The Bailey Report - "Sexualisation"

God this irritates me!

Have a little looky here if you'd like a bit of background: Belle de Jour "Sexonomics"

Basically, it's a report given to the government by a bloke with a clear agenda to get a few column inches and shock a few people. It's all about how the government should "clamp down" on Sexualisation. As mentioned in Belle de Jour's blog, nowhere is "Sexualisation" actually defined. But I think we can safely take it to mean children wearing ridiculous crop top-type clothes and talking like a nigga from the ghetto, innit. Or other similar things, anyway.
I can tell you now that it irritates me a lot. An awful lot! Let me tell you why. But first, if you'd like to, you can check out the full review here.


So, the first problem I came across was in one of the first quotes from a parent;

Silly parent quote #1

"There is a need for such a huge cultural shift away from consumerism that I feel powerless as an individual to act"

Bollocks. If you don't buy it, they won't sell it. That's how it works. And even if there is a market out there for whatever particular product you don't want your child to have, just don't buy it yourself. I always wanted a cat when I was a child, not particularly sexual I know (unless you are slightly creepy, actually, very creepy) but you know what? My mum wouldn't let me have one. She didn't require all cats everywhere to be slaughtered and never sold again in case other children wanted one too.

Silly parent quote #2

"Advertising for perfumes is almost always of a sexual nature"

You ready for this? No. It's not. And here's why;

Reason 1 - A strapless dress.
Reason 2 - A strange lady with a moustache.
Reason 3 - A fairy. Clearly. It's hot where fairies come from, hence the silly gold top.
Reason 4 - A man and woman having a cuddle.

It's only as sexual as you make it guys.

Silly Parent quote # 3

"It is unfortunate that the lazy, uninventive ‘sex sells’ attitude of the media which plasters sexual images and articles everywhere, causes parents to have to address the topic with their children a lot sooner than many would like, before they are at an age where they are emotionally equipped to understand it."

Bollocks. If your child asks you "what that man is doing on top of that woman", lie. Lie through your teeth! Wrestling, fighting, cuddling, practicing press-ups, whatever you can think of. There's no reason to have the birds and bees talk any time before you want to. If the child is too young, they will accept any ridiculous made up answer you give. If the child is old enough, you're likely to get a response like "looks like they're shagging to me, mum" anyway, making the whole birds and bees exercise slightly pointless.

Silly Parent quote #4

"There is too much sexual (and violent) content before the watershed, particularly in soaps... The other problem is often programmes are repeated on digital channels at different hours of the day."

Simples. Stop watching soaps with the kids around. (Let's face it, for the most part, they're godawful anyway) And for goodness sake, don't put a bloody telly in a kids bedroom!


Silly Parent quote #5

"Whenever I have seen music videos lately I have been completely disheartened by the relentless portrayal of women as sex objects. More often than not they show young women in hardly any clothes … basically simulating sex... For a lot of acts that are popular with young people, the music video has become a way of pushing boundaries to see how much they can get away with."

Buy your child an Iron Maiden album. Then buy them a copy of the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. If, anywhere, there is a video of Eddie "in hardly any clothes … basically simulating sex", I should very much like to see it!

Silly Parent quote #6

"The music videos that children can watch are extremely explicit – from the clothes they wear to the words and actions. Some songs my 13 year old sings back are shocking."

I refer to my previous statement;

"Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.
Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink."

I suppose it is shocking, but not in the same way. And a child that understands the way in which it is shocking doesn't exactly strike me as a bad thing...

Silly Parent quote #7

"The internet and on-demand TV is my main concern, with children watching in their bedrooms. What is needed is a default setting for pornography, so that parents cannot leave it accessible by mistake."

Solution 1 - No TV in the bedroom.
Solution 2 - Don't watch porn on the PC your kids use!! Common sense people!

Silly parent quote #8

"My biggest concern is the internet which is also invading young people’s mobile phones."

I can fully understand giving a child a phone, the benefits are obvious. I cannot understand giving a child an iPhone. Tesco do still sell these you know.


Silly Parent quote #9

"The problem is that when you are ‘out and about’ with kids, things aren’t neatly compartmentalised – so clothes shops, music shops, games shops etc sell things aimed at say 9-12 year olds alongside adult products."

I'm going to be perfectly and completely honest here. I have never, not once in my life ever, seen a Dildo for sale in a supermarket next to a Barbie Doll.

Seriously though, if there happens to be a copy of Debbie Does Dallas next to Bambi, don't buy it for your child! How hard is that?*

*Just a little side note here. I once had a woman in my shop with her toddler. Said toddler was running around all over the place, grabbing things, picking things up and throwing things and generally just being a brat. I did my usual "honey please don't do that" which normally does the trick if you glare at the child and smile at the mum, and it didn't work. So I asked the mother to please stop her son running around in case he hurts himself. She snapped back at me and said "you try telling a two year old not to run around" When I offered to do so properly with a good solid clip round the ear, strangely, she declined! But it did make me think. If you cannot control your child, should you necessarily take them shopping? Or should you even be a parent?

