the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

Advertisements

Equality impossible

It is good to see that we are not the same after all, despite the government trying to force through the annihilation of the genders. Female RAF recruits won a substantive payout to compensate them for march damage.

Women had to carry the same weight as men and walk in the same leg stride of 30 inches, the same as 6 foot high men. Now female soldiers are no longer required to have leg strides longer than 27 inches. One female recruit then suffered 4 pelvic fractures and was medically discharged. Read the full story.

It’s the principle that counts

Often we hear that persons who are psychopaths  are always finding it easy to exploit repetition in institutions to their advantage. Indeed many great institutions fell victim to habitual offending of some sort, stretching from the Catholic church to the BBC.

All institutions are ruled by principles and that is right that this is so. The whole earth follows a principle of its very own existence and we cannot escape that.

I looked at various ways where people tried to escape principles because those principles didn’t suit their own egoistic needs.

Religion is one. Just spent years researching the effects of churches on people and how it came that the Lutheran church broke away from the Catholic church and this then led the Church of England to be founded.

Looking at Luther he was most likely somebody who could not follow the demands of no sex within the church and looked for ways to justify his relationship with a nun, whom he loved. Again in the case of Henry VIII sexual problems, here to produce a son, led to a whole lot of unfortunate brutalities to justify the personal needs of one powerful person.

On that point of principle I am currently astounded to find that the current UK government applies the same principles to each ministry under their wing and in some it works and in some it doesn’t. Obviously Justice under Mr Grayling has adapted a great attitude by saying that prisons should never encourage an alternative lifestyle, whilst the principle of economic viability obviously doesn’t work in the employment tactics that Iain Duncan Smith wants to develop.

We can see that any institution contains various individuals of different opinions but those institutions are trying to house all of them within one principle.

Luther questioned the divinity of the Pope, saying that the Pope was of human origin and not Godly, yet the whole church started to exist because of God’s initiating it.

What is however quite important is the fact that Luther was a peaceful man who was just interested in getting his own personal relationship justified, after he gotten himself ex-communicated. But in the case of Henry VIII he took the opportunity to start a murderous regime and used his own desires to kill a lot of people, mainly Catholics in the process. Yet our monarch today happily continuous the heritage left since Henry VIII. Only change so far that now the British monarch is allowed to marry a Catholic.

What I think is the main sticking point is the inability of institutions to vary rules so that individual needs can be accommodated.

Basically it is a good principle to rule out sex because personal desires themselves are just often self-indulgent. I gotten horrified when I found out about the child marriages of underdeveloped regions for example where girls as little as 6 years old are sold to rich old men and that the elders of such region sanctify such marriages even if they are against civil law.

At a time in early Christianity when Catholic clergy were allowed to engage in sex they exploited their positions and pressurised locals and used them for personal pleasures, then the rules changed and they had to make a promise to celibacy.

I think it is great that the Catholic church beliefs that no sex is a good basis on which to start out but not all people who are in that church really do want to live that way. Yet as an institution the church is a save heaven for many and a way of life, which recently gotten less easy because many nuns and priests nowadays have to take on jobs because the church cannot support them any longer.

Perhaps it would be better for the Catholic church to introduce tiers of membership whereby those who really want to live without sex make up the upper tier and those who wish to live worldly get less senior roles. I think it is very important that there are religious leaders in the Catholic church that counter-balance our sex crazed world because it is important. In fact I think people should start off thinking that sex is not important and that would help to reduce over-population and reduce reproduction to those who really feel responsible enough to create another human being.

But we should not either forbid or glorify human reproduction.

But to say that all have to live under the same principle is a bad way of trying to organise human life. It is that principle that makes governments decide on stupid rules like gay marriage because we all have to be equal in every aspect of life, which is in itself completely unachievable.

Organisations that live according to strict principles are easy to manipulate by those wanting to do wrong.  We have got to get away from this equalitarien thinking and allow variation of principles to suit people’s needs.

