Q) Age?
A) Ouch, are you supposed to ask that? 41!!
Q) Sex?
A) Female, and yes as often as possible! Despite my age!!!
Q) What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
A) Psychology
Q) Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
A) Not so much this year as it is mainly statistics, but I think it fits in with psychology in general as it teaches you about ethics, making judgements about people and critically questioning our pre-formed prejudices.
Q) Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
A) At an appropriate level
Q) Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
A) Yes, I think we have had an interesting array of topics that have really made me think.
Q) Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
A) I would have liked at least one lecture on mass murder or similar, as I am fascinated to know what happens to make a person kill and this could fit in with psychology and personality formation.
Q) Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
A) I think having different speakers for different lectures has kept it interesting and fresh but I haven’t liked having so many in such an unsuitable room because it has been noisy and chaotic at times. It doesn’t lend itself well to group discussion as you can’t hear people’s comments and I think it would have improved the lectures if small groups were round tables debating different sides to each lecture.
Q) What did you think of the module team?
A) The module team seem friendly, knowledgeable, helpful and informative but I have felt that some struggle to keep such a large and noisy class under control, which unfortunately has spoilt it for me at times. I think stricter rules need to be imposed on issues such as talking, mobile phones and walking in and out of lectures. Well, you did ask.
Q) Do you think it would have been better to have had more Small group discussions?
A) Personally, I would have enjoyed more small group discussions, I think it would have generated different ideas and opinions around each topic and this would have helped to expand knowledge of the topic for the blogs.
Q) Discussion and debate among the class as a whole?
A) The discussion and debate would be fine if the class was smaller or we were in a more suitable room, unfortunately it was often difficult to hear all sides of the discussion because of the size of the room and the noise levels.
Q) Information and talk from lecturers?
A) Information given out at lectures was more than adequate I felt, and I have enjoyed researching those topics of interest further.
Q) The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
A) Well, I think it has worked and allowed me to gain insight and perspectives from subjects I wouldn’t otherwise look at (I became particularly drawn to religious studies during the module) I think you could incorporate some psychology too!!
Q) Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
A) Yes, I think it can be too easy to stay within the safety of one’s own subject but university is about broadening horizons. By making it interdisciplinary it gives students knowledge of other subjects and also helps to integrate and synthesise knowledge from different schools of thought. This creates wider perspectives about important issues.
Q) Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
A) Definitely.
Q) Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
A) Yes, I think it is good to open up difficult topics for debate. It gives new perspective to things and allows you to consider other people’s ideas and viewpoints that you may not have been open to or aware of before.
Q) Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
A) I would like to but have to study all core modules in year two.
Q) Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
A) Yes, I think it has been very interesting. I know some people have moaned about the relevance of topics but I think as long as you get that it’s about taking a critical look at topics and exploring with an open mind, what they mean in light of the differing perspectives you are introduced to, then it will interest you.
Q) Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
A) Personally, I have really enjoyed creating and maintaining my blog, it has been like a weekly diary and I shall continue with one after the module has finished. It is a great way of exchanging ideas, having a personal space, reflecting on learning and getting things off your chest. The only disappointment has been that not many others have really got into it, which means there has been few interesting exchanges, but apart from that it is good.
Q) What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
A) Originally, I would have preferred a longer essay, but that was more about trying to avoid doing the creative writing piece! Having forced myself to do that one first out of sheer fright, I found I really enjoyed the escape from formal report writing to more creative writing. So, now I would say no; having a variety of smaller pieces not only teaches you a valuable lesson in being concise, but also takes you out of your comfort zone and introduces you to other formats. It allows more experimentation.
Q) What have you learned from the module?
A) I hope I have learnt not to judge something too hastily but to explore something in more depth before making a judgement. I have learned to respect different ideas and opinions more and I have learnt to question things more; not to automatically think something is bad just because that is the consensus, but to really question whether I find it bad or not. It has hopefully taught me to think for myself more and not take everything at face value-something I was very guilty of before.
Q) What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
A) I have found it all useful to a degree, even topics that I wasn’t particularly interested in before; I have found it useful to gain more knowledge about them. I think on a personal level I found the religion one most useful because I was bought up as a strict catholic and had to go to church all the while. When I was a teenager I rebelled and hated the control, so I gave up going to church and had nothing to do with the topic. I wasn’t even going to attend the lecture on religion my aversion was so strong, but revisiting the topic made me reflect on my ideas. This has made me see that I miss some aspects of religion and that I do have strong beliefs but that I don’t need to belong to a church etc. to have those beliefs. It has made me more balanced in my view of religion and allowed me to evaluate my own beliefs and ideas in a more mature way.
Q) What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
A) I don’t think any of it was a waste of time; everything we do creates a learning opportunity; even if we only learn we didn’t like it. I think all the topics were interesting and different people will have been drawn to different topics. I took what I wanted from each lecture, some I reflected on briefly others caught my imagination and I researched in more depth. I don’t consider any of it a waste because I took what I needed and made the most of it.
Q) Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
A) I have truly enjoyed it. Each lecture has been interesting and each member of staff has shown a real interest and passion for the subject; which for me makes it more interesting.
Friday, 4 May 2007
Bad Comedians
This week's lecture was on bad comedians and was very entertaining. It was interesting to find out that jokes can't be racist as they don't make a statement of fact, they are by their very nature a joke. I had never thought of it like that. I have always really disliked Bernard Manning for what i percieved as his racist jokes, although i must admit i do still find his material largely offensive. However, looking at some of the theories on comedy and the useful purposes they serve; such as raising taboos for discussion etc. I will think differently.
I agree with Incongruity theory, i think sometimes i laugh at a joke because of that sudden shock when you hear the punchline and realise the contrast in material...that is what makes it funny and i'd never noticed that before.
Superiority Theory also raised some interesting points and i agree that as humans we like to use humour to put others down and gain that sense of superiority. When we can laugh at someone else's misfortune it makes us feel better. Though sometimes it also makes us feel better if we can laugh at our own misfortune as well; serving as a coping mechanism.
I very much agree with relief theory also. Humour serves as a defence and in my work as a counsellor i encounter it all the time. Clients will often make jokes about the difficulties in their lives; it serves as a way of coping and of broaching difficult subject material. In fact i would say it is almost essential for some people's survival; when they can no longer laugh at life, it's the time to worry. Freud spoke a lot of truth!!
I agree with Incongruity theory, i think sometimes i laugh at a joke because of that sudden shock when you hear the punchline and realise the contrast in material...that is what makes it funny and i'd never noticed that before.
Superiority Theory also raised some interesting points and i agree that as humans we like to use humour to put others down and gain that sense of superiority. When we can laugh at someone else's misfortune it makes us feel better. Though sometimes it also makes us feel better if we can laugh at our own misfortune as well; serving as a coping mechanism.
I very much agree with relief theory also. Humour serves as a defence and in my work as a counsellor i encounter it all the time. Clients will often make jokes about the difficulties in their lives; it serves as a way of coping and of broaching difficult subject material. In fact i would say it is almost essential for some people's survival; when they can no longer laugh at life, it's the time to worry. Freud spoke a lot of truth!!
Thursday, 26 April 2007
Gambling
This week's lecture was on Gambling. I have never really considered myself a gambler, as i would have descibed one who HAS to have a bet, either on lottery, cards, casino's, horses, dogs etc. Yet Dennis described having car insurance, house insurance etc. gambling also. So, if i have the odd go on the lottery, buy the occasional scratchcard and insure my property, then strictly speaking i'm a gambler. I'm not particularly convinced of that but still. Maybe a better definition would be problematic and non-problematic gambling then. My actions would be non-problematic, it is occasional gambling that causes no problems either to my self or those around me. Problematic gambling, on the other hand can cause serious problems to people and their families and becomes a compulsion or addiction that ends in people losing their families, homes, businesses and in extreme cases their lives!
