Keeping things under control

Photo by RODNAE Productions on

I wondered for quite a while now why men can manage to keep on wearing the same suit for years and years without having to change colour or style. That is because men keep things under their control and they are happy.

Women on the contrary keep on changing fashion, colours, styles, spend much more on their wardrobe and contribute to environmental damage because the production and transport of fashion has a major effect on climate change and environmental degradation.

Keeping things under control, also includes keeping partners under control. The strict regulation of relationships, allows men to feel under control and therefore happy without a need to keep on changing their fashion.

The more people feel they are without control over their lives emotionally, the more they spend on fashion, beauty, make-up, colourful and stylish garments.

Photo by cottonbro on

That is a hypothesis without actual proof. It’s my feeling. I will leave scientists who love to collect information and collate to actually proof that, saves me a lot of work. I think the more controlling people are the less they change clothing style. Hence all those who wear uniform are most in control of things. And whilst I started watching US detective films, the ‘Men in Black’ from the US, CIA, FBI, NSA, always wear black without much change. Because they are in control.

See the emotional people always change their outfits from very colourful to even more colourful.

Women seem to have to fight much harder than men to keep control because they have lost control over their own affairs over the centuries of being controlled and now are trying to find their style. With it comes a constant change of garments, hairstyles, make-up, fashion, which costs women an enormous amount of money.

Women are charged twice as much as men for hairstyle appointments. Even if the outcome of a haircut is the same, a woman who goes to the female section of a traditional hair stylist pays more than a male going to the male side.

Hence I think that brought on the uniform decision of most women to just leave their hair long. Cutting it is just too expensive. Whilst maintaining long hair is also very expensive to do with the amount of shampoo we need. I heard someone say that long her is important to women for their sexual or gender identity, like cost doesn’t come into it.

I remember when Britney Spears shaved her head and that was declared mentally disturbed, but when men do it, it’s normal. I loved to cut my hair off at times, as it provides a fresh feel. I am sure men know that feeling only too well.

For security purposes employers love it if employees do not change hairstyle as it is easier to keep things under control. Changing hairstyles are a nightmare for security conscious employers.

Photo by Csongor Kemu00e9ny on

There was a time when male long hair was a privilege but males have decided they are better off fighting with short hair these days. The ones who have hair long, do it because they can earn money with it or get some other benefit.

We have one hairstylist locally, who charges by time spent on a client. That is a neutral way of charging.

I am quite happy to wear my jumpers for decades, as long as they hold and my Burberry jumper seems to last a lifetime. So no need to keep on buying new jumpers.

What seems the most important skill, is to live within a budget and maintain control over that budget, that is something most of us can do. Regardless of how many demands are made on a person, sacrificing one’s budget to demands of gaining power by use of fashion, should be out-phased by all those wanting to keep in control.

I am a nightmare for employers as I change my hairstyle from long to short and vice versa all the time. That is because my personal equilibrium was disturbed by males who exploited me over housing and didn’t allow me to carve out a career for myself without also sexually exploiting me. I think that women have a long way to go to stay in control of their own affairs.

Erosion of independent women’s rights

When I watched last night’s council meeting, I was in awe over the contradictions and discussions held. The issue of the St. George’s Pool was put aside in favour of the Bryant’s Match girls issue. I learned from Councillor Gold’s contribution that the Bryant brothers were Quakers. I remember George Galloway relying heavily on the support of the Quaker’s by using their hall near Holborn for meetings.

So the Quaker’s brothers owned the match factory, which ruined workers health so much, that they would not survive beyond the age of 30. But the fact that women strikes were held was heralded by yesterday’s council chamber’s praise led by Mark Francis’s wife Rachel Blake. Mark Francis himself used to send me a lot of insulting emails a long time back and my complaint was rebuffed with political banter.

Yet, me, being a fiercely independent woman, having trouble with the husband of the defender of the match stick girls, has significance in itself.

The meeting also spoke about quality of housing and that newly built council estates in Tower Hamlets are not all they are supposed to be, quality-wise.

Rachel Blake is a definite asset to Labour and to Mark Francis. The way she soothes opponents arguments and tries to integrate the suggestions with Labour strategy, is perhaps naive but nice to watch.

So anyhow, it was made clear that Mayor John Biggs, wants to completely replace St. George’s, meaning that this pool is going to be out for years.

So then a go was made against neighbouring Greenwich council over the maintenance of the foot tunnel and that Greenwich closed it when Tower Hamlets stopped payments towards the maintenance. Is it wise for Tower Hamlets Council to fall out with neighbouring Greenwich?

The forthcoming Council elections of course will see that a lot will be done to overthrow Labour. I will keep out of this completely.

But, I remember the state of our housing estate, after the last time we had a long Labour government. By the time Gordon Brown lost the election, our housing estate was a playing field for weeds with no proper maintenance, the internal state of the flats was equally neglected.

Then, when we got the Conservative government in, they put money for internal and external housing improvements.

By then, the Council was led by Lutfur Rahman and the internal repairs were of a very bad quality in some respects. Our newly put in toilet broke after 3 months and had to be replaced. Windows and locks were so badly maintained that my balcony door didn’t lock at all after the council workmen had a go at it. Some work was very good, like the carpenters who covered my rusty pipes and the floors were screeched. But the new kitchen furniture, especially the work tops were the cheapest possible quality and are already looking bad. Externally, they are still making good on bad workmanship.