It is the one big qualitative difference between civilised Christianity and uncivilised primitive cultures that girls are not exploited for the pleasure of old men. In this context again I wish to emphasize what I said before that primitive cultures prevalent in Islam, that prosper in economically underdeveloped areas very well, couch a culture that allows the exploitation of young girls and the Taleban are the ultimate tip of that iceberg. Islam itself also centres its religious ceremony around the movements of the moon. Christianity is more in tune with the wider planetary system and follows the sun, which is quite significant.  It is obvious that God who made the earth, made the sun to give us life and the moon is merely a planet that travels around the earth to regulate the water content of this planet.

Obviously for more primitive people it is easier to follow a religious ritual that is based around the movements of the moon as the moon is easy to see in the sky. Christianity is more difficult to understand as it is based around the whole planetary system, as God made the whole universe and not just the moon.

I find it quite disturbing that the biggest misfit of recent times in Britain, by the name of Cameron now wants to host peace talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are two regions of the world, which are heavily practising abuse of young girls. Yet Cameron makes not secret of his hate of the EU and tried to get out of this as early as possible. The EU is a civilised region of this world with clearly defined laws that put age limits on girls engaging in relationships. Cameron should enforce civilised laws on these nations and not host talks with them in this nation whilst nasty things are going on there because Elders still rule the provinces and not those politicians that come to see Cameron.

He is a strange man that David Cameron and if the Conservative Party can produce something like that, then perhaps they are not worthy of our trust. I think the whole Monarchy is being put into disrepute and should consider abdicating and allow Britain to re-organise. The Queen openly declared her full support of Cameron when she recently sat in on a Cabinet meeting.

Cameron should nurture his relationships with other civilised nations and not throw those friendships away in favour of meddling with more primitive cultures as primary political partners.

I think as a country Britain has a lot to win but also a lot to loose.  Even the US criticises Cameron on his stance on Europe.

Voluntary groups avoid democracy

Further to my previous post on the matter, it is now time to further elaborate (explain) on the subject.

What is democracy, it is a system that allows all (who are being given a vote) to express a choice of preference. In most general political elections the electorate, which is every and each person that resides within a certain geographical area, gets around 12 hours on a given date to vote for a range of choices plus the ability to cast a postal vote from a remote location.

In all voluntary groups that I know of, no voting at all is being carried out for anybody not being able to come to a meeting at a certain time of day and date given. That allows only a very small minority of persons to be able to express a choice at all.

For example. I used to be a member of my church’s PCC, PCC stand for Parish Church Council. The PCC meets once a month on a Thursday, it is now, previously they met on Wednesday evenings. There are around 21 places on the PCC and any of those 21 members of the PCC can only express any input into the church decision making process if they actually can attend within a 2 hour time frame on a regular basis.  So our vicar (rector to be precise) said in church the other day, “anybody who wants to be a member of the PCC and can attend the meeting on Thursday evening’ please come and meet me after the service…”. So the ability to be part of the church decision making process is plainly coupled to an ability to be at a certain venue at a certain time.

It is not very different with community groups. On our estate we have a TRA. The membership is very low. The TRA meets within a 2 hour time-slot on an evening. Very few people can actually attend the meetings; so the TRA is unable to be representative.

Neither with the PCC or the TRA can I see that decision making processes are widened out to those who cannot come to meetings.

Even with police coupled groups, there is also the need to come to meetings at certain times. If you want to have a say on local Safer Neighbourhood panels, (you can be a member by invitation only), you can only do so if you can come to a meeting at a certain time of day.

Such groups or almost all of them are very much restricted to the ability to come to meetings, mostly on evenings. That certainly is not democratic and restricts decision making processes to a very small minority of the public.

I strongly suggest that the above examples are not restricted to the groups sampled here, but apply to most voluntary local groups wherever they are.

In this context that also applies to political parties, who are full of individuals that can come to meetings at certain intervals and times of day.