Silly Parent Quote #10

"The problem is that parents sometimes feel the peer pressure too and often feel almost forced to buy certain products because other parents are. They feel like bad parents if they don’t."

You are not a bad parent if you refuse to buy your child P. Diddy-Dickhead's latest album and instead buy them a more suitable album. Or better still, a bloody good book. You are a good parent, who is setting your child a foundation for a better future by giving them a good education. They will be the ones laughing all the way to the bank when their company hires one of their former schoolfriends as a cleaner, and informs her that she can't listen to P. Diddy-Dickhead on her iPod whilst working.



And finally, the only sensible thing I found in the entire review!

"You have a choice as a parent, as an adult. If you don’t like it, don’t let them (have it)."

No shit, Sherlock.


I think that one just about sums up my entire point y'know.

New Gadget! Reviews

I gots me a new bloggy gadget!

What do you think of this blog? Why don't you write me a review? There's now a reviews page for anyone to submit what they think of the whole site. You can write whatever you like, just be nice okay folks!

Have a click here:

http://christiekawasaki.blogspot.com/p/reviews.html

And tell me what you think. Go on, it'll only take a minute!

Oh, and you can do it anonymously if you like. You can also link your own site too. Infact you can do anything at all. All reviewers will be rewarded with a free Air Guitar. And some Fairy Dust.

Football Players - Seriously, what's the problem?

I have seen one too many places of late quoting football players salaries. Personally, I couldn't really give a toss what football players are paid. When the world cup is on, I have a large sign on my shop door advertising it as a football free zone - and I will throw people out if they happen to mention football! However, whether or not I happen to like football is by the by. (For the record, I don't. In case you hadn't guessed.) Let me now quote you something which is once again doing the rounds on Facebook;

"footballers give 90 mins of their time kicking a ball around for vast sums of money..... soldiers fight to defend this country and those who live here.....they deserve the footballer's wage"

There are plenty of similar ones which crop up from time to time, with "repost if you believe this...honor our troops" etc etc. It's all much for a muchness. I'm sure you may even have encountered one or two.

It's also all utter, utter nonsense.

It's basic business when you get right down to it. Straightforward stuff. The Army isn't really a business. There's no incentive there to maximise profits, whether or not there are even any profits in the first place is a subject I'm not exactly qualified to comment on. Business on the other hand, I have a bit of a grasp of. Mister [insert random *ahem* "overpaid footballer" here] is doing a job with a great degree of profit potential. Initially he's kicking a ball around for 90 minutes and getting paid a fair few bob for doing it. He can command said fair few bob because the organisers know what they're doing when it comes to making money. Sponsorships, Advertising, Merchandising, and of course Ticket Sales. And that's not an exhaustive list. They're bringing in the money, so Mister Footballer can command his share of it. If they won't pay him the share he wants, well, him and his Image can bugger off to someone else who will. Then of course there's his Image itself. His Image sells, as they say. If either Mister Footballer or his Agent have an ounce of business sense (which of course they do, in abundance it seems!) they'll use his Image in a ton of ways. Again, Sponsorships, Advertising, Merchandising and anything else which will earn a few pennies! It just so happens that the industry which Mister Footballer works in is worth millions, and isn't exactly all reliant on playing football games either. There's nothing to stop him donning a pair of designer trainers for the afternoon to kick a ball around in front of a few cameras in a London studio somewhere. By doing which, he can make a small fortune in an afternoons work, simply for allowing said designer trainers to grace his worshipful feet.

If you had a job like that, wouldn't you milk it for all it's worth too?
So, back to the Army. Where is that opportunity for merchandising? Sponsorships? Advertising? Will military uniforms suddenly start sporting silly slogans? Could certain companies be allowed to advertise on the side of our aircraft carriers? Sounds a bit daft, doesn't it. I'm sure they could, but that's not the point of the Army. They're not there to make money. They're there to blow up Ze Germans if Hitler suddenly rises from the grave and gets up his horrible Jew-Burning habit again. (Not likely, I grant you. But I'm told Jesus managed it, well, not the Jew-Burning part...)
I'm sure you see my point. It's comparing a business and a service. Granted, a service can also be a business, but the Army is not such. Therefore the whole comparison is just downright silly.

So, what started all this? I was reading an interview with Belle de Jour (That's Brooke Magnanti nowadays) and noticed a comment down the bottom along the same vein of Soldiers Wages vs Footballers Wages, only it was actually Research Scientists Wages vs Footballers Wages. I shan't go into it other than that. But it got me thinking, Mister Godwin really needs to do a study into this one too. According to Godwin's Law;

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."^[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis." *

So, to finish, I should like to propose Christie's Law;

"As an online discussion involving the subject of low wages, with regards to groups deemed to be a form of public service [such as military, academic, charitable etc] grows longer, it is only a matter of time before someone gets all righteous about Wayne Rooney's income"



* and yes, I know I'm one of the worst perpetrators of Godwins Law, it just so happens that Hitler is a favourite subject of mine. Don't get me wrong, nothing to do with burning Jews whatsoever, he's just so recognisable as the iconic "bad guy", and therefore makes for such very good satire...

