Merry Christmas!

I am sorry for the ridiculously long time I have gone without posting: but I have remembered you at this festive time of year and am writing to wish you a VERY HAPPY CHRISTMAS and a most peaceful New Year.

With Love,

J xxx

Disney Princesses: Response to Terra!

(See Terra's article)

Here is 'Sleeping Beauty.' Observe her figure. Isn't it wonderful? Her waist is so tiny, her breasts so voluptuous, her hand so dainty. And the hair! A golden cascade of thick, smooth locks that every girl would kill for.

'Sleeping Beauty' also happens to be a cartoon character. No human being looks like that, so why does every little girl desire to be a princess? Maybe it's the fact that after sixteen years in a lowly cottage in the woods, Aurora returns to her royal roots, and doesn't every girl wish she could discover her royal ancestry unexpectedly? Or maybe it's because Aurora has an amazing team of hands-on (female) fairies as slaves.

Sleeping Beauty -- and the title says it all, a passive girl who is defined by nothing other than her looks -- is potentially harmful to girls who believe that appearances are more important than intellect, status is more important than decency, and Prince Charming is more important than discovering one's own destiny.

Having said this, Aurora and all her fellow princess-colleagues never had a harmful effect on me as a child. I visited Disney Land Paris at the age of seven -- not that I would ever return to that place! -- and had a fantastic time in the hot French summer of 1999 waving at the princesses on parade and purchasing a bright yellow, and horribly tacky, ball gown based upon the cartoon equivalent in Beauty and the Beast. I used to adore the films and the excellent artwork, and yet none of the Disney characters are inspirations or role-models in my life.

Indeed, there came a time when I was, suddenly, fed up of pink and glitter and pin-up cartoon characters. I've never been into any of the plastic pop-stars during my teenage years and I've never been particularly worried about being carried off to paradise by a rich Prince Charming; actually, the thought of royalty and Disney-like 'hunks' makes me feel slightly sick.

I recognise, however, that Disney princesses do shape the lives of girls who go on to think that they are not worthy, and that they need to be saved by a man. I agree with Terra's point about how times are a'changing over at Disney (Mulan is, incidentally, my favourite Disney film apart from 101 Dalmatians!) and I hope that eventually wider society will change. Obviously, it is no help that there stories such as my old favourite, Twilight, to present girls with the potentially-harmful fantasy of True Love.

Thank you to Terra for another wonderful article! Oh, and I love Target Women and Sarah too.

xxx

More Bits and Bobs

1) This is completely outrageous:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8352711.stm

It's bad enough that women are obsessed with changing their visible body parts! How on Earth did society get so sick that a woman now wants perfect genitalia? Excuse me? Is she really going to run around showing people what lies beneath her pants...? Maybe she is. I don't know. I just don't understand.

I really despair about where feminism went terribly, terribly wrong.

I am very sad about this.

2) Aaargh, Twilight!

I've read three out of four of the books in the series. While I admit that the books are very easy to read and hard to put down, they are sexist and badly written. Not only is the language itself less-than-sophisticated, but the themes are just a tad dodgy when you begin to think about it. Not only is Edward Cullen a predatory and over-protective vampire -- and we all know the sexual parallels attached to such a creature -- but Bella is completely unable to function without a man in her life. Bella is a rather uninteresting, two-dimensional female character, who spends most of her time doing housework when she is not obsessing over the byronic Edward or using another male, the strong and oh-so-handsome Jacob Black, to ease her pain. Obviously other girls get Twilight and I don't, so me going on about it like this has no point to it.

What is most sad, for me, is the fact that Twilight is written by a woman. I'm not going to comment on Stephenie Meyer's religious beliefs, because that would not be my place, but it saddens me that young girls could be encouraged in what they are taught from a young age: that a Prince Charming will come and rescue them, and everything will be well.

With the release of the film New Moon, the second in the series, there have been a number of interesting articles around on the more unsettling side of Twilight. This one, I think, is especially worth reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/13/twilight-vampires-teenage-girls

Oh, and I am having a moral dilemma about whether or not I should go and see New Moon. What shall I do?

3) Earl Grey tea is delicious.

xxx

Bits and Bobs

Good evening!

I have a few things that are of interest to me to comment on this evening... I have not got the capacity to write a single organised post today, being so tired!