I have read that recently further research has been carried out on why Hitler could become so popular. My guess is he was consistently able to come to party meetings. Even today ministers who sit in elected positions could only become elected because they had the time to come to a meeting at selection time. That is very restricted selection. Once a minister is in post, he can run away with the agenda, almost completely for 5 years. That is why it is so important that the electorate has a direct mandate and ability to veto ministerial decisions.

local reverend criticises the bishop

I haven’t blogged much lately; that is due to the fact that currently I have no less than five voluntary jobs and despite not being employed, I am very, very busy. One way for me to take respite from the strains of life and indeed gather strength to do all the good deeds I do, is the weekly prayer service in church on Sundays.

Our local vicar, the Reverend Alan Green previously worked in Liverpool and spoke about an ongoing discussion between church ministers to correctly practise religion and whilst he talked about democracy and Freedom of Speech, he started to attack Archbishop Sentamu for using the Sun newspaper to widen the gospel preachings he does and therefore endorsing the new Sun on Sunday newspaper. The vicar explained that during his time in Liverpool, it was at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, the Sun wrongly blamed Liverpool fans of anti-social behaviour and causing the disaster. I do not have a transcript of today’s sermon but that is what sticks in my mind about it.

The vicar said that this problem has not been completely resolved and though an apology was made, the Sun still has not proven that they do not want to continue their publicity smears of ordinary people.

Of course I have had a long-standing argument with some mainstream publishers and the methods they use to put forward strategies to influence the thinking of readers. It is of course one thing, is writing in a mainstream newspaper and another is endorsing all political tendencies such a newspaper might bring with it.

Yet in the field of gay marriage Bishop Sentamu is outspoken and against it and papers like the Sun are most likely to give him support, if only indirectly because all papers these days are bound by the strict anti-discrimination laws, set out by Europe.

It is refreshing to see that within a church there can be a difference of opinion and if it is so down to earth and brought by someone who at first hand experienced the wrongful publishing smears of a major paper and what this did to large areas of local people then that opinion is very important indeed.

What this also shows is that there are different sides to every coin, because it is quite impossible to get anyone media these days where one can agree to everything a paper does and that there is always some reason to be disgruntled. But when it comes to plainly lying to maintain a strategy that is quite serious indeed and I can completely understand reservations one will have towards that paper. Just looking at my personal experience with Der Spiegel for example, I can understand very well were the good reverend is coming from.

Yet in my case I forced the big publisher Axel Springer to completely change a whole cover and a whole article from 1975 and I just wonder whether the Sun can be forced to re-write an article as well. But at the same time a High Court judge defended them to the hilt.

Yet the question handled by the Leveson enquiry is where does investigative journalism end and where does sheer malicious lying start and it seems it is a very long-winding enquiry, which keeps us all on full suspense and on the edge of our seats. I have long wondered about the political tint of churching these days and find that the message of the bible is more in support of Christians and active followers of Christ rather than in support of all other religions. How politically correct or even neutral can a church be in a state where religion and state are separate entities compared to some other nations where religious leaders also lead the nation.

The Reverend and Rector Alan Green is a well known figure here in East London and beyond. As I found out from searching the Internet for him, he defends the local Mosque and rights of Muslims and he leads an Interfaith forum. In last week’s scripture readings in our Christian church we read Exodus 20: 1-17. There is says: …for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God…..You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name…..

Later on in the Corinthians 1: 18-25 we hear reference to the Jews and Gentiles as well as the Greeks, denouncing them as secondary believers and telling all that Christ is best. But in those days  there is no reference to the Muslims in the bible and maybe that is the reason why today so many Christian feel attracted to them and feel they cannot denounce modern religions that were founded after the original text of the bible has been written. Islam only started from the 6th Century AD and that makes it clear why it is not mentioned in the bible, but that this does not make it suitable to not treat it the same way as the bible treated the Jews, the Gentiles an the Greeks who were of about the same age or older than Christianity.

I think it is a sheer mockery of God’s word to praise all religions as having he same weight just because they started after today’s text of the bible has been written.

PS: In relation to the Hillsborough disaster it has now been made clear that documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster are getting publicised.  A BBC article is titled

Fans blamed in Hillsborough files

Important changes to tax credits

I can honestly say, today was the first day that I read about the changes to Tax Credit entitlement from 16 to 24 hours per week. That is pretty short notice. I pride myself of being always in the flow of information, I constantly monitor news sites and keep abreast of news because I pass the relevant stories on as soon as.