Symptoms of problem gambling are:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/286/2/260.pdf
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/gambling.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/compulsive-gambling/DS00443/DSECTION=8
Symptoms of problem gambling are:
1) A preoccupation with gambling
2) Reliving past gambling experiences
3) Taking time from work or family life to gamble
4) Concealing gambling
5) Feeling guilt or remorse after gambling
6) Borrowing money or stealing to gamble
7) Failed efforts to cut back on gambling
8) Lying to hide gambling
Personally, i don't see the initial idea of gambling as "bad" for most people. When it becomes an addiction however, it can be ruinous. Apparently gambling addiction is closely related to other substance abuse addictions and can occur in certain people more than others. Those at risk are:
1) Those that start gambling at a young age
2) Men are more prone than women
3) Those with biochemical abnormalities, particularly Dopamine and Seratonin have been linked to gambling addiction.
4) Those whose parent's gambled
5) Those who live close to a casino etc.
6) Those sufering other mood or personality disorders
Check out the links for more info.
http://www.ncpgambling.org/http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/286/2/260.pdf
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/gambling.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/compulsive-gambling/DS00443/DSECTION=8
Friday, 20 April 2007
Fraud- when a lie becomes a criminal offence
Image from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/Building on the theme of lying, i was interested to explore beyond the innocent white lie and look at lies that get people in trouble with the law. Fraud is a deception made for personal gain with defrauding people of money the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud.
Fraud covers such things as conmen, imposters, falsifying documents, investment frauds etc. It is any kind of falsification or deception that is knowingly carried out in order to get material gain-usually of a financial nature. Famous fraudsters include Frank Abagnale Jr. who passed himself off as respected professionals such as doctors etc and inspired the film "Catch me if you can", Nick Leeson who single handedly brought down Barings Bank and Peter Popoff who was a Televangelist who made money from his claims that he could cure people of their ills through faith healing.
So, what inspires fraud and why does it work?
The first thing that comes to mind is simple GREED. That may sound harsh but i believe all fraudsters have something in common, they are greedy for what they can gain. Some say that large fraud starts off small and this could possibly be said of all crime. It starts as an idea or act of desperation to make some sort of gain but when successful it can trigger further attempts and so on. The person's own greed carries them on. In the case of Nick Gleeson, i do feel a little sorry for him as he seemed a nice bloke that made a mistake and it grew ever larger in his attempts to make it right. Having watched the documentary on his life i would still say greed comes into it. He wanted to make large profits and show his worth and so he took large risks- he made errors which cost money and rather than owning up to it he tried to cover his tracks by "stealing" funds to try and make up what he'd lost, with disasterous results, it could have paid off but it was always a huge risk.
So why do people get taken in? Well, i would like to say naivety, and in a small minority that could be true...yet, no, i still think GREED. A con trick or fraud is successfull because the victims often think they are going to benefit in some way from the fantastic deal that is on offer, and that is exactly what the tricksters want them to think. People really want to believe that they are the lucky, chosen ones who are being offered the half price villa or the business deal of the century etc. and that makes them willing to part with their cash, because in their minds they are going to gain a whole lot more.
On a more sinister note, those who claim to heal relatives through faith healing, crystals etc. are praying on an emotional weakness in their victim. They are promising to cure loved ones and so people hand over money because they want to believe a lie and because they don't want to put a value on someone's life.
Whether it is lying, fraud, deception etc. It works because one party is prepared to lie to get whatever they want and the other party wants to believe the lie because it satisfies some need in them.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Lying with integrity
Lying, right or wrong? Difficult one really. Ideally i would like to conclude that all lying is wrong and one should never do it, however since i have told lies that seems a hypocritical stance. So, i would say that if one can avoid it then it is always better not to lie, however i accept that there are circumstances when one may have to lie, for survival perhaps.
So how do we determine what to do? I think personally circumstances count and i also believe that as humans we are more likely to accept or forgive some lies over others. For example, there are probably very few people who can say they have never lied, it is generally accepted that from time to time we all lie, what i believe makes the difference is the length and depth of the lie and also the motive. As empathic souls, we are likely to forgive someone who lied as a knee jerk reaction or through stupidity, naievety etc but then immediately felt bad for what they had done and owned up, apologising. We would, i believe, weigh up the circumstances, accept the person's mistake and forgive them, probably still believing them to be a basically honest person that made an error of judgement. I would be less likely to forgive someone who continued the deciept or lied further to conceal their mistake. I would also be more likely to forgive someone who had lied to protect someone rather than for selfish reasons.
Immanual Kant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying prohibited lying as he believed it to lead to a breakdown in trust and therefore felt it was never acceptable to lie. I disagree that it can't ever be acceptable to lie- i believe it is evolutionary and therefore necessary to our survival; whether physically, as in the lies told by soldiers during wars, or emotionally as in the use of denial, projection and rationalisation as defence mechanisms that serve to conceal the truth, from others but also from ourselves. Agreeably, the use of defences aren't good long term but are sometimes a short term necessity to help us come to terms with traumatic experiences in our own time.
I do however, agree that lying breaks down trust and that if we all consistently lied then society would break down. We would not be able to form relationships because we wouldn't be able to believe or trust people around us. The judicial system would collapse because we would not be able to trust that people were telling the truth when on oath.
As Wallace http://www.spectacle.org/0500/lies.html puts it "I hate being lied to. Short of violence, it is the worst thing you can do to me. Not because of God, or the Ten Commandments, or any universal moral precepts. The reason that I hate lies is because, like you, I wish to navigate carefully through life, and to do so I must be able to calculate my true position. When you lie to me, you know your position but you have given me false data which obscures mine". I think this is a poignant way of looking at it. When you lie you effectively knock someone off course.
I have lied in the past and i can't put my hand on my heart and say i'll never lie again because i don't know what circumstances are around the corner. I have modified my behaviour over the years because i have regretfully hurt others with my actions and learnt some painful and valuable life lessons! On that note i would agree with Kevin...if you're going to lie, think very, very carefully about it. A good maxim may be "Do that which will do the least harm and the greatest good".
So how do we determine what to do? I think personally circumstances count and i also believe that as humans we are more likely to accept or forgive some lies over others. For example, there are probably very few people who can say they have never lied, it is generally accepted that from time to time we all lie, what i believe makes the difference is the length and depth of the lie and also the motive. As empathic souls, we are likely to forgive someone who lied as a knee jerk reaction or through stupidity, naievety etc but then immediately felt bad for what they had done and owned up, apologising. We would, i believe, weigh up the circumstances, accept the person's mistake and forgive them, probably still believing them to be a basically honest person that made an error of judgement. I would be less likely to forgive someone who continued the deciept or lied further to conceal their mistake. I would also be more likely to forgive someone who had lied to protect someone rather than for selfish reasons.
Immanual Kant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying prohibited lying as he believed it to lead to a breakdown in trust and therefore felt it was never acceptable to lie. I disagree that it can't ever be acceptable to lie- i believe it is evolutionary and therefore necessary to our survival; whether physically, as in the lies told by soldiers during wars, or emotionally as in the use of denial, projection and rationalisation as defence mechanisms that serve to conceal the truth, from others but also from ourselves. Agreeably, the use of defences aren't good long term but are sometimes a short term necessity to help us come to terms with traumatic experiences in our own time.
I do however, agree that lying breaks down trust and that if we all consistently lied then society would break down. We would not be able to form relationships because we wouldn't be able to believe or trust people around us. The judicial system would collapse because we would not be able to trust that people were telling the truth when on oath.
As Wallace http://www.spectacle.org/0500/lies.html puts it "I hate being lied to. Short of violence, it is the worst thing you can do to me. Not because of God, or the Ten Commandments, or any universal moral precepts. The reason that I hate lies is because, like you, I wish to navigate carefully through life, and to do so I must be able to calculate my true position. When you lie to me, you know your position but you have given me false data which obscures mine". I think this is a poignant way of looking at it. When you lie you effectively knock someone off course.
I have lied in the past and i can't put my hand on my heart and say i'll never lie again because i don't know what circumstances are around the corner. I have modified my behaviour over the years because i have regretfully hurt others with my actions and learnt some painful and valuable life lessons! On that note i would agree with Kevin...if you're going to lie, think very, very carefully about it. A good maxim may be "Do that which will do the least harm and the greatest good".
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Abortion
Well, if the reaction to my religion post is anything to go by, then i'm going to get slaughtered for this post. Nevertheless, i think it is an interesting topic and worthy of debate. I genuinely don't think there can be a right or wrong here, even though i was bought up religious and don't believe a person should take the life of another, i think there is a difference in this case and the woman should be free to make a decision that is right for her.
There are plenty of pro-life sites that talk of how wrong abortion is and how psychologically scarred the woman can be after. This is probably true for many and symptons can range from guilt and sadness to uncontrollable outbursts of crying, anger, betrayal, resentment and depression. For others there is a sense of relief, happiness and closure. For most there are ambivalent feelings with many reporting feelings of relief and sadness http://www.afterabortion.info/hope/arti62.htm symptoms can be immediate or may surface weeks, months or even years later; sometimes when the person experiences a further loss or when they start a family and memories are bought back.
Before making judgement however, i think it is important to remember that psychological and emotional harm can affect the woman if they are pressured or co-erced into keeping a baby that they simply do not want or don't feel equipped to look after; whether physically, emotionally or financially. Emotional support is important as it has been shown that mothers can experience feelings of fear, anger, resentment and ambivalence http://www.uc.edu/cc/Unplanned.html.
Negative feelings of the mother toward a baby that is unwanted can be detrimental to the growing child; causing problems with bonding and leaving children with low self esteem, lack of confidence and often leading to aggressive and anti-social tendencies in later life. Some studies have shown that continuing with an unwanted pregnancy is NOT the easy option and can lead to emotional problems, mental health problems and even premature death through suicide and self abuse, for both mother and child http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_ocr2.asp
I think then it is vitally important for any woman facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy to get impartial and informative help and guidance that can assist them in making the choice that is absoloutely right for them, despite what others think.
Image from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/1749837.stm
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Euthanasia-murder or mercy?
The Hippocratic Oath states " To please no-one will i prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia and doctor's have to swear on a form of this. However which is worse, to cause someone's death but save them from pain and suffering or to withhold a drug that may end their suffering but result in their death? After all we put animals out of their misery. Thankfully though i don't have to make this decision but if i did i am pretty sure which one i would choose. If a loved one was suffering daily and i had doctor's opinion that this suffering would not end and there was no cure, then if they asked me to help them i would and i hope if i am suffering and chose to die then someone would help me.
But it is a contentious issue because you have to be sure of so many things, such as whether the person is of sound mind etc. Some arguments in favour of voluntary euthanasia is choice; we all have a basic right to free choice and if that means choosing to end our life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering and die with dignity, then surely we should have that right. Arguments against are that it is a form of murder or assisted suicide and for some religions that is seen as a sin or immoral.
In some countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and the netherlands voluntary euthanasis (i.e with consent) is lawful, and family members can assist, so long as they have nothing to gain from the person's death.
Personally i think it should be an individual's choice and they should be allowed to get assistance from a medical person as this would ease the burden and sense of guilt on family members who choose to help their loved ones as an act of mercy, and then find themselves facing a lawsuit.
If i had a loved one who wanted to die because they were in immense pain or had an incurable disease, i had sought medical opinion to the fact, and they asked me to help, i would. I would take the risk because i have watched relatives die in pain and it is not nice. I think it would be inhumane to leave them to suffer.
Check out the links and decide for yourself
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110601.html
But it is a contentious issue because you have to be sure of so many things, such as whether the person is of sound mind etc. Some arguments in favour of voluntary euthanasia is choice; we all have a basic right to free choice and if that means choosing to end our life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering and die with dignity, then surely we should have that right. Arguments against are that it is a form of murder or assisted suicide and for some religions that is seen as a sin or immoral.
In some countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and the netherlands voluntary euthanasis (i.e with consent) is lawful, and family members can assist, so long as they have nothing to gain from the person's death.
Personally i think it should be an individual's choice and they should be allowed to get assistance from a medical person as this would ease the burden and sense of guilt on family members who choose to help their loved ones as an act of mercy, and then find themselves facing a lawsuit.
If i had a loved one who wanted to die because they were in immense pain or had an incurable disease, i had sought medical opinion to the fact, and they asked me to help, i would. I would take the risk because i have watched relatives die in pain and it is not nice. I think it would be inhumane to leave them to suffer.
Check out the links and decide for yourself
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110601.html
Monday, 2 April 2007
Animal Cruelty- double standards
I was thinking what to write about seen as we have no lectures and i thought i would look at animal cruelty. It is a subject that has always disgusted me because it entails intense cruelty, to often, defenceless creatures...and for someone's sick pleasure. But there is a semantic element isn't there, when we think that things like dog hunting and badger baiting are acts of sick cruelty that have long been banned, yet fox hunting is labelled as a sport for the aristocracy that lived on in esteem until only recently. If you check out some of the links below you will see that it has been rationalised in all manner of ways, from continuing tradition to a form of pest control! I agree with the argument that the countryside may become over run with pests if there weren't some form of control, but nothing can justify chasing a scared witless animal for miles before watching it being ripped apart...then to smear the animals blood on people's faces as some kind of ritual or initiation is barbaric and sick.
Dog hunting and badger baiting were termed the working class's form of hunting and were outlawed years ago...although it still goes on in secret, and it really is barbaric if you have the stomach to read some of the links. It is interesting that often what is deemed a crime, or what earns the more disdain, is that of the working classes, whilst the upper classes get to call the shots and wield the power in what ever way suits them.
http://www.badger.org.uk/action/badger-cruelty-facts.html
http://www.badger.org.uk/action/badger-cruelty-facts.html
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Bad Cinema- Kids (1995)
Well, i did find the film interesting, gripping, shocking and sad. The questions our group were asked were A) what did you find shocking and why? and B) What added to the realism of the film? I shall tackle these in reverse order. What added to the realism? I think the way it was filmed meant that as a member of the audience, you felt as though you were part of that gang, you became immersed in their lives as you followed them around. Also the language made it real, it was as though you were eavesdropping and people were just talking naturally and unguarded. Also, it was real...however much we would like to shield ourselves from the realities of adolescent life these things happen, it is real life. I have worked for the last two years counselling 13-19 year olds and everything i saw in the film is part of real life for many young people; drugs, unprotected sex, sexually transmitted diseases, beatings and violence, it all happens. I found the scene where the guy got beaten up absolutely brutal and sickening and yet i spent 12 months counselling a lad of 14, who was savagely beaten by ten 15 year olds to within minutes of his life! It would be very easy to dismiss this film as a piece of sensationalist cinema in bad taste, but sadly it depicts real life for more and more young people today, and not just in America, here.
Secondly, what did i find shocking? Well, all of it really...though i didn't find it surprising, which is something else. I found the violence shocking, the fact that young people can set about a human being like he is an animal i found gut wrenching; worse was the thought that people enjoyed this, they laughed and whooped, they egged each other on and they congratulated each other on a job well done, while a person lay battered and bleeding on the floor. And we are meant to be civilised...well we have really come a long way from the barbarians and savages then haven't we.