I can’t forget that one workman who begged me for five pounds because he said he didn’t get paid but his gangmaster gets all the money.

I vividly remember the workmen who blamed me for next door’s balcony not being cleared and I had to go onto my balcony to proof to them that the other balcony wasn’t mine. So much for council’s knowing who lives where.

So anyhow, back to women’s rights or a loss of rights.

Whilst yesterday’s council meeting was going on, I received an answer from Councillor Mufeedah Bustin, to my enquiry about the marginalisation of women because of the increase in women only services. At the same time I see on social media a lot of men only meetings, being called community meetings. Mufeedah doesn’t see it that way, she thinks that women only events help women, who otherwise wouldn’t do activities at all.

There is the crass contradiction to me, a woman who can make my own decisions, and the women who are only allowed to do things if their male partners allow them to do them because it’s women only.

The more women only, male sanctioned events take place, the less is there on offer for the rest of us. Women who work, have careers, do not just want to go swimming when the women only session is on, they want to go swimming when they have the time to do so.

What we need to do is stop the harassment of women, not separate women away from men. Mufeedah explained to me that it is legal to provide gender based services as long as it is easier, yet the services at Mile End are being exploited by people who use the women only facilities to gain free entry to the gym, which causes a loss to the service provider for tens of thousands of pounds per year. It was explained that women only have to walk for 1 minute to get to their provision but that one minute was complained about as intolerable strain on women. ???????

Women services are still under the control of men if women are only allowed to do activities because their male partners allow them to do it because it’s women only.

I think women with partners who are perpetually jealous would be afraid to do mixed gender events because their jealous partners would accuse them endlessly of having it on with other men.

The question is, should we accommodate this increasing number of controlled women by providing women only events instead of telling those jealous men to change their tune? I don’t believe for one moment that women would be doing this by free choice, that they either do nothing or do it if its women only. That attitude comes from women who grew up under male control and never knew that a free choice for women is possible.

I noticed during my Libel trial against some Labour Party members how much they dislike women who have their own mind. Labour never forgave me for leaving the party and exploring the political field. Hence I now do things, which are distinctly non-political. Political ownership is as bad as personal jealousy. Yet, when it all comes to the crunch, my personal freedoms are important to me and if that means going to loggerheads with political parties so be it.

The tendency in society today to improve equality by enabling unisex facilities helps women to become more independent because overall control of who does what gets reduced.

Just as One-Housing provides cycling training for women only and I contacted them about this, they replied on Twitter that this helps keeping women in a safe controlled environment, but isn’t that what the Taleban in Afghanistan do, keeping women in a safe controlled environment, away from jobs and in the safe controlled home?

The general direction is the same, keeping women at home, keeping them in women only events, it is keeping them under control.


marginalising women

It is concerning that increasingly organisations provide courses for women only. Whilst we go towards unisex in every other area, in Tower Hamlets organisations seem to like providing events for women only. That can be seen as discrimination.

Especially as the very worrying trend in Afghanistan shows us how easily women can be removed from public life, marginalising women now with extra special courses for women only, that makes it easy to remove women completely from public life very quickly because they are not integrated with others like men for example.

I often see on social media men meeting only. It’s called community meetings but its literally males only. They imply that women are not members of the community.

Equal opportunities need to be maintained across the board and not only in pet projects to impress the general public.

You are as young as you are

Brilliant story of a lady musician releasing an album aged 97.

Former child prodigy Ruth Slenczynska is to release a new album at the age of 97, after signing a deal with the Decca record label.

I think that is cheering me up for the rest of the year. Just as my mailings by post are almost always to do with funeral plans, this lady shows how older people can remain young and keep on giving.

Just been on a Zoom meeting yesterday where I had been reminded that younger people should be doing things and that we are too old. There is nothing worst than ageism, body shaming and all generalisations about what a good person looks like or how old/young they must be to be good.

My TV habits

I have watched almost all detective stories, which are available on TV. Gone through all the classic British series from Minder to Vera. Now I turn to American series. Currently it’s NCIS: New Orleans. They actually promote the best version of family thinking I can accept.

Though it is a group of dedicated individuals who are not personally strongly engaged in private and personal family living, but who see their working group as family. This is most likely necessary if persons themselves do not have families they belong to.

After all detectives spend a lot of time on crime-fighting and are almost always available. Can only compare that to motherhood, whereby we are always available for our babies.

Detectives often come out on demand, regardless time of day, no 40 hour week, no 9-5. I don’t think one could survive this type of job if one had the classic idea of working hour and personal family life, ringfenced by working hours.

At least the NCIS: type of family is for law and order and relatively clean living. Detectives have changed a lot. In the early days, they would be chain-smoking, alcohol drinking and now they promote veganism and clean environments. Again, I must mention here that The Mentalist, portraits a clean-living, tea drinking detective.

Whilst all the American detective related serials also contain gun use and violence, the lifestyle of the crime fighters has become cleaner. British based stories are more alcohol and junk food rich but without guns.

It’s often been a core line in detective stories that the main detectives generally have wives, who eventually get tired of the long working hours of their husbands. With the NCIS: series, which is less sexist, we see all genders work together in a ‘family’ without having a homely sidekick waiting for them, complaining that they do not spend enough hours with the domestic partners.

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: