Digging In

First things first:

Police told to move along as anti-bank protesters camp out at St Paul’s
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/16/occupy-london-protest-st-pauls

I declare this to be flat-out awesome. The city of London might be too askeered (scared) to let the protesters to the Stock Exchange proper, but the Church offers succor. I am utterly charmed, and hope that the relationship continues to be pleasant between protesters and the Church and the police. Because the worst thing I’ve heard of the Police since the protest kicked off was the institution of 60AA, which concerns removal of disguises/masks. While I might roll my eyes at this, I guess I should be happy that preventing protesters from reaching their target and the mask thing are the only over-reactions thus far demonstrated in the wake of all that rioting in the summer.

All in all, I’m very pleased to see the movement becoming so entrenched. And I’ve even seen some of the nastiest in their ‘stupid hippies!’ opinion changing their opinions as more information and opinions continue to flood the air/particle/digital/lightwaves. And while there are still horror stories of police brutality rising here and there, it seems that most of the protests are still passionate about remaining peaceful and friendly, and that I think it works in their favours. After all, firm and polite has seen camps being left alone in spite of the desires of those being protested against, so… good stuff.

And completely unrelated, but making me smile:

Six Myths About Sex And Gender, Busted
http://jezebel.com/5849842/six-myths-about-sex-and-gender-busted

Being a lifetime outsider (this isn’t a knock on myself; this is a simple statement of fact based on life circumstances that I am generally pleased with), I’ve never really concerned myself with what the ‘normal’ roles one is supposed to fulfill based on gender sex. I’m a bit hyper-aware now because I feel that the UK is incredibly misogynistic and insisting of very specific roles that one should fill based on whether they are male or female. I have friends who try to dismiss my observations as outdated and from 15 years ago, but I ask them this – how am I picking up on what I see every.single.day if I’ve only been here four and a half years? The message is still there loud and clear, but you’ve been around long enough to tune it out. I’m a parent – I don’t get that option. I need to be aware of what is being shoved down young throats and minds so that I can… not hide or protect my child from, but rather, give her the information she needs to understand what is being forced upon her as ‘right’. So it’s nice to have science back up what everyone should know – we’re not two different species naturally. It’s all a social construct to sow dissension and dominance – what fun! Doesn’t make me like spiders any more, but that’s okay – my husband isn’t fond of them either. ;)

Anyhoos, have a lovely Monday, and I’ll try to as well.

<3

Comments

Digging In — 8 Comments

  1. Actually, I’d say that the media misogyny, particularly advertising, has INCREASED in the UK in the last 15 years. But in things like working life, with colleagues – the opposite is true. Quite where that leaves any discussion, I’m not sure. I do know that a certain Australian’s stranglehold on much news media has led to a sneering about political correctness which promotes continuing misogyny, stereotyping and entitlement. Where corporations have a stranglehold on US politics, I feel that the media has on UK politics… But, just my opinion.

    • It’s a very good and valid opinion indeed. Though the UK, at least, has the BBC… for now. Still. *hugs it gooood*

      [[radio edit]] I would venture, at a speculation, that while your generation and perhaps mine as well are in good stead, I definitely am still concerned that the brunt of the message upon generations behind us can only be detrimental. And I think that, perhaps, the media here bears a punchier punch because well… it’s all in, isn’t it? There are multiple news sources, sure, but their message isn’t diluted with say… local news. I think that makes sense? It does in my head, but I haven’t quite gotten it worked around to a nice, clear statement. I just know it seems more concentrated, so goes to follow. :)

      • I know what you mean in that it’s not so introspective, on the other hand “local news” is UK wide mainly because the UK is only the same size as a single state. Having said that, I’m not sure that a single US state has our density of population – even California only has 37 million against our 62 million. So our newspapers and radio are national rather than serving a limited market… I love the BBC too, but even they have forays into misogyny – Top Gear for example, whilst hilarious, is very much “lads”.

        • And add in the green belt land, and it’s even more atop each other! Mind, I think the green belt is a good idea, but definitely… now I’m curious as to what the actual population density is.

  2. 660 per square mile, as against the US 83 per square mile – obviously, as you said, this doesn’t account for a heterogeneous distribution, as it’s an average, but it does give you some idea. I also looked up rough figures for the area of land and California is roughly three times the area of the UK.

    • Definitely a bit stacked atop each other, then. :) And if that’s average, it must be lower in the bigger states. Though checking, my native Texas is apparently 96.3 per square mile as of 2010 (per Texas almanac: http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/facts-profile), and California is 234.4. I’m surprised – I guess I thought it would be less due to size of states. But then, the populated points are (by American non-New-England standards) well and truly populated…

      • My curiosity continued and I looked up the density for London – it’s an astounding 12,773 per square mile, which pales into insignificance against 27,532 per square mile in New York City!