I found it shocking that in the 21st century, with all the information and education on safe sex, that kids still sleep around without protection...it's like playing russian roulette with your life.
I found it shocking that kids were left to take drugs and alchohol with seemingly no interest or input from parents. As an older student, i probably watched it from a maternal view, and i couldn't help but think, where are their parents? Why aren't they worried? And yet it is more and more common.
Most shocking of all i guess was the fact that it is real. It is nice, customary even, to watch a scary or shocking film and then console yourself on the way home that it isn't real, that it's all going to be ok. But no, it's reality and i can't preach too much because it's exactly what i did as a kid. I went to parties where there was loads of booze and spliffs being handed round, where people slept in the bath and you had to step over the piles of sick. Where you rushed to the clinic the next morning to get the morning after pill and relayed all the close calls to your mates. Nothing's changed much, except now i'm watching it through wiser eyes and thinking, "god, did we really get away with all that, it's a wonder i'm still here". And that's what kids do, race through life at hundred mile an hour, seeing what they can get away with and waking up one day and saying "Shit, what happened" A very apt end to the film...at some point in everyone's life, for whatever reason, i reckon we all sit up and utter those very words. The biggest changes i see are the prevalence of drugs, and stronger ones than we could ever get hold of, and the levels of violence that seem totally commonplace now. I find it scary to think where it is all going to end.
Secondly, what did i find shocking? Well, all of it really...though i didn't find it surprising, which is something else. I found the violence shocking, the fact that young people can set about a human being like he is an animal i found gut wrenching; worse was the thought that people enjoyed this, they laughed and whooped, they egged each other on and they congratulated each other on a job well done, while a person lay battered and bleeding on the floor. And we are meant to be civilised...well we have really come a long way from the barbarians and savages then haven't we.
I found it shocking that in the 21st century, with all the information and education on safe sex, that kids still sleep around without protection...it's like playing russian roulette with your life.
I found it shocking that kids were left to take drugs and alchohol with seemingly no interest or input from parents. As an older student, i probably watched it from a maternal view, and i couldn't help but think, where are their parents? Why aren't they worried? And yet it is more and more common.
Most shocking of all i guess was the fact that it is real. It is nice, customary even, to watch a scary or shocking film and then console yourself on the way home that it isn't real, that it's all going to be ok. But no, it's reality and i can't preach too much because it's exactly what i did as a kid. I went to parties where there was loads of booze and spliffs being handed round, where people slept in the bath and you had to step over the piles of sick. Where you rushed to the clinic the next morning to get the morning after pill and relayed all the close calls to your mates. Nothing's changed much, except now i'm watching it through wiser eyes and thinking, "god, did we really get away with all that, it's a wonder i'm still here". And that's what kids do, race through life at hundred mile an hour, seeing what they can get away with and waking up one day and saying "Shit, what happened" A very apt end to the film...at some point in everyone's life, for whatever reason, i reckon we all sit up and utter those very words. The biggest changes i see are the prevalence of drugs, and stronger ones than we could ever get hold of, and the levels of violence that seem totally commonplace now. I find it scary to think where it is all going to end.
Saturday, 24 March 2007
Rudeness
I thought i'd discuss rudeness as it is one thing that really gets on my nerves and i do think is bad. I'm bringing this subject up because week after week the lectures are disrupted by people walking in and out during the lecture...what you all got such infantile bladders that you can't last an hour until the break!! Then there is mobiles going off and people talking so loud it is hard to hear what's going on... it is inconsiderate and down right rude!!
If people don't enjoy the lesson and don't want to be there DONT be there and give us all a break. I really can't understand why people come to a lecture and then talk all the way through it, if it is so boring then go and do something else, that way the ones who are interested, or at the very least have the manners to sit quiet and not disrupt the lesson for others, can enjoy the lecture in peace.
Sorry but i had to get that off my chest.
Here's some sites on rudeness and etiquette:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudeness
http://www.bmezine.com/news/lizardman/20040623.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/04/02/rude.americans/index.html
If people don't enjoy the lesson and don't want to be there DONT be there and give us all a break. I really can't understand why people come to a lecture and then talk all the way through it, if it is so boring then go and do something else, that way the ones who are interested, or at the very least have the manners to sit quiet and not disrupt the lesson for others, can enjoy the lecture in peace.
Sorry but i had to get that off my chest.
Here's some sites on rudeness and etiquette:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudeness
http://www.bmezine.com/news/lizardman/20040623.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/04/02/rude.americans/index.html
Friday, 23 March 2007
Body modification
In response to this week's lecture, i can't say i really find any of the things "wrong" as such, just a matter of personal choice really. Although i agree that things like self image and identity seem to be linked. In respect of tatoos, on the whole i don't like them because i think they detract from a person's natural beauty, i think they spoil a person's looks. I can probably count on one hand the number of tatoos i have seen that i've actually thought look nice. Plus they are painful to have done, which means i am never going to be tempted as i am a real wimp. Also they are permanent, so if you change your mind, which i frequently do, it's tough. I don't like the thought of being stuck with something i really don't like any more, i'd rather use make-up and jewellery, clothes etc. because you can change your style.
Piercings, well i did have my ears pierced 4 times when i was younger because that was the fashion, and yeah i wanted to fit in. Then nose piercing became fashionable and so i had that done too...never again, it was sooo painful, i really didn't sleep for 2 nights as it throbbed so much. In the end i was so fed up with the pain i ripped it out after 2 days and that was that. So i'm not the most adventurous then. Having said that, it was an experience and i guess that's what it's all about. When young we experiment with all these things, we want to find our own style and identity, i don't think there's anthing wrong with that, in fact it is probably a really healthy thing to do. I suppose you just have to look in to the risks and make safe choices.
As for the idea that God created us and we should remain in our natural state... i was bought up catholic and if i had a pound for everytime i heard that i'd be worth millions. My mom said it all the time, usually as a way of getting me to do what she wanted!! so control is probably an issue. I always used to answer that we weren't born with clothes on but we are more than happy to be wearing them... that usually shut her up. I think people are often afraid of things they don't understand or relate to and so they try to get rid of it. When they can't they use emotive topics to try and sway us. At the end of the day, you have to do what's right for you and if someone else has a problem, it's their problem ( within the law of course).
I think control is a good point and something most of us can relate to. For example how many women have changed their hair or bought a new outfit when a relationship ends? It is a way of clearing the ground and making a statement "i'm over you". I had a friend who for years had really long hair because her boyfrieng loved it, when he dumped her the first thing she did was have it cut short... she revelled inhim seeing her out with her friends and her new style...it was the next best thing to sticking her finger up and saying screw you.
So, all in all i don't really think any of them are wrong, as long as they are a personal choice and not enforced. They're not necessarily my choice but that's ok
image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_art
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Being too religious
This week's lecture was good, i have often wondered what attracted people to sects or cults. If my understanding is right then sects were originally part of a larger demonination that broke off, usually over some disagreement. whereas cults are original or innovative in their ideas/ beliefs. Both are relatively small groups and have an element of "fanaticism" about them. Cults often have some control over members and exert their own beliefs on others, whereas sects don't explicitly do this, instead they recruit followers, believers or sympathisers http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm
I have no real issue with the idea of different religions or the depth of their religion providing no one tries to exert their beliefs on me and i think many people feel the same. One thing i did find unacceptable though was the idea of refusing essential medical attention because of religious beliefs, which Jehovah's Witnesses do and so do the Christian Science movement http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical.htm Scores of preventable deaths have apparently occurred because medical attention has been denied. It is fair to mention that there probably isn't an explicit maliscious intent; simply an intense belief in the ability of prayer alone to heal their loved ones, in this case you have to sympathise with the levels of denial and possibly ignorance. In the case of Jehovah's they refuse blood transfusions because Biblical text talks about "not eating the blood", which they have translated to include recieving blood from others; where most other religions interpret the writings in regard to dietary rules. This in my view is an abuse of power and neglect for the child, i cannot concieve of sitting by and watching my child die screaming in agony when doctors could save their life. I have to admit it seems like madness to me. But, each to their own, i won't condemn their beliefs but i do question their rationale. For example Jehovah's see us as sinners and feel we should commit ourselves to their cause. By sacrificing worldly goods on earth we stand the chance of being granted eternal life in the second coming. But isn't this the ultimate in selfishness? Aren't they making sacrifices now, only to gain even better in the future?