Are you sick of the Royal Wedding yet?

I'm not.
Well, not yet anyway.

But there's a very simple reason for that. I don't have a telly. Well, at least I don't have one that works, I have one that plays playstation games and the occasional video, but not TV. Sometimes I even push the boat out a bit and watch a DVD! But no actual live broadcasting of any sort generally.
My mum does have a telly however, and I nipped round hers the other day for something and made the insane decision to switch it on for a bit.

THE COUNTRY'S GONE MAD! STARK RAVING BONKERS!!

Well, if you believe the telly anyway, it has. Honest. Wills and Kate, Kate and WillsandKateandweddingsandunionflagsandand... (And I'm sure last time I looked, the name was William, but that's by the by.)
Gosh. Stuff that. I am never getting a proper telly!

But that said, I'm still going to hang a Saint George's Flag out of the window this weekend. Just Because. I do like a good excuse to hang a flag up.
I wish them all the best, marriages are lovely an' all that, but I was also planning on ignoring the whole thing and going out shopping for the day, but something tells me that might be a little optimistic.

The AV, or in English, The Alternative Vote

I had a leaflet through my door the other day encouraging me to "say NO to AV". Allow me if you will, dear reader, to talk you through my thoughts upon reading this...

"Oh, that's a good idea. The AV button on Mums telly never worked properly, and mine doesn't work at all....Hang on a minute, why would people be protesting about dodgy tellys? Oh it must be something to do with the airport again, AV, Aviance..." Break for coffee and look at leaflet again once actually awake "...oh! The Alternative Vote! Why didn't they bloody say so?"

So, broken tellys aside, what are my thoughts on the matter?
Well, I can't really see the point it bothering to fiddle with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And is it necessarily broke? I can't say I'm convinced, unless of course you voted Labour, in which case perhaps the current system could be a blessing in disguise...

The Old Bill ain't half daft sometimes...

Well, a lot of the time actually, if you ask me!

My garage was broken into yesterday. This is nothing more than a downright nuisance as all it contains is a load of old junk. So unless the thief has a fetish for empty bottles of engine oil and broken fridges, there wasn't a lot that would be of any interest to him in there!
The reaction of the Old Bill to this little dilemma was enlightening, to say the least. Now let me just put this into perspective. My motorcycle was stolen last year. Value? 8 1/2 grand. A friend's Ninja was stolen the following day, value? 6-7 grand. Then another friends went the following day, value? 8 grand. Then someone else's Ninja went, then another, and the list goes on. Over the space of a month, the same group of thieves collected a good quarter mill's worth of bikes. All Ninjas. All matching descriptions of the same van. (It was a fairly distinctive van) When I rang the old bill, with half a ton of evidence, including CCTV, they "filed a report". Over the phone.
Compare that, if you will, to my garage full of junk. They sent round an officer, who took a good 3 hours taking a statement. They sent round someone to "forensically secure" the garage. (Who didn't have anything to do it with, borrowed a bit of wood from me, then put his hands all over the doors anyway) And today they have promised to send round a forensic team. (Who, as yet, haven't shown!) Bear in mind here that nothing is missing from the garage. Including the empty bottles of oil. And the broken fridge is actually still there. And it's still broken. If anything, it's a little rustier than it was last time I looked.

Work that one out!

My suggestion? Well, if you're ever unlucky enough to have a motorcycle stolen, tell the police your garden shed has been broken into and you're awfully frightened that your 20 year old lawnmower that doesn't work is missing! Oh, and your broom with no handle is definitely gone.
You never know, that way they make actually turn up...

The Lib-Dems are "Too Male and Too Pale", apparently!

...And they're too liberal as well if you ask me, but that's utterly beside the point!

So anyway, I discovered an old copy of The Times at work and I thought I'd have a good old read of it over lunch. And I came across this slightly silly-sounding headline...

The Lib-Dems are "Too Male and Too Pale"

So ladies and gentlemen, we are being told most Liberals are white and male. Wowee what a shock! Quick Mister N, better hire some token women/blacks/asians/oompa-loompas/cabbages (delete as applicable!)
I jest. But honestly, that's exactly what the party say they plan on doing! Well maybe not oompa-loompas, cabbages potentially, but not oompa-loompas.
Honestly guys, who cares if you're all white blokes? You're politicians, not a girl-band! Could you kindly start acting like politicians and cease caring about gender, or the colour of peoples skin? It stopped being a problem many years ago, and there is no reason for it to become one again.

I'll be honest, personally, I really wouldn't give a toss if the lib-dems were all orange-skinned transvestites called Barbara, with a penchant for wearing bananas as earrings...as long as they do the job we're paying them to do!

"Positive Discrimination" indeed! Now I'm sure there's an Old English word for positive discrimination, ah yes, I remember it, "bullshit".