I am firstly going to say that I am not an avid viewer of Question Time. But, with the media this week surrounding the event, that is Nick Griffin appearing on the show, I decided to take a look.
I must say I found the whole experience very, very uncomfortable. I know that many people are against the BNP, but he was invited on to the show for a reason. So, LET HIM SPEAK. Why on earth invite this man to speak, if you do not want to listen. It felt more like a stoning then an interview session. The audience threw comments at him, very mature comments I must add, (sarcastically) such as "Dick Griffin". I would like to know how these people go to be in the audience, and if there is not a screening process then that is ridiculous. I tuned in, wanting to see an interview but was instead confronted with a free-for-all of low rate people with low rate opinions mouthing off! The majority of questions asked were about immigrant policies, which, fair enough is a huge factor, BUT, I wanted to hear more from him. I wanted to know what makes the man tick! Toward the end of the show the presenter stated he had not wanted the whole show to be about the BNP, and it was expected but I really do despise the way the audience were let to just ask similar questions again and again. It was more of a personal attack on the man then a serious interview and I found the whole thing a let down. He got two seats in Europe, so clearly he is doing something to please some people out there but we will never know what if, when he does eventually go on interview shows he is ridiculed and not given a chance to speak.
Thursday 22 October 2009
Psychobabble, Sex and a lot of Penis!
Today's lecture was, to say the least, enlightening. I think I found most interesting learning about the"reptile" part of the brain. The "hippocamus", is the part of the brain that lights up, so to speak, when the brain encounters images of rage, blood, sex and even the colour red! It is referred to as the reptile part of the brain because reptiles have a constant need to be territorial and fight for survival, hence their complicated traits such as a chameleon changing the colour of it's skin to blend in with it's background. This leads me on to the Odepus complex. Freud claimed that boys have the urge to kill their father's and sleep with their mothers (he tried to understand the brain using literature). Apparently it is a territorial thing. Quite hard to imagine happenening in modern times but it is true that males become very territorial when it comes to females, they feel the urge to be the dominant gender and feel demascunilised when the authority is taken away from them. Typical blokes!
I find the idea that women suffer from penis envy, that is that women are just males without a penis and therefore are lacking in the most important part, very frustrating. Although women have come very far in terms of being able to work and vote etc, this theory being reiterated throughout classrooms all over the world enrages me because it reinforces the idea that women have been seen as the lesser important gender, this should have never been mentioned at all! Men! This view I think I have gained from studying sociology. I envy Simone de Beauvoir, and her views on males. No, I am not a crazy feminist, however I do believe that men chat a load of bollocks a lot of the time. In her book, "The Second Sex", she aruges that men have MADE women the 'other' sex. They have put a false aura of mystery around females and use this to avoid understanding them or their problems. This theory can be related to race, religion and class but is more obvious in terms of gender. She aruges that men have made women feel a "deviation of the normal" and that males feel women are only pretend men, trying to "emulate normality", she felt that this assumption must be set aside for the stereotype to be forgotten.
Freud's theories still have major influence today though which proves they are viewed as strong. Advertiser's use the Freudian idea that showing people a sexual image will excite them and make them buy something, such as the Cadbury's Flake advert shown in the lecture, she is biting into a Flake and Chris said it was referring her to biting a penis. It takes me back to my sociology lecture's again where we were taught that women are shown products in magazines on models, and they are shown in sexually provocative ways sometimes with males, which makes us as an audience think that if we go out and buy them we will get everything we see in the advert. The Century of the Self, the century of self-preoccupation, a century of repressed and frustrated love..Freudian Love do ring true, however I do NOT agree with his views on women, it seems he just hates women! Arsehole!
I find the idea that women suffer from penis envy, that is that women are just males without a penis and therefore are lacking in the most important part, very frustrating. Although women have come very far in terms of being able to work and vote etc, this theory being reiterated throughout classrooms all over the world enrages me because it reinforces the idea that women have been seen as the lesser important gender, this should have never been mentioned at all! Men! This view I think I have gained from studying sociology. I envy Simone de Beauvoir, and her views on males. No, I am not a crazy feminist, however I do believe that men chat a load of bollocks a lot of the time. In her book, "The Second Sex", she aruges that men have MADE women the 'other' sex. They have put a false aura of mystery around females and use this to avoid understanding them or their problems. This theory can be related to race, religion and class but is more obvious in terms of gender. She aruges that men have made women feel a "deviation of the normal" and that males feel women are only pretend men, trying to "emulate normality", she felt that this assumption must be set aside for the stereotype to be forgotten.
Freud's theories still have major influence today though which proves they are viewed as strong. Advertiser's use the Freudian idea that showing people a sexual image will excite them and make them buy something, such as the Cadbury's Flake advert shown in the lecture, she is biting into a Flake and Chris said it was referring her to biting a penis. It takes me back to my sociology lecture's again where we were taught that women are shown products in magazines on models, and they are shown in sexually provocative ways sometimes with males, which makes us as an audience think that if we go out and buy them we will get everything we see in the advert. The Century of the Self, the century of self-preoccupation, a century of repressed and frustrated love..Freudian Love do ring true, however I do NOT agree with his views on women, it seems he just hates women! Arsehole!
Wednesday 7 October 2009
Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis.
Hegel's dialect looks to explain how there are no objects, only change. He coined a triad theory to explain this.
When something happens it is "thesis", he then said that there must be an opposition to it, and it brings about the creation of its "antithesis" which eventually results in a "synthesis"- the final result of the clash between the thesis and antithesis.
For example lets look at the class struggle. The ruling class will take the place of the thesis. They have the power, money and control. The working class, the oppressed, take the place of the antithesis as they are the opposite. As a result, the working class revolt against the ruling class and we have a revolution, the synthesis.
In a historical context we could place the thesis as The Ancient Greek State. The antithesis (the opposition) would be the criminals and barbarians or the other State that does not approve of the Greek State. The synthesis (the outcome) is war.
The synthesis is however not always the final outcome. As new phases may begin that creates additional change. But his theory is that change happens in a process of three, an idea, an opposing idea, and the clash between the two.
In more modern terms, we could view the thesis as a home team, the antithesis as a away team, and the synthesis would be a football match. The result of the match may mean one team wins, but the additional matches that they will play to get further up in the league are new phases, this one match is only one phase in the process of change.
When something happens it is "thesis", he then said that there must be an opposition to it, and it brings about the creation of its "antithesis" which eventually results in a "synthesis"- the final result of the clash between the thesis and antithesis.
For example lets look at the class struggle. The ruling class will take the place of the thesis. They have the power, money and control. The working class, the oppressed, take the place of the antithesis as they are the opposite. As a result, the working class revolt against the ruling class and we have a revolution, the synthesis.
In a historical context we could place the thesis as The Ancient Greek State. The antithesis (the opposition) would be the criminals and barbarians or the other State that does not approve of the Greek State. The synthesis (the outcome) is war.
The synthesis is however not always the final outcome. As new phases may begin that creates additional change. But his theory is that change happens in a process of three, an idea, an opposing idea, and the clash between the two.
In more modern terms, we could view the thesis as a home team, the antithesis as a away team, and the synthesis would be a football match. The result of the match may mean one team wins, but the additional matches that they will play to get further up in the league are new phases, this one match is only one phase in the process of change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
