Thomas W. Devine's Blog, page 34
October 16, 2012
Voyeurs & Women
“Sunday” (Sunday Star*Times) on 14.10.12 ran an article about women as victims of voyeurism. Men, as usual, were held accountable for violation of privacy (as with the recent photos of the Duchess of Cambridge). The article protests about female bodies being regarded as “public property, fair game – to be claimed, admired and mocked.”
The article’s author complained about men “blaming women for ever being sexual at any time, at all ... on their own terms”.
I’ll probably be labelled as a male apologist, or worse, but I do think the article lacked balance. Responsible women don’t, for example, risk going into dark alleys alone. They’d show the same good sense if they didn’t take their clothes off in public view (however remote) or let a boyfriend, for example, photograph them that way. I don’t think men should be held solely responsible for women not being risk aware.
If running such a risk is part of freely expressing her sexuality then a woman has to accept some responsibility for the consequences, in my opinion.
The article’s author complained about men “blaming women for ever being sexual at any time, at all ... on their own terms”.
I’ll probably be labelled as a male apologist, or worse, but I do think the article lacked balance. Responsible women don’t, for example, risk going into dark alleys alone. They’d show the same good sense if they didn’t take their clothes off in public view (however remote) or let a boyfriend, for example, photograph them that way. I don’t think men should be held solely responsible for women not being risk aware.
If running such a risk is part of freely expressing her sexuality then a woman has to accept some responsibility for the consequences, in my opinion.
October 10, 2012
Euthanasia
I’ve just been talking to some young relatives, visiting from Australia, whom I’m very fond of, on the subject of euthanasia. They are strongly on the anti-side of the debate and, while I’m still of two-minds on the subject, I applaud their zeal.
In my youth, death seemed so far off that I hardly thought about it. I was rather horrified by science fiction stories I read, or saw at the movies, about future societies where, by social convention, all people faced euthanasia when they were still young but had reached a certain arbitrary age.
I found, with natural old age, that one develops a different relationship with death. Primarily, one faces the fact that it’s not far in the future – it could be today or tomorrow, or one might live another ten years or so. (It’s the first time I’ve put that in writing and it’s even more sobering than just thinking about it.)
One has moments when the idea of dying doesn’t seem so bad, when the burdens of ill-health and responsibilities are so great that one just wants to curl up, go to sleep, and not wake again. I contrast that with the gratitude I feel, day by day, that I woke up and didn’t die in my sleep.
We “put down” pets out of mercy or because they’re unwanted or become too much trouble. Society today, in the Western World, isn’t too far from wanting to do the same to the elderly. Allow it out of mercy and it’s not too big a step to allow it to happen for other reasons, with selfishness and greed – masked as economic reasons – as a prime motivator.
On two or three occasions in my lifetime I would have died without modern medicine. We have created an unprecedented situation of human longevity. I occupy a body that is past its use-by date. Despite that, I cling to life as something precious. Only a person not in their right mind or in merciless pain could fail to value life that much.
In my youth, death seemed so far off that I hardly thought about it. I was rather horrified by science fiction stories I read, or saw at the movies, about future societies where, by social convention, all people faced euthanasia when they were still young but had reached a certain arbitrary age.
I found, with natural old age, that one develops a different relationship with death. Primarily, one faces the fact that it’s not far in the future – it could be today or tomorrow, or one might live another ten years or so. (It’s the first time I’ve put that in writing and it’s even more sobering than just thinking about it.)
One has moments when the idea of dying doesn’t seem so bad, when the burdens of ill-health and responsibilities are so great that one just wants to curl up, go to sleep, and not wake again. I contrast that with the gratitude I feel, day by day, that I woke up and didn’t die in my sleep.
We “put down” pets out of mercy or because they’re unwanted or become too much trouble. Society today, in the Western World, isn’t too far from wanting to do the same to the elderly. Allow it out of mercy and it’s not too big a step to allow it to happen for other reasons, with selfishness and greed – masked as economic reasons – as a prime motivator.
On two or three occasions in my lifetime I would have died without modern medicine. We have created an unprecedented situation of human longevity. I occupy a body that is past its use-by date. Despite that, I cling to life as something precious. Only a person not in their right mind or in merciless pain could fail to value life that much.
October 1, 2012
Writing Group
A few years ago I became the third member of a writing group (since disbanded) that had been set up in my home city, Wellington. The other core members were a teacher and a retired academic. The former, I suspect, was writing to exorcise ghosts from his childhood, and the latter, to some degree, out of her nostalgia for gentler times.
Both members had the ability to improve my written English but did not seem very willing to accept what I could pass on from my learnings about the art of writing popular fiction.
The group had a fourth member for a short time. He had a great idea for a novel, set in part in Israel, but did not have the commitment to write it at that time. He pointed out a research flaw in something I’d written which gave me a salutary lesson to more thoroughly check my facts are up to date.
