mmoa_writes

...and a short cameo made by the topic of vegetarianism!



Often in discussing the EU and Britain's place within it, it has been mentioned that Britain could do well outside the EU, after the example of Finland.

Now to start off with, if Britains were to leave the EU now, we would end up quite a bit worse than Finland. We have adapted to being part of the EU, with all the economic and social privileges that brings, to such an extent that certainly to begin with, we'd find an awful lot of money and time being diverted from allowing our country to function properly, to clearing up all that blasted red tape. Our international reputation would also be at stake as the Europeans realise just how fickle and selfish we are politically, which is far worse than any amount of red tape cuttage.

But the biggest criticism I have for this argument by comparison is that Finland is not the UK. It does not have the same social mores or attitudes that we have. Politically (and indeed historically), we are different enough that their 'success story' outside the EU cannot be used as a sensible comparative. The UK has always thrived by being part of something larger - whether it was the Empire or NATO, or the EU or the countless petty treaties of centuries past. Our strength has always been that we have been part of something greater than ourselves, often partnered to nations far above us in terms of military or economic power but for some reason we have managed to persuade would do better allying themselves with us (much like modern Israel in a way, *coughs*...)

I know very little of Finland (I have only recently - and quite separately - discovered this beautiful little window http://virtual.finland.fi/) but enough that even on a superficial level, any comparison is just wishful thinking. For the UK to become what it secretly yearns to outside of the EU would a require political imagination, which we do not have today (hell, all our 'great statesmen' have often been profoundly conservative in their outlooks, from Churchill to Lloyd George, the various Pitts to Gladstone). For the UK to truly make any impact, I'm afraid it's the EU for us. Actually, I'm not afraid - I'm actually quite pleased: I reckon we'd do a good job of it if we could make up our minds whether we want to be in or out, which, as demonstrated by Brown's insistence on meaningless red tape, it seems we can't).



The best thing about City of Vice is the relationship between Mary (whose name, when mentioned in the series, is often followed by several exclamation marks) and Henry Fielding. Well, one of the best things because there's that wonderful music (cellos are a tad cliched, but here they work really well) and the blind half-brother who I find the most humane and pragmatic of the two (despite being quite harsh in his judgements of the humanity he encounters), in an odd sort of way. He seems to be the one who really sees his London for what it is, rather than as a (possible) source of inspiration for a couple of short stories.



By Feminism, I really mean 'feminism' - note lack of capital and presence of quotation marks - because I am referring to an awful habit I've noticed amongst so-called 'emancipated' young women.

You know the sort I mean - the sort who reckon pole dancing, corset-wearing and dressing in the tiniest of skirts and tops is empowering, *sighs*.

There's a difference between doing what it is that you like or believe in, and whether that thing is 'right' according to a[ny] set of given principles. Dressing as you like (and here I mean, like a model from the front cover of Playboy) is absolutely fine, but don't be fooled for a minute that it's truly empowering because you are, in the process of doing such, being shackled to a label. It's telling that most young men would think you were 'easy' or a 'slut', which again, for me isn't such a bad thing, but in the minds of said people, most definitely is (for some reason, it's okay not to treat women with respect, regardless of how they dress or conduct their personal lives. Funny, eh?).

The same goes for those of us corset wearing, stiletto stabbers: I certainly love training my waist, but there's no way I could describe it as truly empowering - I'm binding my waist, ffs, that's [literally] anything but. I still enjoy it, mind, I'm just not daft enough to describe it as 'empowering' when I know that for most people, it has connotations of Moulin Rouge style decadence and fainting Victorian heroines. It's fun - it's nice. I like it, so maybe that's something like being empowering, but certainly not in the sense that a feminist would mean ie liberating one from traditional female roles and perceptions.



Someone came up with the marvellous quote by Mahatma Gandhi which goes along the lines that a truly great society is one where it's animals are treated well/equally. Said person was a vegetarian and was upholding her moral superiority before a load of rather ignorant, rude and prejudiced... non-vegetarians.

My problem with this quote and her use of it, is that she was implying, demonstrated by the rest of her post, that by being a vegetarian, she was superior to 'society'.

This made me think and come to the conclusion that unfortunately not. If only, perhaps. Just because you are a vegetarian, does not make you apart from non-vegetarian society. You still pay taxes, buy clothes from shops, live in a house, go to college/University... in short, you are still part of the society, regardless of your personal politics. The only way to get away from it would be to set up a sort of commune (the logic of which was then beginning to dawn on me) and just 'drop out' of society. Then you would be part of a society that really was morally superior. w00t.

...

Or, fuck up the food industry from the inside, heh. That might be a good way to go.

*

For some reason, I find I really enjoy watching 'Little Miss Sunshine'. The father is the sort of figure you just love to disparage.