Another thing i didn't like was the manipulation involved in some sects. For example Jehovah's indoctrinate followers to believe that Jehove is "the father figure" and the group is "the Mother figure" clever!! Therefore all comfort and reassurance can be sought from "the family". This is a psychoanalytical construct developed from Melanie Klien's Object Relations Theory. In her theories the child experiences extreme anxiety when it realises it can not control the mother and that the mother is capable of both good and bad acts. Rather than see the mother as bad, the child retroflects these feelings, ie they turn the feelings against themselves, believing they must be bad.
This makes it very difficult to get the follower to hear anything bad about the sect, because anything bad is seen as an attack on the mother figure, who must be defended at all cost- so any criticism only serves to strengthen the belief that "the family " is right and outsiders are just trying to turn them against their group. It might be worthwhile pointing out that a similar tactic is seen in cases of domestic violence and abuse...enough said!
Religion is a personal choice and i don't believe it should be imposed on others. It has it's uses, a source of guidance and comfort perhaps. My overall view though, and this may be cynical but, Religion is for those who are intelligent enough to want to search for answers but too scared to face the idea that there may not be any.
Monday, 12 March 2007
Bandits and Outlaws
Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie
I thought this week's lecture on bandits and outlaws was really interesting. I don't know about any one else but i find myself alternating between thinking they were really bad people who deserved what they got, feeling sorry for them because they were doing the best they could to survive in the era they grew up in and were often set up as scapegoats in order to improve the crime ratings, and quite admiring their bravery and audacity.
Part of the admiration stems from probably wishing i could do something daring and exciting, therefore there is a vicarious element to it, and part of it stems from the idea that some bandits, reportedly, stole from big businesses or rich landowners and helped others less fortunate. In this sense it appeals to the idea of standing up for the little guy, or looking after one's own, and that rather appeals to me. In such a dog eat dog world, i would rather be fighting the corner for the underdog than the topdog.
I also believe that the more oppression and stress that is forced upon people the more they will come back fighting and i think that is, in part, what happened with some bandits like Bonnie and Clyde, they didn't feel they could ever win against the big businesses or the law, so decided to go down fighting. Better to live one day as a tiger than a life time as a worm, isn't that the saying? Their lives may have been short but their legend lives on and who is to say that it's better to live a long life but be remembered for nothing? That's rather sad isn't is?
Of course, there is the argument that innocent people died at their hands and this is where i swing back to thinking bad of them again, after all if they didn't break the law they wouldn't face the difficulties. But then again, in the heart of a depression survival instincts, anger and resentment all start to kick in and make a lethal brew.
I guess my conclusion would be that i disliked some of their "bad" behaviour but don't necessarily judge them as bad people. I don't wish to judge people when i have no idea how i would behave in similar circumstances or faced with certain difficulties. So there we go...totally sitting on the fence. What does any one else think?? Check out my links, there is some really interesting stuff, like the original crime records, witness accounts etc.
In response to Pragati's blog at http://vampyrmistress.blogspot.com/
Hi,
Like you i really enjoyed the Bandits and Outlaws lecture but agree it is definitely not all black and white. I think people tend to sympathise with those outlaws that attempted to help those less fortunate, even though strictly speaking they were all criminals, and largely murderers. I don't know about you but i found myself really sympathising with some of them when i read about their lives. Bonnie and Clyde particularly touched a nerve..i think it was probably the romantic element that swung it, but i also like the idea of someone really fighting for what they believe in and going down fighting. It is easy sometimes to automatically judge the underdog as the baddie, the working class hero, the kid from the wrong side of the blocks; there's often the call to bring back corporal punishment etc. But often the big businessmen, the aristocracy, the rich and famous are just as big villians but when they do anything it's a smack on the wrist. How many politicians and big businessmen have abused their power, misappropriated funds, or conducted dodgy dealings under the safety of a legitimate business? We have to remember there are always two sides to a story.
Like you i really enjoyed the Bandits and Outlaws lecture but agree it is definitely not all black and white. I think people tend to sympathise with those outlaws that attempted to help those less fortunate, even though strictly speaking they were all criminals, and largely murderers. I don't know about you but i found myself really sympathising with some of them when i read about their lives. Bonnie and Clyde particularly touched a nerve..i think it was probably the romantic element that swung it, but i also like the idea of someone really fighting for what they believe in and going down fighting. It is easy sometimes to automatically judge the underdog as the baddie, the working class hero, the kid from the wrong side of the blocks; there's often the call to bring back corporal punishment etc. But often the big businessmen, the aristocracy, the rich and famous are just as big villians but when they do anything it's a smack on the wrist. How many politicians and big businessmen have abused their power, misappropriated funds, or conducted dodgy dealings under the safety of a legitimate business? We have to remember there are always two sides to a story.
Love your blog btw
Regards, Claire
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Infidelity
www.theatreroyal.org.uk/main/Betrayal.htmlI thought this weeks lecture was really interesting on fidelity and betrayal (once the rabble shut up, that is). I think betrayal is the key part of this. yes, it's hurtful when a partner strays and the details upset people, but i think ultimately it is the betrayal of trust that hurts.
Trust is almost a part of our survival and i think we have trouble coping without it. Very often a couple will try again after an affair, and when they can't it is usually the fact that the trust has been destroyed that causes them to part.
Why is trust so important? Well when you think that right from birth we need trust. We have to, as helpless babies, trust in adults to feed us, take care of us and love us. This first experience of trust can leave us with good experiences, meaning we can grow into trusting and caring adults, or bad experiences whereby we have a lifelong difficulty in forming and maintaining relationships because of a lack of trust.
We trust people in so many areas of our lives. We trust Doctors when they treat us, we trust our friends and family to be there for us, we trust people not to rob us or rip us off, we trust what advice we recieve from experts. When ever we face a situation where trust has been broken our faith in human nature is shaken a bit and we have to build up the trust again. This doesn't always affect us when the person isn't emotionally important to us; we may get ripped off and shrug this off but when the person means a lot to us it can be very hard to rebuild the trust.
Trust is almost a part of our survival and i think we have trouble coping without it. Very often a couple will try again after an affair, and when they can't it is usually the fact that the trust has been destroyed that causes them to part.
Why is trust so important? Well when you think that right from birth we need trust. We have to, as helpless babies, trust in adults to feed us, take care of us and love us. This first experience of trust can leave us with good experiences, meaning we can grow into trusting and caring adults, or bad experiences whereby we have a lifelong difficulty in forming and maintaining relationships because of a lack of trust.
We trust people in so many areas of our lives. We trust Doctors when they treat us, we trust our friends and family to be there for us, we trust people not to rob us or rip us off, we trust what advice we recieve from experts. When ever we face a situation where trust has been broken our faith in human nature is shaken a bit and we have to build up the trust again. This doesn't always affect us when the person isn't emotionally important to us; we may get ripped off and shrug this off but when the person means a lot to us it can be very hard to rebuild the trust.
