on women. It is one being wilfully perpetrated and endorsed by literally millions of women. Proponents of lifestyle magazines will claim they are liberating women, making them independent. What strange brands of liberation and independence they sell.
**************
Although it appears Trimble’s victory may be tainted by the revelation that one of her co-contestants was a fraud!
February 22, 2009
Read This
Over at Comment is Free.
It’s by my girlfriend, Beth.
Then write to your MP asking what they are going to do about the situation. Or, alternatively, leave inane, misogynistic fits of verbal diarrhea on the comments section, as a number of Britain’s Finest Minds have chosen to do.
February 13, 2009
Free Speech
Johann Hari always writes excellent articles, and here he may even have out-done himself.
February 12, 2009
BBC and Golliwogs
Playing catch-up on this debacle as i’ve been pretty busy over the past week.
I wasn’t sure what I made of the Carol Thatcher sacking until I read this piece by Catherine Bennett in last Sunday’s Observer.
Bennett’s articles are consistently the amongst the best in the Observer, surpassed only perhaps by Andrew Rawnsley’s. In this case Bennett’s argument as usual manages to be powerful, witty and convincing.
However I think it’s wrong, and here’s why.
The Thatcher case is not symetrical to the Max Mosley privacy case for one crucial reason: If the BBC, a publicly funded broadcasting body sworn by statute to impartiality, were to continue to employ somebody who thought it was acceptable to use the word “golliwog” in front of colleagues, this would be inconsistent with its duty to promote racial equality as a publicly funded body which itself claims to be committed to promoting racial equality.
The BBC is (rightfully) committed to moving beyond crass racist stereotypes, and doing so is part of its right to exist as a publicly funded broadcaster. It is straightforwardly impossible for the BBC to be committed to this and to continue to employ Carol Thatcher – especially after she refused to apologise.
The case is therefore not symmetrical with Max Mosely. Formula 1 is not committed to not promoting or condoning Germanic S&M orgies. It is still up to the discretion of Formula 1 if it wants to sack people who engage in this sort of behaviour, but it is not duty-bound in the way the BBC is duty-bound to promote racial equality. And furthermore, the Max Mosely case is most especially about privacy and the press – which is not analogous to racism not being tolerated by one’s employer.
So thank you Ms Bennett for writing a thoroughly good piece which allowed me to clarify my thoughts – even if ultimately that clarity allowed me to decide that you got it wrong.
At least we can still laugh at the mongs in public
Pick up any right-wing tabloid and you’re likely to come across at least one story lamenting the rise of “Political Correctness Gone Mad.” Sad words are imparted about how one used to be able to call a spade a spade – but, alas, no more!
Readers of such newspapers will no doubt be cheered to hear that whilst it is no longer acceptable to call black people “Gollywogs”, the PC Brigade have left one manifestation of “tradition” and “common sense” unmolested: it’s still ok to laugh at the mentally ill, and nobody bats an eyelid.
Witness the video on this Guardian article.
Ben Child makes the very plausible argument that Phoenix knows exactly what he is doing, and hasn’t lost the plot at all. That, rather, this is an elaborate publicity stunt.
But if it isn’t, Phoenix’s treatment is shocking. If the man isn’t faking it, he’s in the midst of a serious mental breakdown. The reaction? Mockery by his host and unabashed whooping ridicule from the audience.
Not a pretty picture.
I hope Phoenix is faking it. Faking it in order to produce a documentary about the dark-age attitudes modern society still exhibits towards people with mental health problems.
February 10, 2009
Stranger Than Fiction
A Giant Horse is to be erected in North Kent.
60 million people will see it each year.
If any of those people were to stand next to the horse, they would be no higher than one of its hooves.
The horse is nicknamed “The Angel of the South”.
In 3,000 years the survivors of Global Climate Collapse will either worship this giant Horsegod or else establish museum exhibits purporting to explain why we did.
November 29, 2008
Some Implications of the Arrest of Damian Green
EDIT: As Peter points out in the comments, it was a MISTAKE (shared with several Saturday newspaper commentators) to say Damian Green was arrested under counter-terrorism legislation. He was not, though counter-terrorism officers did assist in his arrest. Make what you will of this post in that light.
Continuing to operate on the assumption that Damian Green was arrested for releasing documents that embarrassed the government – also known as doing his job – and isn’t guilty of doing something like endangering national security by releasing sensitive defence documents, let’s consider some implications.
Lots of attention has been paid to the fact there must almost certainly be resignations. Michael Martin seems most likely to fall: given that he authorised the arrest and searches, combined with the fact he is a particular hate figure for the Opposition, it is widely expected he will have to go. Jacqui Smith is also under threat, as many have commented. Perhaps even Brown will be under pressure – see an excellent article here (yes, even I read Conservative Home occasionally).
Many words have already been given over to the nature of this arrest. Nick Clegg said it was more reminiscent of a “tinpot dictatorship” than a modern democracy. Conservatives have been gleefully chucking around the term “Stalinst”. Although it is unhelpful in the long term to use such extreme language, it has to be said that these commentators still have a very large point.
What I want to focus on here, however, hasn’t received much attention generally: the implications for trusting the word of a government which has proven itself to have more authoritarian designs than any other in history.
When Brown froze the assets of Icesave using counter-terrorism legislation two months ago, most people were happy to turn a blind eye. It was an economic crisis, we were told, something had to be done fast and this was the only way to do it. So when Brown explicitly invoked legislation designed for one thing and used it for something completely different, most people let him off.
We should not turn a second blind eye. That Damian Green was arrested under counter-terrorism legislation is not only scandalous in itself (for, in lieu of further revelations, he was doing nothing like aiding or abetting terrorism), it is a dire warning to us all. This government wants to introduce a raft of authoritarian, liberty-restriction legislation, foremost being 42-day detention for suspected terrorists, and I.D. cards for all. The government has frequently assured us that when such things are introduced they will be carefully regulated. 42-day detention will just be for dangerous terrorist suspects. I.D. card biometric information will be carefully regulated, and passed on only to approved agencies when absolutely necessary.
The use of counter-terrorism legislation to arrest a sitting front-bench MP for embarrassing the government puts the lie to the government’s claims, and should make us all suspicious of their proposed legislation. Whether ministers ordered the police to arrest Green, whether they knew about his imminent arrest in advance, or whether they knew nothing, it doesn’t matter. The fact is legislation passed on the justification of it being necessary for national security has now been hopelessly abused, whether the government authorised the abuse or not. Why should we believe the case will be any different with 42-day detention or I.D. cards?
November 25, 2008
You won’t get this in The Sun
Over at the Guardian’s website there is a simply outstanding series of articles about Nietzsche’s On The Genealogy of Morals. Rarely do you get this sort of care, attention, appreciation of depth, honesty and accuracy in respect to philosophical work outside of academia.
It’s cheered me up no end – though not enough to start creating my own values and throw-off the worm-morality of my Christian heritage. At least not just yet.
