Friday, 26 May 2017

Even Playboy Bunnies will grow old one day

The folly of youth is to think that it is a permanent unchanging state of being without fear of wrinkles, bent spines and people laughing at your advancing age. Some of us may remember being victims of this delusional hallucinatory phase at some stage in our youth but we did not think it to be true all of the time. 

The term 'youth' may be contested with attempts to define its' outer boundaries i.e does it end when you are 21, 25 or later? Whatever the consensus the boundary does not stretch to 30. At the age of 30 you are, of course, young but you certainly aren't 'youth' and you really ought to have learnt by now that nothing lasts forever, not even a pert derriere that looks great encased in the uniform Playboy bunny costume. 
Dani Mather
That is unless you live in the Ga Ga Land of Playboy where women dressed as bunnies claim to be empowered while living in a mansion which has its own Wikipedia entry. Reality must be as further away from this abode as the Easter Bunny is from Christmas. But bunnies, of the two legged sort, aren't immune from other norms of society like the law of the land. 

Cue the Playboy Bunny who has this week been convicted for taking a photo of a naked 70 year old woman in a Gym changing room.

Dani Mather,  Playmate of the Year 2015, who is 30 years old (refer back to what I said in the first para above) took the following photo at an LA Fitness Club and posted it on Snapchat with the message: "If I can't unsee this then you can't either". 
Given Playboy's gift for soft soaping misogynistic messages Dani Mather's message was no different in tone and substance. She not only body shamed a 70 year old but ratcheted up the wickedness of the situation by referring to old age as a misery that must be shared because it is too great a burden to be borne by one person. If this is the extent of the horribleness that Dani has seen to date then she clearly has not been exposed to much. 

Let's not also forget that Dani Mather is a disciple of a 91 year old, Hugh Hefner, owner of the Playboy empire. Given his penchant for nudity in a world which Dani actively inhabits does she actually not anticipate that old age is something that beckons all? Or is it the sight of an old female body that nauseates her?

Dani Mather with Hugh Hefner
The complexities in the mind of this silly woman can only be the result of living in a twisted world of misogyny where the superficiality of it all is traded upon your looks and your pertness. 

Dani, you won't be a young woman forever. You are now old enough to know better. You too will be that lady one day. Now go and educate yourself about feminism. 
SHARE:

Tuesday, 16 May 2017

“Young people should live within their means”

Young people need to fight more than ever for their future and this in itself is an understatement. Almost every sphere of politics contains a cost benefit outcome for youngsters and never have the stakes been so high. Throw a dice up in the air with the words 'housing', 'education', 'work', 'open spaces', 'living costs' and 'political structures' written on it and, no matter which way the dice falls, each issue carries a weight of negative repercussions for young people. 


What is worse is that this six issue list of does not cover all that affects youngsters which is why it is super imperative for them to take ownership of their future through a vote. 

Some days ago I was having dinner with a friend whom I thought shared my political beliefs. I brought up the subject of young people and was flabbergasted when he launched into one of those "when I was young" claiming the high moral ground type anecdote. No doubt we have all heard one of these before. Your grandparents tell them, your parents tell them or, in my case with a 17 year old daughter, I tell them too but the chord of superiority that was evident in my friend's narrative stopped me in my tracks. 

He spoke about how young people want more than they have and are not willing to put the work in to achieve this. I challenged him all the way. His killer line, as he saw it, was "young people should live within their means". This was a killer line, come to think of it, in more ways than one. 

It is a statement that is as loaded as a dead weight sinking into the sea because of its' presumption that young people have an oyster at their feet as opposed to a broken system that has undermined their prospects. Take education for example, there is not a level playing field with schools what with comprehensives receiving a low priority on the political agenda, academies sucking up huge amounts of money and failing too and the possible introduction of grammar schools. 

The education system is being re-landscaped over and over again to create an outcomes based field. By this I mean that whether a young person has attended a comprehensive in a low income area or a grammar school in a posh area their entry into the world of work or further education is decided by a grade system that assumes a level playing field. 



This dystopia is masked quite cleverly by stigma. It deems young people's existence as being unworthy of high political attention. Flash a few pictures of drunken youngsters at raves, brandishing smartphones and dressed in the latest fashion gear and you have a picture that plays to this stigma. 

These scenarios area mask for the reality of youngsters who are struggling to find their way around an education system where head teachers have to beg for money from parents; and for dejected youngsters who have been sold a puff dream of 'independence' but can't get a foot on the housing ladder because there is not enough social housing or because rents in the private sector are too high. The assumption that behind every youngster that there is a set of parents who run a domestic bank from their living room is another mask for the growing poverty that underpins young people's lives. Parents themselves are struggling with a low wage economy which does not leave much money left over at the end of the month. 

This election could be THE game changer for the young. I have a 17 year old daughter. I have a vested interest too in getting the young vote out. She can't vote yet but those who are 18 years old can. Older people have a huge stake in the young vote too. The stakes are high. The solution is to register to vote and get out and vote on the 8th of June. 

There are a number of great organisations listed below which are encouraging the same. Seek their help if you are unsure of anything. Email me even if you wish: ambitiousmamas@gmail.com. 




 

SHARE:

Saturday, 6 May 2017

A Twitter take on the Trump family


But money can buy you more money at the expense of the masses:

(photo allegedly taken some years ago but Trump properties still trade on the Phillipino market)

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-profit-white-house



SHARE:

Thursday, 20 April 2017

What do you do with a problem like Corbyn?

If ever there was a politician caught between a rock and a hard place it is Jeremy Corbyn. Seldom do you find a politician who possesses those rare qualities that aligns itself with a vision of what politics should be about. Corbyn cares for the vulnerable and needy, subscribes to the 'greater good' principle and dares to confront the social reality of inequality. Despite all this he is still unpopular and is not predicted to take Labour to victory.

So when the election was called on Tuesday 18 February why did Corbyn endorse it? Surely the safest option would have been to have refused to vote in support on the grounds that the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 was passed precisely for the reason that Prime Ministers would not be able to call elections when it suited them.

By forcing the Government to wait till 2020 would have given Corbyn enough time to prove that he can (or cannot) be a capable leader. A common defensive argument made in support of Corbyn is that he has not been given the time to prove himself seeing that a lot of his time has been taken up with internal fighting.

But is it as clear cut as that?

Corbyn is a case of 'doomed if you do and doomed if you don't. What this translates into is the fact that if Corbyn had refused to vote in support he would have faced a barrage of criticism under the headline of being an obstacle to democracy, never mind that he would have been following a democratic rule i.e the Parliament Act. People would have been blind to the fact that the PM has called the election to knock the opposition sideways and at such an angle that it would not be able to provide any substantive challenge her.

Corbyn then opts to support the election call and is called a turkey who votes for Christmas. He can do no right. While I do think that Corbyn has problems projecting himself as a leader much of the arguments against him have been media constructs. Like a stuck record the media play and replay the same old arguments such as Corbyn's supposed anti-semitism. He is starved of the oxygen of publicity while other politicians, in comparison, speak drivel and are given an easier time.

As an example, Corbyn is making social inequality a centre point of his election campaign but has not received praise for this even though the evidence is overwhelming that the equality gap between rich and poor is growing bigger by the day. On the other hand other politicians who bring the same topic up are seen as tackling the problem of a social ill.

Jeremy Corbyn is caught between a rock and a hard place if there ever was such a political situation.




SHARE:
MINIMAL BLOGGER TEMPLATES BY pipdig