Yet this is another very important change to legislature that comes to the notice of the public at very short notice. A bit like the withdrawal of London Weighing allowance for higher ranking army officers.

It is just not good enough to blame everything on the mess Labour left. If we allow that argument then we’ll allow all political parties, when they govern, to sanction fundamental financial changes at short notice.

In reality our finances are planned often for 12 months ahead because many contracts, ,for insurance for example run for that period of time. We cannot plan ahead with the Direct Debit system and enter into contracts if governments can come along and change fundamental tax regulations on a very short notice period.

Of course it would mean that many parents who now work below 24 hours per week and are in receipt of tax credits will have to quit their jobs if their employers cannot change their contracts to longer working hours. The likelihood is that many employers won’t do it because they are not able to.

That just puts the whole equality discussion into the limelight again because it shows how shallow it really is. We are all equal, we all have the same rights to work but in the end, if we have a child, we just cannot compete and working is beyond our ability because we cannot work and have nobody to look after our kids when tax credit does not pick up the bill.

So we have in fact the situation that we cannot all be the same because the state won’t allow us to work at an amount of hours that is both convenient to us, the parents as well as the employer. Incidentally the last I heard is that there were plans to reduce the numbers of working hours before tax credit kicks in.

Of course working age benefits have been increased and Child Tax Credit adjusted to inflation rates, that makes it easier for a parent then to be unemployed. Back to square one but at least being unemployed has become more affordable.

Just one of the gals

Whilst I am now getting the single parent  treatment from the party that once happily took my donations and invited me for banquets, I think I go on about the this for a little while longer. Whilst David Cameron was happy to shake my hand and the Conservatives seated me at the same table as Merlin King, at least he looked a lot like him, and Boris Johnson was happy enough to allow me to hand out his propaganda material at the Bank station and at Canary Wharf, whilst Conservative Tower Hamlets lead Councillor

Peter Golds was happy to work hard on Conservative propaganda making with me, I am now told that I have to learn the work ethic because I am a single parent.

David Cameron at my table

Like I do not know what work means. I am 59 this year and worked off and on all my life, ran my own company and had several high profile “voluntary” positions. But is this the “fallen from grace” treatment that I am now getting from my own political party or is it just that one hand doesn’t know what the other one is doing and things just have to be done that way now.

When I was 16 I was put on work placement through my school and found myself on the production belt of the then Frankonia chocolate factory. I was so fast, putting the sweets into the boxes that the management decided to put me on front of the line, folding the boxes for the other ladies to fill. However looking at them I felt sorry for them because they had to keep up with my pace. In those days there were no machines and all factory functions were carried out by hand. That was my first proper work experience though I had helped out in my neighbour’s Parker Pen shop from an early age as well and worked a lot on my family’s farm during the holidays.

So I do know what working means and I am not too lazy to get a job, thank you very much, Mr minister that is in charge of the Works and Pensions department.

Yet whilst my political party happily allows me to work very hard promoting them and takes my money, when I still had some, I am now treated as if I do not know what working means and that I need to learn the work ethics. Just last year I ran my own company and had amongst other clients a company called Munich RE who now sit in swish offices at Canary Wharf.  I worked for Policy Network under Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson at the time.

Now I am getting the Single-Parent treatment. My high-flying voluntary posts had to be resigned because I am a single parent and have to learn the work-ethics.

Not only am I being deprived of my pension but I also am told that I have to learn to work again. What an excuse to exploit people!

I think it is very unfair to single parents to assume that they have not gotten a work ethic. It is very hard work to bring up a child alone and there are many jobs to do. The service provider told us that they have problems finding work placements for single parents and that we should join Gingerbread.

The ‘Back to the Workhouse’ treatment I am getting now is out of order, considering that I had been thanked for my hard work for the Conservative previously, the same party that now treats me as a work-shy single parent with their policies introduced recently.