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Guilt
The following, highlighted section was posted in response to Carly's blog
http://carlysblog-theclog.blogspot.com/
Hi Carly. Yours is an interesting question and i'm sure many women would answer yes. I think an important point you raise is that of "Guilt".Guilt appears behind so many worries and can have such a negative effect, it is certainly a very common feature in eating disorders, along with control. Together these two create a viscious cycle where, because of the rules we have ingested, we feel guilt the minute we percieve we have done something "wrong" and we then try to get back in control to compensate. Unfortunately we are human and can never live up to the expectations of others fully, so will often feel guilty if we try to.I wasted many years overeating to cope with feelings of inadequacy, then through guilt and feelings of failure i ended up feeling even more inadequate, so ate more!! It wasn't until i learnt to express my feelings in other ways and DITCH the GUILT that i was able to eat sensibly.I am glad you conquered your eating disorder and that you are a HEALTHY size 12 now. Try not to feel guilty if you treat yourself now and again, after all you're human. All the best.
Guilt. Guilt i think is born out of conscience or a sense of right and wrong. Freud would propose that it is the superego bearing down upon the ego that produces guilt, for the ego or self craves one action but the societal and parental teachings contained within the superego wishes us to take another action. Guilt is the result of us behaving in a way that we feel we "Should not" or failing to behave in a way that we feel we "Should". Guilt can very often be a negative emotion and can prevent us from living our lives in a happy or productive way, as we are constantly trying to please others and suffering when we can't.
Not that all guilt is bad. I feel without any sense of guilt we would probably have societal breakdown, guilt stops us from doing exactly what we want when we want, it maintains a civilised society. Having said that guilt can also be used to control and manipulate. Others can induce feelings of guilt when we don't fit in with their wishes and that is a form of control, which i don't think is good. I think rather than be plagued by guilt we can express appropriate regret or remorse, as we are human and therefore we all make mistakes. I think two other factors are relevant also; choice and responsibility. We have a choice to help out a friend and shouldn't feel guilty if we choose to say no. We also have our own individual responsibilities, so if something is not our responsibility we don't have to take it on- the other person needs to take on their responsibilities and then choose how they act rather than making you feel guilty for not helping them.
Check out my links and let me know your thoughts.
http://carlysblog-theclog.blogspot.com/
Hi Carly. Yours is an interesting question and i'm sure many women would answer yes. I think an important point you raise is that of "Guilt".Guilt appears behind so many worries and can have such a negative effect, it is certainly a very common feature in eating disorders, along with control. Together these two create a viscious cycle where, because of the rules we have ingested, we feel guilt the minute we percieve we have done something "wrong" and we then try to get back in control to compensate. Unfortunately we are human and can never live up to the expectations of others fully, so will often feel guilty if we try to.I wasted many years overeating to cope with feelings of inadequacy, then through guilt and feelings of failure i ended up feeling even more inadequate, so ate more!! It wasn't until i learnt to express my feelings in other ways and DITCH the GUILT that i was able to eat sensibly.I am glad you conquered your eating disorder and that you are a HEALTHY size 12 now. Try not to feel guilty if you treat yourself now and again, after all you're human. All the best.
Guilt. Guilt i think is born out of conscience or a sense of right and wrong. Freud would propose that it is the superego bearing down upon the ego that produces guilt, for the ego or self craves one action but the societal and parental teachings contained within the superego wishes us to take another action. Guilt is the result of us behaving in a way that we feel we "Should not" or failing to behave in a way that we feel we "Should". Guilt can very often be a negative emotion and can prevent us from living our lives in a happy or productive way, as we are constantly trying to please others and suffering when we can't.
Not that all guilt is bad. I feel without any sense of guilt we would probably have societal breakdown, guilt stops us from doing exactly what we want when we want, it maintains a civilised society. Having said that guilt can also be used to control and manipulate. Others can induce feelings of guilt when we don't fit in with their wishes and that is a form of control, which i don't think is good. I think rather than be plagued by guilt we can express appropriate regret or remorse, as we are human and therefore we all make mistakes. I think two other factors are relevant also; choice and responsibility. We have a choice to help out a friend and shouldn't feel guilty if we choose to say no. We also have our own individual responsibilities, so if something is not our responsibility we don't have to take it on- the other person needs to take on their responsibilities and then choose how they act rather than making you feel guilty for not helping them.
Check out my links and let me know your thoughts.
Monday, 19 February 2007
Stalking
The final film from this week's lecture was about stalking. Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
Well, i can speak from experience on this one guys as i actually experienced a stalker about six years ago. It was an extremely scary and stressful experience; one of the few times in my entire life that i didn't feel safe in my own home. According to the websites stalkers are most often male, have possibly had a relationship at some point with the victim, even if it was only one date, may suffer from a personality disorder or other mental health problem and in some instances can be dangerous; even fatal.
In my case i didn't know the person, never saw him in fact. Nevertheless he had me gripped with fear. It started on a sunny day in June when i casually answered the phone "Hello, is that Sharon?" The well spoken voice asked. "No", I replied, finishing the conversation and thinking nothing of it. A few minutes later he rang back, apologising again for disturbing me. He was chatty, even breezy, somewhat amusing i thought. He explained that Sharon was his colleague and he was a policeman. That opened up a conversation as a cousin of mine was in the force. I was to find out later that phone stalkers often pretend to have jobs in positions of trust as it puts victims at ease.
So, this carried on for several months and i even began to look forward to the calls. But then as time went on and he had gleaned bits of info from me, i started to feel uneasy. He would drop things in to the conversation that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck, for example talking about wanting a new car and then describing mine in detail, even the same colour. Then he would pretend to imagine what friends or relatives of mine looked like...with chilling accuracy. One day after my parents visited, he rang. The conversation got on to cars and he said he had always wanted a maroon coloured Saab. I laughed it off but when i put the phone down i felt scared; my dad had a maroon Saab! I went upstairs and looked up the street, i felt uneasy, like i was being watched.
I spoke to my sister who suggested i phoned the police station he was supposedly based at to see if his story checked out. They had never heard of him and even checked other stations, nothing. I felt an idiot but more than anything i felt scared. My mind now raced through all our coversations; what other info had i given out? How had he found where i lived? Did he know where the children went to school? By this time i was in a blind panic. When i thought he was a policeman it seemed safe and harmless fun, now it felt sinister and dangerous.
I spoke to the police but they said there was nothing they could do as he hadn't committed a crime and i had talked with him willingly. Yes but that was when i thought he was a friendly policeman, not a raving loony.
Later on my fear turned to anger and when he phoned i confronted him and told him to leave me alone. On reflection that was possibly a bad move. For several months i had phone calls in the middle of the night, sometimes just breathing, other times taunts about him being able to see me. I had flowers delivered, meals delivered and so on. I'm guessing he was not good with rejection...ha, i can laugh now!!
Finally, there was a real policeman sitting in my house taking all the details.
I was lucky, following a phone trace the police were able to track him down and issue him with a warning. Thankfully i was never bothered again but many others aren't so lucky.
Looking back it seems a silly thing...i had recently divorced and was possibly liking the initial attention, but i was way too naive and trusting. For a good year afterwards i suffered from anxiety, depression and panic attacks. God knows how people cope when it goes on for years and the stalker gets in to their home etc.
Anyway, to answer the questions: What kind of stalking or observing is acceptable? Well, unless you are a detective or similar and you have good reason to follow someone then i don't think it is acceptable to spy, follow or observe anyone else. I feel it would be an invasion of their privacy and freedom.