At one meeting the group was joined, as a potential member, by a woman student from a Whitireia Writing Course. She did not come back, presumably concluding that the group had nothing to offer her. She did give me some useful advice on an excerpt from my work at the time but was not too impressed by my critique of an excerpt from hers.
I was in the process of writing a thriller called “Island of Regrets” which I subsequently put on the back-burner.
The group rescued me from the loneliness of writing. At last I had someone to talk to with a common interest; persons struggling with the same learning path that I had embarked on. I enjoyed their companionship in our weekly sessions and appreciated having would-be writers with whom I could test my novice work. I tried to help them in return.
I have dedicated “Island of Regrets” to the members of that writing group. I hope the book will be published before Christmas. It will be my 5th novel.
Both members had the ability to improve my written English but did not seem very willing to accept what I could pass on from my learnings about the art of writing popular fiction.
The group had a fourth member for a short time. He had a great idea for a novel, set in part in Israel, but did not have the commitment to write it at that time. He pointed out a research flaw in something I’d written which gave me a salutary lesson to more thoroughly check my facts are up to date.
At one meeting the group was joined, as a potential member, by a woman student from a Whitireia Writing Course. She did not come back, presumably concluding that the group had nothing to offer her. She did give me some useful advice on an excerpt from my work at the time but was not too impressed by my critique of an excerpt from hers.
I was in the process of writing a thriller called “Island of Regrets” which I subsequently put on the back-burner.
The group rescued me from the loneliness of writing. At last I had someone to talk to with a common interest; persons struggling with the same learning path that I had embarked on. I enjoyed their companionship in our weekly sessions and appreciated having would-be writers with whom I could test my novice work. I tried to help them in return.
I have dedicated “Island of Regrets” to the members of that writing group. I hope the book will be published before Christmas. It will be my 5th novel.
September 25, 2012
Disadvantage in Education
The Dominion Post editorial (25.9.12) said:
“Children from poorer homes [in New Zealand] already start life at a distinct disadvantage. Those who leave school without the reading, writing and arithmetic skills to compete in the hi-tech labour market of tomorrow will start their adult lives on the back foot too.
“The extent of the problem is now laid bare [by national standards results] for all to see and any government that refuses to address it will have some explaining to do.”
I couldn’t word it better, though I think parents in particular, and teachers, need to do a more effective job too. It’s not just a government problem. I realise, however, that some parents are disadvantaged by cultural dislocation and their own illiteracy in English. Maybe the problem needs to be tackled at both the adult and child level before it will be resolved.
“Children from poorer homes [in New Zealand] already start life at a distinct disadvantage. Those who leave school without the reading, writing and arithmetic skills to compete in the hi-tech labour market of tomorrow will start their adult lives on the back foot too.
“The extent of the problem is now laid bare [by national standards results] for all to see and any government that refuses to address it will have some explaining to do.”
I couldn’t word it better, though I think parents in particular, and teachers, need to do a more effective job too. It’s not just a government problem. I realise, however, that some parents are disadvantaged by cultural dislocation and their own illiteracy in English. Maybe the problem needs to be tackled at both the adult and child level before it will be resolved.
September 10, 2012
Poverty & Wealth in New Zealand
The local news media have been showing a recent interest in the topic of child poverty in New Zealand. I have gathered together statistics that reveal the full scope of the problem here, as follows:
• Income inequality is higher than the average in OECD countries;
• Since 1985 it has grown faster than in any other OECD country except Sweden;
• The average salary for a CEO rose by $28,000 last year;
• This is more than fulltime pay for someone on the minimum wage;
• Since 1982 (apart from government assistance) the lower income half of the population has, after adjusting for inflation, had no income increase;
• 11.7% of children live in relative poverty;
• 16.3% of all ages live in relative poverty.
The hardships of people living in relative poverty in New Zealand have become very real to me as a voluntary citizen advisor in Porirua. While feeling compassion for them we should not forget that this is 'relative poverty' and not as bad as living in poverty in a Third World country.
• Income inequality is higher than the average in OECD countries;
• Since 1985 it has grown faster than in any other OECD country except Sweden;
• The average salary for a CEO rose by $28,000 last year;
• This is more than fulltime pay for someone on the minimum wage;
• Since 1982 (apart from government assistance) the lower income half of the population has, after adjusting for inflation, had no income increase;
• 11.7% of children live in relative poverty;
• 16.3% of all ages live in relative poverty.
The hardships of people living in relative poverty in New Zealand have become very real to me as a voluntary citizen advisor in Porirua. While feeling compassion for them we should not forget that this is 'relative poverty' and not as bad as living in poverty in a Third World country.
