Sunday, 16 August 2015

Are We Forcing Ourselves Into Marriage?

In the beginning, there was Adam and Eve.

What was it that caused "The Fall"? Well, everyone knows that one. It was temptation. Temptation to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not only did Adam and Eve succumb to doing what was deemed wrong and rebellious in the eyes of the Lord, but with it they also became aware of their own state. They realised that they were naked which in turn, gave them knowledge about how they could be perceived by others and, most importantly, the existence of their own sexuality. They were also made aware that their actions had certain implications - some good and some evil.

Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from every tree other than the one that would give them power. After all, that's what knowledge is.

And what was the punishment?

To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

Woman's punishment is childbirth and marriage.

Unlike God's initial rave review of marriage and procreation ['Be fruitful and multiply', 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'...], once Eve has sinned, married life will forevermore bear pain, submission and feelings alien to those that God and nature intended for all womankind.

Cheers, Eve.

Your desire shall be for your husband seems to indicate that:

a) the desire of a woman toward her husband alone is solely by God’s grace and not by nature

and

b) the sentiment is likely not to be mutual - the woman will desire her husband, but it won't be reciprocated, leading to misery and the constant struggle to gain man's unwavering affections.

He shall rule over you depicts the age-old adage of marital roles and power struggle within the household. It also suggests that woman as the submissive is not as natural a function as we have come to accept.

I have become intrigued by Channel 4's recent series, 'Marriage at First Sight' - other TV channels are available.

What struck me most was the need for a programme like this in the first place. If you know nothing about this, the programme basically "matches" complete strangers based on rigorous personality tests, lifestyle observation, genetics, DNA and people's life and relationship goals. Put simply, it is arranged marriage for white folk.

1,500 people applied to marry a complete stranger who "experts" deemed to be The One for them. These experts are as follows:

: Channel 4 - Married at First Sight

The first point to make is the fact that so many people felt the need to be matched by people who may be "experts", but did not really know them at all. It is not like asking your best mate to set you up or even, as in many cultures, putting your faith in your family to choose the person they believe fitting to be your spouse - a person who is up to your standards, as well as theirs. These unions are usually based on corresponding religious, family and educational backgrounds, the ability of the man to support the woman financially, and good genetics.

Half of my family are Indian and - as a 26 year-old un-married woman - I have no doubt that, given half the chance, my dad would arrange a union he felt suitable based on his wishes both for me and for himself. Un-lucky for him, I have a British mother, a 21st Century mind and have seen East Is East. However, I do wonder if the mere existence of a TV show like this, signifies a newfound regard for the reasoning behind arranged marriages in other cultural societies.

The surprise then, is that so many people in this country - all young, successful and attractive - felt the need to apply to take part in this experiment. As the experts on the programme state, the fact that the show involves marriage as opposed to just dating or even living with a stranger for 5 weeks, signifies the people involved's true desire and commitment to getting married and finding 'The One'. That's all well and good, but it also shows that these people have all tried and failed in their endeavour thus far.

But, why?

Is it because these people are fundamentally un-lovable in some way?

Is it because they find everyone else around them un-lovable?

Or is it because the very concept of finding everything you're looking for in one other person and them staying that way forever is intrinsically flawed, if not impossible?

These days, more so than any other time in history, single life is being embraced. Women proudly embrace their independence and men flaunt their bachelor lifestyles.

: Dan Bilzerian - The Ultimate Playboy

Dan Bilzerian - Don't Get Married

I would say that single life is more appealing now than ever due to everything being so accessible. In the old days, women needed men to bring home the bacon - literally. Go forth, kill and bring back tea. He also had to start the fire, smash things (such as animal bones to extract meat) and generally do stuff. The Homo Habilis actually means 'Handy man' - saviour of all damsels in distress.

These days though, women are more self-sufficient than ever, as are men. Women are ambitious, career-driven and independent, with or without children; and men do the things that, up til now, women have only done (i.e. cook, clean, iron) without fear of social judgement.

Plus, these days, we can just pick up the phone and hire a handy man!

What need, then, do we have for marriage?

Do we actually require anything other than sex from the opposite sex?

And if sex is all we require, are we happy to only get that from one person for a lifetime?

I'm not insensitive enough to say that we don't require other sentiments such as affection and companionship, but do we need these things from a life-partner or could we make do with our friends and family to fill the gap when we are feeling lonely or in need of sharing an experience?

In fact, people have become more insular than ever thanks to the likes of Sky and Netflix. People would happily spend their Saturday night alone in bed, binge-watching Game of Thrones, than the hassle of dressing up and the effort of interacting with and - often forcing themselves - to enjoy the company of a group of people. Why else would people rather swipe left or right on their iPhones when choosing a date instead of actually socialising and finding a mate the good old-fashioned way?

If only, instead of subjecting Adam and Eve to a lifetime of misery together, God had said: "D'you know what, you're both too curious for your own good and bring out the worst in each other! Man and Woman clearly should not be left alone together unsupervised for any length of time", we wouldn't have felt the need to continue forcing a square peg into a round hole. After all, if marriage was a natural state of affairs, why the need for marriage counsellors or countless self-help books advising us on how to suffer through relationships as painlessly as possible? (i.e. Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus). Furthermore, the latest statistics (published December 2012) estimate that 42% of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce. It is also estimated that: 34% of marriages are expected to end in divorce by the 20th wedding anniversary

During the programme, the "experts" mention on many occasions the importance of the participants' friends and family being on board with their decision to marry a complete stranger, due to the importance of social acceptance and reputation. This made me wonder, in choosing a partner, how much of our decision is ours and how much of it is influenced by those close to us opinions? I think I probably know more about what my parents would want from my future husband than I do.

I wonder, what if - as we may have one friend who we go to for advice and another we would call for a wild night out - we had the freedom of having multiple partners for different requirements, instead of pinning our every desire on one person. It is no wonder that more and more of us are turning to online dating when we are looking for someone who is a culmination of our every need: funny, attractive, smart, wealthy, ambitious, kind, family-orientated, sociable, attentive, etc. etc. We are going online in the hopes of finding this person, because most likely, in the land of the living, they don't exist.

If these 1,500 people who applied to take part in the experiment believed that these four professionals had the ability to introduce them to that perfect and mystical being without having to put the groundwork in themselves which up til now has only ended in disappointment, who can blame them?!

What I fear is the "10%" of unknown element that Dr Anna Machin, the evolutionary anthropologist, refers to.

I took the 'Relationship Test' on the show's website twice and by just changing a couple of the questions I was unsure of (due to different experiences in different relationships), I went from being deemed a "Relationship-Centred Worrier, Attachment type = Anxious", to "Content Coupledom, Attachment type = Secure". Hmm...

The thing is, human-beings - especially females - are such complicated beings. We think we know what we want, but if it was put in front of us, we'd probably run a mile! Furthermore, I can guarantee that my answer to questions such as "Do you feel secure in your relationship?" would change from one day to the next dependent on my mood, hormones, stress levels and whether or not my boyfriend had "liked" another girl's profile picture or not that day!

On the wedding day, one of the women who had been "matched" on the programme, mentioned how all of her new husband's friends and family kept remarking how similar they both were, how he is the male version of her. (This couple had been deemed a 100% match by the experts, the most compatible match they had ever seen.) The woman said to the camera, "er, that's not cool, that's weird. He likes the same things I do and we're scarily, like, alike, apparently. So I don't know, I think that's a bit weird. I don't want him to be exactly like me, 'cause that's a bit weird, right?"

To the experts, these two people were a perfect match. As a female, even I could see before they met each other, that the woman was not going to be attracted to this man. I'm aware that what might be perfect on paper - or in the eyes of your friends and family - might just not be what floats your boat.

According to the experts, the main problem with internet dating and is the lack of oxytocin - i.e. chemistry, or "The Spark". You get chatting to someone 'cause they tick all the boxes you've filled in on your online wish-list, but when you meet them, there may just be nothing there. And vice versa. How honest really are we when we answer questions about ourselves? When a girl posts a photo caked in makeup (which she certainly doesn't look like when she wakes up in the morning) or proclaims herself to be "laid-back and easy-going" (which she definitely won't be when you roll in at 2 o'clock in the morning when you said you'd be home at 9...) etc.

Sure, people may say online dating is great for people who lead busy lives and have focused on their careers up til their early thirties then suddenly turn round and realise they're alone - as with the singles on Married at First Sight.

To that I would say,

but haven't you been happy up til now?

I would say they probably have been. They've probably lived fulfilled lives with their work and going out and the majority of the people on the programme said the only reason they've decided that now's the time to settle down is because all their friends have.

But what if they hadn't?

Why is 'Friends' still one of the most popular shows on TV? It isn't a love story about the ideal marriage, kids and a house in the suburbs. It portrays six friends in their thirties who all live in a flat and socialise together, have pretty casual relationships and even when Chandler and Monica get married, they never really spend a minute alone!

People will obviously say, what about love?

Love is great, if you are lucky enough to find it. But the question is, does marriage develop love or stifle it? If it wasn't for religion, would marriage even exist? Would human-beings by their own nature and free will choose to be with just one person for the rest of their lives? Or would they recognise in themselves their own flaws and incapabilities to maintain such long-lasting loyalty and affection for another despite any wrongdoings or mental and physical changes that person may undergo during the course of their lifetime?

Does it not say something that man had to be instructed to 'love his wife as he loves himself' and the wife to 'respect her husband'?

In the words of Groucho Marx, "marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?"

“I wanted to start a race war, but almost didn’t go through with it because everyone was so nice.” - Dylann Roof

[mirror.co.uk]

I'm not one to get involved with politics, but the recent South Carolina shooting has got me thinking, as I am often disturbed by the sweeping generalisations of people of certain nationalities and inability to condemn those of others.

When does a racist become a terrorist? What is the difference between a "hate crime" and an act of terrorism? The recent murders of nine religious, black residents of Charleston, South Carolina, has led to many questioning the definition of the act. In fact, the musings have occurred secondary to it's initial, unhesitating label as a hate crime and, as President Obama put it, "senseless murders".

There is no doubt, however, behind the motive of the massacre. Dylann Storm Roof, a 21 year old "All-American", blonde-haired, blue-eyed boy from Shelby, North Carolina, accused the victims of raping "our women and [...] taking over our country. And you have to go.”

Our women. Our country.

These kinds of fundamentally racist and extreme-right beliefs are concurrent with extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, and reactionary views such as neo-nazism and white-supremacism.

White supremacy or white supremacism is a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially rule non-whites.

: Ku Klux Klan

The Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority or their alleged threat to the nation or state.

In the same way, Dylann Roof has justified his actions by tarring the members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church with horrific, warped attributes because of their religious and ethnic backgrounds. Members of the KKK have called for purification of American society and Roof's actions had behind them, no doubt, the same mentality "to shield the sanctity of the home and the chastity of womanhood; to maintain white supremacy".

But where is the line between an extreme, racist, hate crime and an act of terrorism?

The main differentiator between an act of terrorism and a crime of passion is the element of pre-meditatation. A terrorist attack is viewed as cold-blooded, designed and meticulous - furthered by the use of weaponry used (i.e. constructing a bomb is seen as requiring more pre-meditation than obtaining a firearm) and calculated choice of venue (i.e. symbols of American capitalism and military might: World Trade Centre and the Pentagon).

A crime of passion is a defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation", (i.e. when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her "beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair.)

: 9/11 Terrorist Attack.

While the difference between a terrorist attack and a crime of passion is fairly clear, the antithesis between a hate crime and terrorism is pretty hard to discern.

A hate crime is defined as follows:

hate crime

noun

noun: hate crime; plural noun: hate crimes

a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence."legislation to stiffen penalties for persons convicted of hate crimes"

While a terrorist attack is defined as:

noun: terrorism

the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."the fight against terrorism"

terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

coup de main, surprise attack - an attack without warning.

Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church is the oldest AME church in the south. It is referred to as "Mother Emanuel". Emanuel has one of the largest and oldest black congregations south of Baltimore, Maryland.

"When we talk about terrorism the important things are ideological motivations - politics, religion - but equally as important is target selection," says Simi, who teaches at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

[cbsnews.com]

There is no doubt about why this venue or the people inside it were targeted. AME is a long-standing sanctuary for African descendants and respite from their struggle against unkind treatment and restrictions placed upon them. It is a religious institution for African Americans in Charleston, surviving years of investigations, controversy and destruction. The church has been restored and rebuilt after being burnt down, accused of homing a planned slave revolt and worship services continued even when all black churches were outlawed.

Roof, with no mistake and by his own admission, wanted to start a "race war" against members of a community he deemed to be rapists and parasites.

So far, the Southern Poverty Law Center says that they have not found any connection between Roof and white supremacy groups. However, a friend of his reportedly told police that Roof hoped to start a "civil war" by killing black people, and one photograph depicts him wearing an apartheid-era South African flag patch.

[cbsnews.com]

: Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpartɦɛit]; an Afrikaans word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood") was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation by the National Party (NP), the governing party from 1948 to 1994. Under apartheid, the rights, associations, and movements of the majority black inhabitants and other ethnic groups were curtailed and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. By extension, the term is currently used for forms of systematic segregation, established by the state authority in a country, against the social and civil rights of a certain group of citizens, due to ethnic prejudices.

Islamic State

The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale". The group has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, and Russia. Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.

The ISIS group are sourcing their recruits in a new-age fashion as never been seen before, through the booming world of social media. Through platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and Kik, ISIS not only touts its violent acts against "non-believers," but also the lifestyle the group claims to offer its members, referred to by some within the group as "five-star jihad." Most recently, ISIS media channels announced the reopening of a luxury hotel in Mosul, complete with a photo spread of the facilities.

: ISIS members posing around a BMW.

To lure these new recruits into a new life in the caliphate, ISIS recruiters — many of whom are young women — are on Twitter and Tumblr, updating their followers about their lives and portraying ISIS territory in an overwhelmingly positive light.

Hitler also relied on terror and propaganda to achieve his goals. Lured by the wages, a feeling of comradeship, and the striking uniforms, tens of thousands of young jobless men put on the brown shirts and high leather boots of the Nazi Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilungen).

: Hitler and his Nazi followers.

It is not yet clear what had corrupted Roof's mind to such an extent as to commit these horrific acts and acting alone and as a "domestic" citizen, the act itself has led to it being viewed as an isolated incident and a hate crime, even though it is quite evident that his mentality was connected to a larger ideology of violence and hatred based on extreme, religious and political views and in the hopes of attaining some sort of ethnic cleansing. If he had turned round and denounced himself a neo-Nazi or KKK member, would he then have been viewed as a terrorist? Or would we merely consider him mentally disturbed and confused. A radicalist or perhaps even the offspring of a troubled childhood or lack of proper education?

Even if Roof is his own mastermind, self-radicalised and acted alone, does this make him any less a terrorist?

When two Muslim gunmen opened fire on a Draw Muhammad event in Texas last month there was no real discussion about whether the act was terrorism - it was just assumed it was.

If a Muslim acts alone, is it deemed an isolated incident? No. It is assumed that any crime committed by an "outsider", specifically one from Muslim descent, is an act of terrorism and signals a threat to the state. In doing so, it also tars the entire nation with one brush.

"Many of these 'non-jihadi' incidents of violence are attributed to an isolated, deranged gunman without considering the larger context of extremist ideologies and movements such as neo-Nazism and white supremacy more broadly," says Simi. "Interestingly, we don't seem to suffer from this myopia when the perpetrator is Muslim."

[cbsnews.com]

Chechen brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the "Boston bombers", said they were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups.

Homegrown terrorism or domestic terrorism is commonly associated with violent acts committed by citizens or permanent residents of a state against their own people or property within that state in effort to instill fear on a population or government as a tactic designed to advance political, religious, or ideological objectives.

Is it not then clear that Roof's act was one of domestic terrorism? Committed by a citizen of Charleston against other citizens of the same town, in a bid to wage civil war against the black community within it?

If he had bombed the church instead of opening fire like a deranged gunman, would the act have appeared more pre-meditated; more like that of a cold, calculated terrorist, inspired by and willing to die for his extremist beliefs?

British National Party and the English Defence League

As well as anti-immigration policies, the party advocates the reintroduction of capital punishment and opposes same-sex marriage, multiculturalism and what it perceives as the Islamification of the UK.

The party's ideology has been described as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists and commentators, though the party denies this.

As the EDL gains support across the UK, Muslims have already been targeted in unprovoked attacks. In the worst incident, a mob of 30 white and black youths is said to have surrounded Asian students near City University in central London and attacked them with metal poles, bricks and sticks while shouting racist abuse. Three people - two students and a passer-by who tried to intervene - were stabbed.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1238213/This-England-On-trail-English-Defence-League.html#ixzz3dbYTvgHX

The EDL group, while proclaiming itself to be a peaceful movement, is realistically a group of far-right, violent football thugs using terror and intimidation and has attracted extremists and neo-nazis, including the British Freedom Fighters. They are motivated by extremist leaders and homegrown beliefs. They target innocent citizens, who they believe to be of a certain disposition due to their ethnicity.

: English Defence League. Protest march Manchester.
En route to by train to Manchester from Bolton.

: EDL members meet at a rendezvous pub before travelling to Manchester

As homegrown groups like these grow and acts continue to worsen, when will we stop covering for our own and see them for what they really are? These people are extremists and their acts are those of terrorism, whether they act alone or in groups and regardless of their skin-tone, colour of their hair or eyes.

Dear Future Self...

N.B. This post will probably read much more powerfully if imagined spoken over Baz Luhrmann's 'Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)'.

This post is dedicated to my future self, to remind me of some valuable life lessons that I have learnt recently. Why wait until you're in your sixties to look back forlornly on your life and think upon all the things that you could, should, would have done differently?

1. TAKE NO SHIT.

As I've got older, I've really learnt to stand up for myself and not worry so much about how it might make me look when I do. This will be encouraged if you surround yourself with the right people. For example, I spent far too long with somebody who felt that I made social situations uncomfortable due to my inability to "hide my feelings". Of course, there is a time and a place to express your opinions, but when the time is right - why pretend? Life is too short to feel stifled, bullied and ignored.

2. IT'S OK NOT TO BE LIKED BY EVERYONE.

Seriously. This whole 'You Can't Sit With Us' craic, since when was it a good thing to be a standoffish bitch? If you're being made to feel left out of a group that, by their own admission, are too beautiful or too cool for you - chances are, you'll not want to be part of it anyway!

3. GO BACK TO DOING WHAT YOU USED TO LOVE.

Recently, I have re-ignited my love affair with reading and writing. As a child, my life's ambition was to be a famous author and at the age of about 12, used to write books with sequels for my friends to read and review. Although gaining 100% in my A Level English Literature paper, when I went onto study it at Uni, somewhere along the way I lost my love for it and started questioning where it would lead me in life. After four years of flitting between jobs, I've finally returned to my true passion. These things you used to love are probably the things that inspired you before you became too obsessed with the opposite sex, the way you look and being popular. Probably the things that make you look like a geek as a child. In reality, these passions are the things that make you unique, interesting and even successful in later life.

4. IT'S OK TO BE DIFFERENT.

Don't be afraid to be different. There will always be people out there who love you for who you are. Don't spend your time trying to be someone who you're never going to be. That person probably has their own issues to contend with anyway. When you find people who really get you and love those parts of you that you secretly like about yourself but were too afraid to show, those are the people who will bring you out of yourself and make you achieve things you never thought possible. Remember, you have to be odd to be number one.

5. PUSH YOURSELF.

There is a quote that states that your life begins at the end of your comfort zone. Corny, but true. Again, this will become so much easier to do depending on who you surround yourself with. The people around you should encourage, not hinder you, to do the things you always wanted to do, but didn't think you could. It's all in your state of mind!

6. IT'S ALRIGHT NOT TO SPEND 24/7 WITH YOUR OTHER HALF.

I think you only feel like you can't be without your boyfriend/girlfriend if there are trust issues in the relationship or if you feel entirely dependant on that person, because you have no life outside of them. Being in a stable, loving, trusting relationship allows you to spend time with others and do separate things, without the fear of drifting apart. In reality, it will only bring you closer together.

7. MAKE AN EFFORT WITH YOUR FRIENDS.

It's so easy to get wrapped up in your own little world, especially as you get older and have work commitments or live with your lesser half, but you should never be too busy to get in touch with your best friends, even if it's just a text, a phone call or popping round for a cup of tea. I've never valued my friends as much as I do now that I'm older and there is nothing like a girly chat for a few hours to make you feel sane again.

8. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BASE EVERY DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL MAKE YOUR PARENTS PROUD.

...if they love you (and hopefully they do), they will be proud of you no matter what you do, as long as you're happy. I spent too long wondering at every twist and turn whether or not my decisions were the right ones. The longer you spend questioning your decisions, the less time you have either to enjoy them or change them. While your parents only want the best for you, you're the only one who can live your own life, no-one else can tell you what's best for you, even your mum and dad.

9. BE PROUD OF YOURSELF.

Another thing that I've learnt lately is that it's OK to blow your own trumpet sometimes! If you've done something you're proud of, acknowledge that achievement! I was always waiting and hoping for praise, especially in the workplace and when you don't get it, it can be so disheartening and quite often put you off making the effort in future. Encourage yourself, you can't rely on others to do that for you. If you can recognise your own abilities, the more likely you are to pave your own way and not be swayed by other people telling you you can't succeed.

10. PERSONALITY ALWAYS WINS OVER LOOKS.

Like most girls, I spent my youth plastering myself with makeup. This only got worse when I moved up to Newcastle and was confronted with a city full of hair extensions, false eye lashes, whitened teeth and flawless complexions. As I've got older, I've become more comfortable in my own skin and really learnt the value of kindness, empathy and a sense of humour over beauty. Personality is key in the workplace, in relationships and in friendships. People will soon suss you out if you have nothing to contribute but your looks. I will always find it more satisfying to be complimented on my personality than my outfit.

The Doll Houz