I just wonder whether my action of Kaschke v the UK has anything to do with that fall from grace treatment I am getting at the moment. The Conservatives currently are great at plotting, in Tower Hamlets at the moment the main objective is to get rid of Lutfur Rahman, who is another oddball, he doesn’t fit in with Labour or the Conservatives and so they work very hard together to dethrone him and his flagship paper East End Life is on the firing line. Here Labour turned in on themselves and start to denounce the paper, that they themselves promoted as one of their best assets just to get one over on Lutfur Rahman who left the party to do his own thing.

It is all in line with party discipline that decides the treatment anyone if getting here in the UK and Labour and the Conservatives are putting their heads together to clean he country from those they find undesirable, including Murdoch, who was once Cameron’s biggest ally. Labour now are playing the submissive game and don’t do anything too drastic to undermine the Conservatives to work in the interest of the country and despite there being plenty of grounds to praise the government away from Cameron, Miliband decides to play a low profile game as not to disturb the fragile economy and what is the purpose of this?

Both Labour and the Conservatives are the 2 biggest political parties who work together on the opponents’ wipe-out. I am just thinking that Rahman is hardly doing the correct thing to keep himself in power because he groups all ethnic people around him, which is against the ethnic mix of the  borough and he starts to isolate himself away.

Politics is very much a men’s game and only the richest women can get one foot in the door or women with powerful partners. I, as a single woman with a child, I am mercilessly thrown around in the political and economic currents and recommend to all other single mothers don’t ever do any voluntary work for any political party as none of them will do anything for you. Even employment service providers recommend Gingerbread as the best and most appropriate organisation to represent the rights of single parents. My case is  a very good example how illogical and inappropriate the policies of the Conservative Party are and that on one hand they take a single parent’s money when they have it and when they don’t they tell them they are work-shy and need to do some free hard work for a company.

At least I would have expected that any of those powerful persons I sat on round tables with would offer me a work placement that is adequate for my experience but there is no such offer coming forward. That just shows that the UK has no place to say that they treat women with respect and that women have equal standing at all. The UK is as sexist as ever and even more so now we have a Conservative government again.

The dialectic of Justice

I am surprised that Mr Justice Eady made that judgment in the football privacy case after all the arguments I brought before the court in my own cases, which I lost. I provided the court with lots of evidences about how electronic communications and communications networks function and how users can be established and the arguments came that whatever was written was fair comment. I evidenced also and so did many before me that communications work on different channels (Lennox Lewis case), a bit like the old-fashioned village gossip really. Can anyone stop people from talking about something?

Word goes around and does not stop at certain borders but one should expect that facts stay facts really. It is not a question about the facts in the footballer case, which is different from my own cases. In my own cases the facts were disputed but this is not so in the footballer privacy case.

I heard only yesterday who that footballer allegedly was because it was on the BBC website and I usually only get wind of things once its on the BBC. The Scottish Herald argues that Scotland is not within English jurisdiction, quite right but why was that Injunction granted in the first place.

In my view its because justice always worked to defend the rich and those who can afford it even if it is a little bit silly. If it bothers someone really a lot and they are willing to spend a lot of money on it then justice will serve that person. Of course I also argued in my case about seeking Judicial Review that this principle “We are all the same under the law” was only invented so that the rich could be prosecuted for the same crimes as the poor but that was not properly digested by the court.

Especially in cases where there is no legal aid the courts are only willing to find for those who can afford the best lawyers for th longest amount of time and of course footballers can really spend the most money on anything.There is some very pungent case law that proves that cases were only continued because litigants could proof they can pay costs and those cases where then won by those who could afford to pay costs; the case of Prince Radu is the best example.

That is why this silly judgment came about that really doesn’t make sense especially not as the story seems to be true. How can anybody stop people from talking about something that is true?

I posted about this before, if people do not want people talking about their sexual behaviour they should simply not exercise that sexual behaviour. It is the oldest story on earth that the rich and famous always had “concubines” as they were called under the French royal courts. And it is a bit the same, isn’t it, that what the old Aristocrats did then the rich still do now. Who can blame the poor girls for wanting to be fancied by the rich? No one really can apart from the church.

