Little Ranty Woman

[bee3line-blog]

Women

To refuse to accept that some people have a sense of their own gender identity so strongly they welcome extensive surgery to even feel comfortable in their own bodies is to place politics before compassion, and deliberately denying your capacity for human understanding and empathy.

You idiots.

[bee3line-blog]

I just supported Phonebloks on @ThunderclapIt // @davehakkens

[bee3line-blog]

Historical precedent should be applied to gay marriage

When Henry VIII wanted to do something that the church ‘would not let him’ and ‘voted against’ he just started a new church that did allow him to do what he wanted. 

Now we have many different christian doctrines with a variety of beliefs and faiths based on how they interpret and choose to live by the words of the bible. Usually we need one charismatic inspired leader to start up and draw allegiance to a new church.

So, why don’t the people who really care about and really want gay marriage, those for whom this truly is a ‘great matter’, start their own version of a christian doctrine which allows them to do that? Just break away from those who believe that the definition is biblically defined as between a man and a woman, because it’s never going to stop being important to them to keep that definition.  A new version of the christian doctrine which defines marriage as a union between two people held in the heart of god. Then let the people who go to church can choose which church they wish to attend. (It would be like what happens now, but official.)

Oh yeh, and while we’re at it why NOT have Civil Partnerships for everyone? If you don’t believe in god, and just really want the legal, constitutional and public recognition of the relationship you have, it’s the perfect arrangement. It offers everything that a marriage does, but out-with any religious context.

[bee3line-blog]

What if the church cared about the welfare state as much as they care about gay marriage

Imagine a world where the church was prepared to stand up and speak out against blatant injustice being perpetrated by the government of the day.  Imagine if the Independent on Boxing day morning had read as follows:

Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, warned that the Government's plans would create a "sham" version of a welfare state. Urging all citizens to join the political struggle against welfare reform, the Archbishop of Westminster used a midnight Mass to criticise governments which "mistakenly promote such patterns of discimination as objectively to be approved and even encouraged among the young".

In his strongest attack on the proposal, Archbishop Nichols told the BBC yesterday: "There was no announcement in any party manifesto, no Green Paper, no statement in the Queen's Speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation. From a democratic point of view, it's a shambles."

Accusing the Government of ignoring the result of its consultation exercise, he said: "George Orwell would be proud of that manoeuvre. I think the process is shambolic."

The Rt Rev Mark Davies, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Shrewsbury, also told a midnight Mass at Shrewsbury Cathedral: "This Christmas we are also conscious of new shadows cast by a Government that pledged at its election to support the institution of The NHS and the Welfare State … the Prime Minister has decided without mandate, without any serious consultation to redefine the identity of welfare itself, the foundation of compassion for all generations to come. This is again done in the name of progress … The British people have reason to ask on this night: 'Where is such progress leading?'"

The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, also highlighted the issue of welfare reform in his Christmas Day sermon at Durham Cathedral. Saying that some felt the UK was in a period of "division" and "betrayal", he continued: "There are profound differences of opinion about the nature of truth and its place in society, about the right of an ancient tradition to dictate or even to advocate ethical values around the end of life, around the nature of human relationships, inequality, our duty to each other."

The only changes I have made to this article are to change "Gay Marriage" to "Welfare Reforms" and 2 other words to help it make sense, that's all. For the actual Independent report see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gay-marriage-public-say-church-is-wrong-8431263.html

[bee3line-blog]

Cyclists breaking the rules of the road

Someone said to me last week that they had seen me on my bike, at traffic lights, setting off while the light was still red. What she said was "you must have just got bored or something"

Oh, no I musn't. No Cyclist gets bored waiting to turn right at a busy junction. Ever.

And cyclists don't do it to be annoying either, although most of us are relieved if you express annoyance at us. As far as I'm concerned that means you've seen me.

The only thing that would cause me to break the rules of the road, and indeed the laws of the land, is self preservation. If I set off before you, the chances that you see me are far, far higher. Statistically speaking, there is plenty of international evidence to show that cyclists who set off early are safer at junctions than those who wait for the lights to change.

The fact that this is reported world wide as two different cycling styles - the safer, more courageous and assertive 'men's style' and the more dangerous, timid and vulnerable 'women's style' is fuel for another rant on another day!

If you see me, I'm more likely to live, it's that simple. If you are annoyed by me, I just want to grin, because noticing me keeps me alive.

[bee3line-blog]

The Tyranny of the TLA

I really hate how we insist on discussing everything of meaning by taking the first letters of the words and making an incomprehensible noise out of it.

[And no it’s not an acronym. An acronym is where it actually makes a new word, like SCUBA. What I’m talking about wastes energy, attention and dilutes the significance of our thoughts and feelings].

‘Jay-Snay’ is not a word, it’s not a helpful or informative way of discussing a needs analysis. Nor does calling something ‘Tea Lap’ help us truly understand what you’re actually all about. And referring to a government white paper as ‘Vee Pea’ ensures no one will ever know what it actually means. I’m going to focus on these three spectacularly annoying examples, but my point is far broader and points to an increasing trend of avoiding understanding what we are really talking about, even while we are talking.

And don’t tell me it saves time. What Rubbish.

What it does it does create a world where we never actually say out loud words that mean something, so we never wonder on a daily basis whether what we are doing really is in fact valuing anybody, or analysing anything, or acting personally.

It allows us to focus on the systems, processes, roles and structures constructed around what we’re doing, without keeping our eyes on the prize - whether we are actually doing it. It allows those who are heading up the Jay Snay to talk a lot about where they have got information from, how hard they have worked doing it, possibly how hard it is to get this sort of data in a city this big. And if we don’t hear the words Joint Strategic Needs Assessment in anything that they say, then we forget to wonder whether they have assessed the needs of the population in a joined up or at all strategic, or useful, way. 

It creates an elitist and excluding way of talking about something, which removes the person talking from the meaning of what they are saying and glibly assumes a shallowing of the common ground, and sanitises the listeners from the core meaning of what they’re actually saying. Within the english language we should not be able to say “Well, now that the valuing people is over, we’re not sure where to focus next”, it’s not grammatically correct. You can if you call it Vee Pea instead, and no-one will question whether anyone is in fact valued more highly now than they were in 2001.

And when did ‘Signing up to ‘Tea Lap” ever result in anyone acting at all personally, well we never have to ask, because no-one I know remembers that it actually stands for ‘Think Local, Act Personal’. You can have a ‘Tea Lap’ conference anywhere and at any time you like. You would only need to wonder if 09:00 in the morning at somewhere hard to get to, with no refreshments, poor access and dense academic speeches is appropriate if you remember what it actually stands for. Clearly, they can’t. I suggest that if they said the real words out loud every day, they might think more about what they are doing. 

Words matter. Words have real meaning. Changing the words we use can change our attitude and behaviour. Removing ourselves from the meaning of the words, ultimately, removes us from the purpose and volition that should lie behind our actions. Please. No-one is so busy that they don’t have time to say the words that really mean what it is they are trying to do. 

We’ll be clearer about what it is we’re supposed to be doing, more accountable to ourselves and others, and it’s more likely we’ll ask the right questions and so know sooner if we’re actually doing it. 

[bee3line-blog]

[bee3line-blog]