Voyeurism: In a sense this is spying or observing someone and i think this is ok if all parties consent to being involved. If someone wants to undress etc. in the knowledge that people are paying to view them ect. that's fine. It's not fine to spy on the neighbour undressing at night, that's just pervy. I expect the voyeur gets more of a kick from the latter because it is more risky and naughty. I guess you could also argue that if someone undresses at night without shutting the curtains they may secretly be getting off on the idea that someone is viewing them; in that sense maybe there is an unspoken communication going on there and both parties are satisfying a need; to view and to be viewed. Still not sure if that's right though. What do you think??
For ideas, take a look at the relevant links.
Well, i can speak from experience on this one guys as i actually experienced a stalker about six years ago. It was an extremely scary and stressful experience; one of the few times in my entire life that i didn't feel safe in my own home. According to the websites stalkers are most often male, have possibly had a relationship at some point with the victim, even if it was only one date, may suffer from a personality disorder or other mental health problem and in some instances can be dangerous; even fatal.
In my case i didn't know the person, never saw him in fact. Nevertheless he had me gripped with fear. It started on a sunny day in June when i casually answered the phone "Hello, is that Sharon?" The well spoken voice asked. "No", I replied, finishing the conversation and thinking nothing of it. A few minutes later he rang back, apologising again for disturbing me. He was chatty, even breezy, somewhat amusing i thought. He explained that Sharon was his colleague and he was a policeman. That opened up a conversation as a cousin of mine was in the force. I was to find out later that phone stalkers often pretend to have jobs in positions of trust as it puts victims at ease.
So, this carried on for several months and i even began to look forward to the calls. But then as time went on and he had gleaned bits of info from me, i started to feel uneasy. He would drop things in to the conversation that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck, for example talking about wanting a new car and then describing mine in detail, even the same colour. Then he would pretend to imagine what friends or relatives of mine looked like...with chilling accuracy. One day after my parents visited, he rang. The conversation got on to cars and he said he had always wanted a maroon coloured Saab. I laughed it off but when i put the phone down i felt scared; my dad had a maroon Saab! I went upstairs and looked up the street, i felt uneasy, like i was being watched.
I spoke to my sister who suggested i phoned the police station he was supposedly based at to see if his story checked out. They had never heard of him and even checked other stations, nothing. I felt an idiot but more than anything i felt scared. My mind now raced through all our coversations; what other info had i given out? How had he found where i lived? Did he know where the children went to school? By this time i was in a blind panic. When i thought he was a policeman it seemed safe and harmless fun, now it felt sinister and dangerous.
I spoke to the police but they said there was nothing they could do as he hadn't committed a crime and i had talked with him willingly. Yes but that was when i thought he was a friendly policeman, not a raving loony.
Later on my fear turned to anger and when he phoned i confronted him and told him to leave me alone. On reflection that was possibly a bad move. For several months i had phone calls in the middle of the night, sometimes just breathing, other times taunts about him being able to see me. I had flowers delivered, meals delivered and so on. I'm guessing he was not good with rejection...ha, i can laugh now!!
Finally, there was a real policeman sitting in my house taking all the details.
I was lucky, following a phone trace the police were able to track him down and issue him with a warning. Thankfully i was never bothered again but many others aren't so lucky.
Looking back it seems a silly thing...i had recently divorced and was possibly liking the initial attention, but i was way too naive and trusting. For a good year afterwards i suffered from anxiety, depression and panic attacks. God knows how people cope when it goes on for years and the stalker gets in to their home etc.
Anyway, to answer the questions: What kind of stalking or observing is acceptable? Well, unless you are a detective or similar and you have good reason to follow someone then i don't think it is acceptable to spy, follow or observe anyone else. I feel it would be an invasion of their privacy and freedom.
Voyeurism: In a sense this is spying or observing someone and i think this is ok if all parties consent to being involved. If someone wants to undress etc. in the knowledge that people are paying to view them ect. that's fine. It's not fine to spy on the neighbour undressing at night, that's just pervy. I expect the voyeur gets more of a kick from the latter because it is more risky and naughty. I guess you could also argue that if someone undresses at night without shutting the curtains they may secretly be getting off on the idea that someone is viewing them; in that sense maybe there is an unspoken communication going on there and both parties are satisfying a need; to view and to be viewed. Still not sure if that's right though. What do you think??
For ideas, take a look at the relevant links.
Smoking
The highlighted section was posted as a response to Alison's blog, which can be viwed at: www.badgirlbeingbad.blogspot.com
Smoking.
I think smoking really is a personal choice. We can debate about what starts it; peer pressure, social influences, sense of belonging, rebellion, fixation at anal stage, coping mechanism etc. etc. But whether we start, continue or give up, like you said, is down to making a choice and then having the will power to follow through with that choice. I am not going to jump on the band wagon and spout all the harmful effects of smoking as i think we all hear enough of that. I am an ex-smoker and like theresa, i gave up when i became pregnant, however i did start again later. When i finally gave up i did so following a chest infection that made me think about what i was doing to my body. I then took a visit to a hospital (Not necessarily recommended) After chatting with two cancer patients and seeing a few amputees, my mind was made up. The pleasure i got from smoking in the present was not worth the agony i may face later on; in my opinion. Having said that, we shouldn't make smoking a scapegoat, it isn't the only harmful crutch. Compulsive eating, binge drinking, taking drugs,making ourselves sick every time we've eaten too much aren't exactly brilliant for health either.If the rest of your lifestyle isn't healthy then just packing in the fags isn't going to make that much difference.
If you WANT to give up, arm yourself with ALL the information, weigh it up and then make a decision...you'll find it easier to do if it is your choice and you have clear reasons for making that choice. Good luck
I think smoking really is a personal choice. We can debate about what starts it; peer pressure, social influences, sense of belonging, rebellion, fixation at anal stage, coping mechanism etc. etc. But whether we start, continue or give up, like you said, is down to making a choice and then having the will power to follow through with that choice. I am not going to jump on the band wagon and spout all the harmful effects of smoking as i think we all hear enough of that. I am an ex-smoker and like theresa, i gave up when i became pregnant, however i did start again later. When i finally gave up i did so following a chest infection that made me think about what i was doing to my body. I then took a visit to a hospital (Not necessarily recommended) After chatting with two cancer patients and seeing a few amputees, my mind was made up. The pleasure i got from smoking in the present was not worth the agony i may face later on; in my opinion. Having said that, we shouldn't make smoking a scapegoat, it isn't the only harmful crutch. Compulsive eating, binge drinking, taking drugs,making ourselves sick every time we've eaten too much aren't exactly brilliant for health either.If the rest of your lifestyle isn't healthy then just packing in the fags isn't going to make that much difference.
If you WANT to give up, arm yourself with ALL the information, weigh it up and then make a decision...you'll find it easier to do if it is your choice and you have clear reasons for making that choice. Good luck
My views on Smoking
In order to make a choice about smoking we have to know the pros and cons right?
What are the good points then? Well actually smoking has been linked to some beneficial effects, such as protection AGAINST Parkinson's Disease, Alziemer's , receding gums, Asthma, Eczema, Food allegies, Heart Attacks, Strokes and some forms of Cancer. In addition, for many, it relaxes them and relieves periods of worry and stress. It helps some people cope in ways that may otherwise see them suffering from anxiety, depression or worse. Wouldn't the costs of treating these illnesses work out just as expensive? So why don't we hear about these alleged good points about smoking? Could it be that smoking has just become the scapegoat? Can political points be scored and battles won with the upcoming smoking bans?? At the end of the day it should be a person's choice. There are risks involved in most things, a person should be able to weigh up the costs and benefits of smoking and make their own choice.