The matter has by now become ridiculous and I am not about to make myself very popular with those who do not want to be able to look truth into the eye or have been made to believe that their case has really good merit because they could afford to pay justice to allow them to rule that make belief. That is really the danger, that if you can afford to pay for something then very powerful people will support you and you will only be shown the door by the poor masses who do what they always did, Gossip in one form or another.

The question arises should English justice really always serve the rich in civil cases or show more common sense and avoid making a few bucks out of some applications?

Diplomatic immunity ruins the reputation of a profession

That all heads of organisations should be able to enjoy diplomatic immunity for any crime committed only brings diplomats into disrepute. Who would honestly be able to say that a diplomatic is an honorable person because diplomats are not treated in law like all other persons?

Being the same under the law has been a very important principle in British law but this article says that diplomats can do what they like and not be prosecuted for it.

I do not even want to speculate whether Mr Strauss-Kahn is guilty of the accusations but welcome the attitude of the American prosecutor to refuse bail because he would not likely be extradited. 1 million dollars are not a lot to lose for a man of that calibre.

It is about time that high flyers are told to behave themselves and this message, that this prosecution sends out to the world is that servants are not there for general abuse and for the abuser to get away with it but that law enforcement takes the rights of every person seriously.

A very welcome by-product is that the myth, that sex under all circumstances is a good thing, is going to be out of fashion. The idea that sells cars, expensive gadgets is that others are there for sex and can be abused for sexual purposes without consent and this prosecution stands to diminish that myth. Sexual abuse is not a cavaliers activity with which others have to put up and shut up. The change in attitude this prosecution brings, will clean up the diplomatic circles of the world, thanks for that America.

We can hardly stand up and lament forced marriage when we are simultaneously allow sex abuse of servants by the untouchables of this world. We should get rid of diplomatic immunity.

Ritualistic female degradation

Up-date on 18/5/11, just read that the hat of Princess Beatrice has reached a bid of £18.000 on eBay, so what is mockery for some is collector’s value for others. Original article below.

It seems to me that the press turned again on the females, that attended the joyous royal wedding to carry out the repeated ritual of female degradation on the women that attended the occasion. So and so often, whether its weddings, funerals, film premiers or state occasions, the press will slaughter women’s fashion sense in the aftermath.

Female emancipation must not turn into the ritual of fashion degradation. In fact I think women should be smarter than this and not go crazy on fashion and wear the wildest styles, which are then shredded in the public eye and in the press.

Men just look good in their uniforms, which do not change, they do not wear wild designs and are not thrashed for what they wear ever.

Why do women think that female emancipation is connected with spending lots of money for expensive fashion designs or even more money is spent on hair styles, which are not very long-lasting hair designer’s creations?

The fact is that women spend 4 times as much as men do on fashion and looking good and women should think on their bank accounts and stop making fools of themselves by splashing out so much money on their external beauty. With men beauty comes from within and it should be the same for women. I think women’s emancipation will only truly be completed when women stop spending crazy amounts of money on the way they look.

Basically it is the animal instincts of wanting to attract the opposite sex that makes women dress up in all sorts of colours and styles but that is not only very expensive but leaves many open to public ridicule. Lets bring sense back into emancipation and allow women to be judged by their personalities and not their fashion.

I am far from suggesting that western women should copy simplified fashions like they are worn by Muslim women, which consist of a long frock and a veil, but say that women should stick to basic designs, just like the men do and so also behave environmentally friendly. If you work this out, the amount of fashions that have to be produced throughout the world, it uses a lot of earthly resources to produce those fashions, from the material to the machinery used. But I think it might have been a male idea to produce so many fashions, which is very profitable to those businesses.

Could we not just agree on basic styles. A man only has to have a couple of suits to last him years and he is still able to earn a living on such basic outfits, yet women seem to think they have to make themselves more attractive with ever-changing outfits that get more colourful and crazier by the day. I think we should calm down and make ourselves less prone to ridicule as female emancipation has reached a stage of self-defeating idleness. Women make themselves vulnerable if they give in to demands to look forever young to keep a job. Is there such a thing as a female council? Maybe we should start one to discuss such basic but necessary strategies.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,705 hits