1) I came across this interesting article on the potential harmfulness of Tory policies in The Independent by Johann Hari:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-harsh-truth-about-tory-policies-1815642.html

It's an interesting read, and I think Hari is an interesting bloke. I agree with many of his principles: he's a strong believer in democracy, in secularity, in gay rights, in nuclear disarmament and in stronger action on climate change.I don't agree with everything he says -- he's a bit too much of a fan of the EU and the single currency for my liking -- but I think this article is a good one and I am inclined to agree with him.

2) I heard a new word this week: 'Flexitarian.'

What on Earth? See this BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8341002.stm

This is ridiculous! As a committed vegetarian of ten years, I really can't see why flexitarians bother. Obviously, I am a big advocate for people reducing their meat consumption to try and help the planet in these times of strife, but I wouldn't expect such people to call themselves 'semi-vegetarians' or 'flexitarians.' I really hope I do not hear this term again. You are either a vegetarian or you are not. And, just for the record, vegetarians do not eat fish.

3) I am very pleased that the government have chosen to increase the amount of sex education in schools and make it more difficult for people to opt-out on religious grounds. Sex education is so important, and I really don't think it's right to pull your child out of a lesson on condoms because you as a parent oppose contraception on religious grounds.

I was having a conversation with my friend the other day, about how I think that a parent should not allow their personal principles to hold a child back. In that context we were discussing private education and the importance of giving your child the best education that you can, regardless of socialist principles or otherwise. When it comes to sex education, it is so important that religion does not interfere with the basic facts of life. Pulling your child out of a lesson, because you as a parent do not agree with homosexuality, is not going to make homosexuality go away.

This is not to say that I am opposed to children being brought up in a specific religion. On the contrary, I think religious values -- if not too extreme -- can be extremely beneficial to a child. Growing up in a Christian family, I have witnessed my parents' amazing hospitality to guests and the kindness, patience and tolerance that comes from their religious values. Yet I am not here to debate the pros and cons of organised religion, though I would certainly argue that telling a child categorically what to believe is morally wrong.

So, I believe that a child can learn about religion and sex and that children should not be patronised by being expected to believe that their parents' attitude to sex is the right one. A child must have freedom of choice. I simply cannot see why a child cannot be taught by their Christian parent that sex before marriage is wrong, at the same time as being told how to have safe sex. I do not see a contradiction, and the child is free to make up his or her own mind.

And, after all, which parent, however religious, would not be horrified if they discovered their child had caught a disease due to ignorance over contraception?

xxx

Aaaah so exciting!!!!

Shout! The True Story of the Beatles

It was with much excitement that I found Shout! in my favourite music shop, priced at just three pounds. I had it on Dad's authority, and from several magazines, that it is the definitive Beatles biography. I eagerly bought it, and a few days later began to read.

I have now finished it, surprised at how long it took to complete. The size of the book is misleading: while it could not be described as thin, it looks like a quick read until you open the pages and see the small and closely-spaced print. I read through it steadily, intrigued, as I always am, by the fascinating story of the world's greatest group.

The author, Philip Norman, writes in an engaging and readable style that is hardly academic but certainly creates the impression of a man who knows his stuff. Although I was slightly bemused by his rather foolish comparison of John Lennon's death with the events of 9/11 in the introduction, I felt that the book was going to be much more informative than the other Beatles biography that I have read, Hunter Davies' 1960s work The Beatles.

The Beatles is a rather innocent book, leaving out the nastier side of the story and glossing over controversial facts due to the wishes of the relatives of those involved. Because it was, and still is, the only authorised biography of the group, Davies has no choice but to present The Beatles favourably. However, The Beatles does have the advantage of being a genuine historical source. Having read the book, and thoroughly enjoyed it, I closed it having built up much respect for his author. In a 100-page 2009 introduction, Davies explains why he has chosen not to revise and improve the text: it is like a time capsule of history. For all its inaccuracies, it's great.

Anyway, back to Shout! Unlike Davies' biography, Norman tells the whole story without fear of controversy. Sex, drugs, scandal: none of it is censored, and he weaves in the historical context successfully. He introduces each character gradually and thus doesn't throw too much individual biographical information in your face.

I particularly liked Norman's writing on the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, who tragically died in 1967 of a drug overdose. He was a sad and confused figure whose homosexuality was obvious to all who knew him yet was something he tried so hard to stifle. Madly in love with John Lennon, his management of the Beatles was at once an exciting and heartbreaking time for Brian. Unlike Davies, who barely hints at Brian's sexuality to avoid upsetting his mother, Norman gives a sensitive and touching account of the sad life of Brian Epstein.

Unfortunately, as the book came to its end, I became more and more annoyed with Norman. Particularly in the final section of Shout!, he demonstrates a clear and somewhat outrageous pro-John Lennon bias, whilst criticising Paul McCartney in a way that can only be described as harsh. Although admitting to being a "John person" in the introduction (most Beatles fans class themselves as either a "John-person" or a "Paul-person"; I pride myself on being both!), there is no excuse for his unbalanced adoration and dislike of John and Paul respectively. John's flaws are excused, whilst Paul's are enhanced. Norman appreciates John's sense of humour and sharp tongue, whilst he is unimpressed with Paul's "nice-guy" image; presumably he thinks John to be more authentic. John is presented as the talented one, the funny one, and his frankly awful treatment of his pre-Yoko wife Cynthia is barely commented on. Paul is presented as a jealous, obsessive fake who can never live up to his Beatle partner.

This bias irritated me and changed my opinion of the whole work. Its subtitle, The True Story of the Beatles, came into question for me. I was also irritated with Shout!'s abrupt end, and its increasingly arrogant assumptions. "George wasn't great," Norman writes, and goes on to say that he was merely an average guy who got lucky. Norman also assumes that his book is the best, particularly criticising Many Years From Now, an interview-based authorised biography of Paul. Naturally, Norman wouldn't approve of any book which portrays Paul in a positive light. It sneers at how a whole chapter of the book is dedicated to Paul's taste in art. I have been dipping in and out of Many Years From Now since May, and I will testify to its quality as a book.

Shout! is clearly a well-researched and well-written biography, but, despite its great start and middle, its bias becomes its downfall towards the end. Philip Norman is too confident in his talent as a Beatles expert and biographer for my taste, and, while Shout! may be juicier and more accurate in actual events than the quaint 60s The Beatles, its disappointing bias and almost vitriolic attack on Paul makes The Beatles a much less infuriating read. This is not to say that I didn't enjoy Shout! and I would still reccomend it to any Beatles fan; after all, it is "the definitive."

xxx

Identity for Terra

Human beings are obsessed with knowing themselves. A huge amount of money has been made from self-help and amateur psychology books, and there are thousands of websites where the searcher can find out their "personality type," as if personalities can realistically be confined into a given number of categories.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, artistic members of society seem to be more interested in "who they are." Philosophers, writers, poets, painters, and rock stars have attempted to answer that inevitable question: "Who am I?" Maybe this is simply because artistic people (I say from experience!) are often more introspective and emotionally-minded than their more scientific counterparts. Science looks at what we are: the biological, chemical and physical reality of being human. Art looks at who we are: the personal, philosophical, emotional reality of being human.

No wonder so many artistic people go off the rails and die young. It's enough to make anyone depressed.

But, on the other hand, it doesn't have to be like that. Part of being human is having many faces, many identities, many personalities even. Part of being a happy person is learning to live with them. Security doesn't come from being one clearly-defined, cardboard cut-out that can say, "I am X." Security comes from an acknowledgement that humans are pretty complex, but accepting it.

In the past I have been extremely miserable, confused about my identity, tearful and angry. There are quiet aspects to my personality, loud aspects, masculine and feminine aspects... am I clever or stupid, am I artistic or not, am I a good person or a bad person, am I selfish or selfless? And I'm interested in so many things that appear to be conflicting. I became obsessed with analysing my own personality and the personalities of the people around me. Then I realised that all the aspects of my personality are not conflicting, they are just opposite sides of a multitude of coins. They all make me. Me is not one thing; Me is many things.

While identity is confusing and frightening, every human wonders who they are. The teenage years, especially, are a time of coming to grips with the person one is, the depths of one's personality and personalities, realising what one does and does not enjoy doing. I feel as though I have come through that teenage confusion, but many others have not. My only advice is: keep going. You'll get there!

xxx