No-one has ever 'HAD' to kill...

So, this is a little off-topic. Well, I just mean I'm bringing it forward a bit, I would probably have got round to it in the end.

I've just been watching 'SAS: Are You Tough Enough?', a sort-of documentary/ competition to see if civilians can hack it in SAS selection. It's very entertaining and I recommend it, but that's beside the point.

The issue I wish to address here is a small sentence, near the end of the show, from Barry Davies (Ex-SAS WO) in which he says 'Until you've had to kill somebody, errm, it's really very hard to talk about it.'

Now, I don't dispute the main message, that someone who hasn't killed another can not talk about such things with such ease, but I do take umbrage with the insinuation that killing is a necessity, a duty, an unavoidable occurrence.

There is no-one who has ever 'had to kill somebody'; killing has always resulted from a conscious choice and consequential decision, ergo, a desire. Whether it be the decision to pull the trigger, aim at the target, or even just to join the Armed Forces (in the knowledge that you will be forced to make those decisions), there has always been the option to not kill.

Yes, this may mean abstaining from service, firing wide, or even simply not pulling the trigger, but the fact remains that every man killed has been the result of another's intent and desire.

Even when one's rights and freedoms are threatened, the act of killing is a conscientious decision that those rights are worth more than the other man's life. Whether you agree that they are or not, there is no disputing that killing is a choice, one that every soldier must make and live with the consequences.

There is no shifting the buck to someone else and, therefore, Barry Davies ought to choose his words more carefully, in order to avoid appearing casuistic...

Theory of Patriarchy – Chapter 1

I’ll delve into the history books later on for a thorough look at why the world is so male dominant – this post is concerning itself with why some men are so anti-women, or, for want of a better word, misogynist.

It’s all to do with desire and need. Boys mature seeing these lovely creatures growing up alongside them, they desire them. They instinctively desire them, especially the most attractive ones, but they are taught by their mothers to respect them all. Therefore they are chivalrous, courteous, helpful and polite. All guys start out like this, sweet and naive. They hold girls their equals.

But then those girls, the ones that are being chased, recognise their own attractiveness. And the trouble begins...

Automatically the man is at a disadvantage. He is the chaser, ergo she has the power. She knows she is the commodity, and therefore the chaser automatically becomes devalued – as they say ‘you want what you can’t have’, when it’s yours it loses some appeal.

They realise the potency of their looks/ charm, and they begin to exploit it. Not consciously at first, they just enjoy the attention. They beautify themselves, they expose more and more skin, they do everything in their power to increase their erotic capital. They enjoy the attention, even more so than they realise, to the extent that they will lead guys on who they aren’t attracted to in the slightest, just to keep up a steady flow. As Samuel Coleridge said, ‘A man’s desire is for the woman, but a woman’s desire is rarely other than for the desire of the man’. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t blame them. The feeling of being valued and chased is a hell of a lot better than the savagery of fruitless desire.

And so the girl enjoys leading the guy on.

Until he realises she’s not actually interested in him, just dicking him about.

And this goes on with successive girls.

And he becomes more and more bitter and disillusioned.

And no longer the sweet, chivalrous, naïve guy he was.

Until one day, he ends up formulating a theory of misogyny and writing something like this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm, that was a bit intense. And I suppose an entirely personal experience. As Remy De Gourmont pointed out, ‘Most men who rail at women are railing at one woman only’. He may be correct but in my case it’s a good seven or eight…

EDIT - found this link the other day, very well-written, mostly accurate and entirely hilarious. Number's one and two are particularly poignant, I believe.

5 ways modern men are trained to hate women.

Gay Marriage

Gonna start this one with a pretty shocking revelation... you ready? Here goes...

I LIKE the fact that Cardinal O'Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has condemned gay marriage proposals as a 'grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right'.
(Full story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)

That way, when someone asks why I dislike the Catholic Church, I don't have to delve into my extensive list of papal atrocities, historical barbarisms, scientific repressions, judgements of questionable morality, or divisive actions.

It is a lot easier to point to its outdated, prejudicial, discriminatory, inflammatory, bigoted and homophobic views.

How an organisation can claim moral authority yet discriminate against certain factions of society, based on unchangeable facets of themselves, is unknown to me. How O'Brien can even reference the slave trade (see article) in such a debate, but fail to see how immoral and untenable his position is, is beyond staggering.

A cynic may argue that such statements as his are designed to provoke, that the Church plays (for want of a better phrase) devil's advocate in order to still seem relevant in today's world. They say any media coverage is good media coverage, indeed it has sparked this thread of thought. Therefore, a cynic may conclude that religious leaders do not believe what they are saying, merely that they are expected to say it.

An optimist would hope this is the case, however corrupt it may be, when the alternative is that some members of the human race have progressed no further than believing the tenets of a 2000 year old book.

Which brings me onto my over-arching theme when dealing with religion. Why is it still around? In a world where we are encouraged to think for ourselves, and to pursue intellectual emancipation, why are there those who are happy to be constrained by others and told what/ how to think/ behave? I have my ideas, but you'll have to wait for that. Trust me, it'll be good...

Intro

So, first post. Ground-breaking stuff. Well, for me, at least.

I actually created this blog a few days ago, and have since been racking my brains about what to put in it. Do I make it a forum for expressing my rambling thoughts to the world, or do I try and inject some coherency into arguments and stick to a narrow range of topics?

I'd like to believe the first option would be entertaining reading but then, maybe I have got an over-inflated opinion of myself and the contents of my head. Therefore, I have turned towards the second option. I intend to expound, on this page, on my favourite subject... Politics. Or more importantly, the politics that interests me.

To this end, and to get some understanding of what you can expect in the following posts, I would like to briefly list my political likes and dislikes. This will give some idea of the issues I intend to tackle in the future.

Likes - Personal choice, Personal freedoms, Emancipation, Cooperation, Humanism.

Dislikes - Corruption, Religion, Exploitation, Conflict, Nationalism.

Actually, that's pretty wishy-washy. There's no real surprises there. Who doesn't like freedom, who doesn't dislike corruption? That was a waste of time. Maybe it would be better if I just told you some of the things floating around my head that I intend to write up soon. I have split the list into two headings, with the idea that I'll get round to the Current Hot Topics sooner rather than later, before they cool down. The Perpetual Injustice Explanations can take a little longer, as I may get quite controversial and thus will need time to collate evidence and ensure coherency.

Current Hot Topics
Abortion
Gay marriage
Arab Spring
Afghanistan
Iranian Nuclear Power

Perpetual Injustices: My Explanations
Religion (this can be guessed from the blog title)
Patriarchy


Well, that culminates my first post. I'll hopefully get another up soon, most probably about the current Gay Marriage topic in the UK, or Abortion in the US, but I have a lot of work to do in the next two weeks. Hey, maybe I'll stick one or two of my more salient essay points up on here. Who knows?