And the bad points? Well the main points against smoking are health, but can we isolate smoking as detrimental to health when we partake in so many other things that are bad for us? So non-smokers are the epitome of health are they? They never drink or indulge in fatty food, never get stressed or work long hours, never risk unprotected sex or indulge in other risky acts?? Young girls become fatal statistics every year from Anorexia and Bulimia; should we ban food? Many die each year from heart attacks and strokes bought on by stress from working too hard: will working get banned? We can but hope. What about the damage done by drinking...how come that isn't getting banned? What about the Trans fats and other crap in burgers and fast food, that lead to obesity, heart attacks and more? Why are these not banned?...because it is felt that we are all mature enough to be able to read the guidelines on managing stress, limiting drinking, eating healthily with our magic "5 portions a day" and so on blah, blah, blah. So surely people can look at the risks of smoking and manage their intake in the same way. I am not a smoker any more and haven't been for nearly 15 years but if i was i would like to be able to choose where, when and how many i smoked. You can not take away danger and risk, it is part of life. You have to let people manage it in their own way (within the law).
Follow the links in the smoking section for views on pro and anti smoking, thenyou can decide for yourself.
Saturday, 17 February 2007
Shoplifting-what's it all about?
Image and news article at:In this week's lecture we were shown some short film clips. The cartoon "Family Guy" was the first of these and was designed to get us to think about shoplifting. The questions we were asked to consider were A: Is shoplifting any different to any other kind of theft? And B: Why do people who can afford to buy things, shoplift them instead?
To answer the first question, i would say that strictly speaking it breaks a law and therefore would be classed as a crime just like any other theft. However i think there can be a wide variety of reasons and circumstances behind the crime of shoplifting that, when considered fully, would allow more leniency to be shown. For example people with mental health problems such as depression,post natal depression, drug dependency etc. may be prone. It can also be committed as a reaction to abuse and stress, for example by teenagers who "Act out" their distress and need for attention by stealing. It can also be a reaction to bereavement; I work as a counsellor in the NHS and once had a client who stole and hoarded clothes as a way of filling the emptiness she felt when her father died! She realised she wasn't coping with the loss when she could fit no more clothes in her wardrobe, and sought help. So, in some respects it may be viewed as a coping mechanism or a cry for help.
Although i have partially answered question 2, there are some other reasons why people who can afford to buy items, may instead shoplift. Anger and revenge may be one reason; anger with a particular stores policies, revenge at losing a job for example. Some people may shoplift because it is risky and therefore provides a thrill. Others may enjoy the challenge of outsmarting the security measures, or beating a friend etc.
Finally, i think sometimes shoplifting occurs due to necessity and survival. At the end of the day, if you have no home, no money and starving mouth's to feed what do you do? Steal from your family and friends and betray their trust or hit a big company who can absorb he loss a little. That is not to say i condone theft, merely to say i understand some of the reasons behind it and feel that we shouldn't really judge someone until we've walked a day in their shoes.
Well that's my thoughts on the topic for now, if you have any points to raise or other ideas then get in touch. And for further info and ideas check out the links in the shoplifting section.
To answer the first question, i would say that strictly speaking it breaks a law and therefore would be classed as a crime just like any other theft. However i think there can be a wide variety of reasons and circumstances behind the crime of shoplifting that, when considered fully, would allow more leniency to be shown. For example people with mental health problems such as depression,post natal depression, drug dependency etc. may be prone. It can also be committed as a reaction to abuse and stress, for example by teenagers who "Act out" their distress and need for attention by stealing. It can also be a reaction to bereavement; I work as a counsellor in the NHS and once had a client who stole and hoarded clothes as a way of filling the emptiness she felt when her father died! She realised she wasn't coping with the loss when she could fit no more clothes in her wardrobe, and sought help. So, in some respects it may be viewed as a coping mechanism or a cry for help.
Although i have partially answered question 2, there are some other reasons why people who can afford to buy items, may instead shoplift. Anger and revenge may be one reason; anger with a particular stores policies, revenge at losing a job for example. Some people may shoplift because it is risky and therefore provides a thrill. Others may enjoy the challenge of outsmarting the security measures, or beating a friend etc.
Finally, i think sometimes shoplifting occurs due to necessity and survival. At the end of the day, if you have no home, no money and starving mouth's to feed what do you do? Steal from your family and friends and betray their trust or hit a big company who can absorb he loss a little. That is not to say i condone theft, merely to say i understand some of the reasons behind it and feel that we shouldn't really judge someone until we've walked a day in their shoes.
Well that's my thoughts on the topic for now, if you have any points to raise or other ideas then get in touch. And for further info and ideas check out the links in the shoplifting section.
In response to Jade's Blog- http://miss-j-woodstock.blogspot.com/
Hi Jade,
On your comments about shoplifting; yes, i totally agree, i think rebellion is a big thing especially for adolescents. I know when i was around 14 i used to regularly nick sweets and stuff from the local shop. Part of it was simply cockiness and the thrill of seeing what i could get away with and some was acting out the traumas that were going on at home- i think kids find various ways of seeking help and attention, i know i did. The shopkeeper caught me the one day and asked if i would like to pay for the stuff in my pocket! luckily i was given a telling off and it scared me enough that i never did it again. when i look back i feel a bit guilty but i guess it is all part of growing up eh.
On your comments about shoplifting; yes, i totally agree, i think rebellion is a big thing especially for adolescents. I know when i was around 14 i used to regularly nick sweets and stuff from the local shop. Part of it was simply cockiness and the thrill of seeing what i could get away with and some was acting out the traumas that were going on at home- i think kids find various ways of seeking help and attention, i know i did. The shopkeeper caught me the one day and asked if i would like to pay for the stuff in my pocket! luckily i was given a telling off and it scared me enough that i never did it again. when i look back i feel a bit guilty but i guess it is all part of growing up eh.
Monday, 5 February 2007
First Impressions
Well, I wasn't sure what to expect in the first philosophy lecture and I was a little nervous. Having previously studied counselling and psychology I had come across the names of philosophers, especially in existential counselling, but had no real experience of philosophy. My family informed me, as I headed cheerily off to uni, that it was the study of thinking! Now, as I approached the lecture theatre, their words echoing in my ears, I was starting to question what I was doing.
I needn't have worried. It was a lot of fun. The first lecture introduced the idea of what it meant to "be bad"; what things constituted being bad and how did our opinions differ? Common themes were stealing, lying, adultery, cruelty, gossip, violence, bullying etc.
There wasn't anything too serious in there, and they were things we'd probably all done-or at least considered-at some point in our lives. It was reassuring to see we were all fairly normal (although some confessions were a little strange). I guess the different reactions from people are based largely on differing experiences, cultural upbringing and morals.
We were also asked to consider somewhere for a field trip. One thought was to visit The Holocaust Centre in Nottingham; that place certainly gives you an insight in to what it means to "be bad". Another idea was visiting The Circus of Horrors in Wolverhampton (not sure i'd have the stomach though!). Can't think of anywhere else...unless getting drunk in the local pub counts??
I needn't have worried. It was a lot of fun. The first lecture introduced the idea of what it meant to "be bad"; what things constituted being bad and how did our opinions differ? Common themes were stealing, lying, adultery, cruelty, gossip, violence, bullying etc.
There wasn't anything too serious in there, and they were things we'd probably all done-or at least considered-at some point in our lives. It was reassuring to see we were all fairly normal (although some confessions were a little strange). I guess the different reactions from people are based largely on differing experiences, cultural upbringing and morals.
We were also asked to consider somewhere for a field trip. One thought was to visit The Holocaust Centre in Nottingham; that place certainly gives you an insight in to what it means to "be bad". Another idea was visiting The Circus of Horrors in Wolverhampton (not sure i'd have the stomach though!). Can't think of anywhere else...unless getting drunk in the local pub counts??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)