September 4, 2012
The State of Television
Peter Winter (North & South September 2012) has a dig at New Zealand television trying “to mimic the rest of the world to be taken seriously”.
After TV first reached New Zealand, I watched a steady increase in quality then a new situation, in the last few years, that I consider to be one of steep decline.
The more channels we’ve gained the less we have on them that is worth watching, I find. My guess is that advertising revenue is stretched so thin that the channels can no longer pay for many quality programmes.
A lot of what is on at peak times would even make a zombie feel brain-dead.
Peter Winter says that TV ratings have been falling like a rock over the last decade in the USA and that we are making the same mistakes here in NZ. The demise of TV7 is symptomatic.
The result? I watch less and less television and go to bed with a novel instead.
After TV first reached New Zealand, I watched a steady increase in quality then a new situation, in the last few years, that I consider to be one of steep decline.
The more channels we’ve gained the less we have on them that is worth watching, I find. My guess is that advertising revenue is stretched so thin that the channels can no longer pay for many quality programmes.
A lot of what is on at peak times would even make a zombie feel brain-dead.
Peter Winter says that TV ratings have been falling like a rock over the last decade in the USA and that we are making the same mistakes here in NZ. The demise of TV7 is symptomatic.
The result? I watch less and less television and go to bed with a novel instead.
August 28, 2012
Moral Choices & Violence Against Women
Columnist, Deborah Russell (The Dominion Post 28.8.12) lauds New Zealanders’ increasing sense of freedom – “where the ways people lead their lives are no-one’s business but their own.”
Logically, for a feminist, she then identifies “one major area where the pieties of the past still constrain us”. Legal controls on abortion, she says, are there because “we don’t trust women to make decisions for themselves” on “moral choices”.
Her simplistic view totally ignores the reason we have laws. Extrapolating her approach, we’d have a society where each individual was allowed, for example, to make their own choices over murder, child abuse, violence against a spouse, neglect of the elderly, theft and rape.
Neither man nor woman have (as she asserts) a right to absolute “autonomy”. A moral society protects human life and welfare and no human life is more innocent and precarious than that of the unborn child. The law on abortion was put in place not to challenge the “autonomy of women” but to stop the unfettered destruction of human life.
Short of repeal, the law has little room for the “liberalisation” that Ms Russell advocates since it is liberal already and is interpreted liberally. The law saves only a handful of lives each year and results in the deaths of around 16,000 unborn children. Don’t just gloss over that staggering number; think about it.
Is it any wonder that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the OECD when we have men who coerce women into having abortions and have feminists like Deborah Russell saying “we need to rewrite our abortion laws so that they no longer deny woman the right to make decisions about abortion”.
Ms Russell, it is not the “right” of any human to take the life of another, despite your assertions. And shame on the Dominion Post for featuring such a lightweight opinion piece.
Abortion has become a tool of violence not only against the unborn child but women themselves, even if they fail to recognise it.
Logically, for a feminist, she then identifies “one major area where the pieties of the past still constrain us”. Legal controls on abortion, she says, are there because “we don’t trust women to make decisions for themselves” on “moral choices”.
Her simplistic view totally ignores the reason we have laws. Extrapolating her approach, we’d have a society where each individual was allowed, for example, to make their own choices over murder, child abuse, violence against a spouse, neglect of the elderly, theft and rape.
Neither man nor woman have (as she asserts) a right to absolute “autonomy”. A moral society protects human life and welfare and no human life is more innocent and precarious than that of the unborn child. The law on abortion was put in place not to challenge the “autonomy of women” but to stop the unfettered destruction of human life.
Short of repeal, the law has little room for the “liberalisation” that Ms Russell advocates since it is liberal already and is interpreted liberally. The law saves only a handful of lives each year and results in the deaths of around 16,000 unborn children. Don’t just gloss over that staggering number; think about it.
Is it any wonder that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the OECD when we have men who coerce women into having abortions and have feminists like Deborah Russell saying “we need to rewrite our abortion laws so that they no longer deny woman the right to make decisions about abortion”.
Ms Russell, it is not the “right” of any human to take the life of another, despite your assertions. And shame on the Dominion Post for featuring such a lightweight opinion piece.
Abortion has become a tool of violence not only against the unborn child but women themselves, even if they fail to recognise it.
August 21, 2012
Equal Opportunity
There’s a bill before Parliament to allow "Gay marriage" in New Zealand on the basis of equal opportunity.
Parliament can legally call marriage what it likes but, law or not, homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are as different as apples and oranges and no new legal definition will change that.
I'm reminded of what feminist author, Robin Morgan, said: "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
Roderick C Meredith wrote recently about young people today not being aware of "a time when Western society truly upheld the values of respect for the family unit, the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, a basic standard of morality ... and the protection of all human life..."
He says that today's idea of morality is: "If it feels good, do it!" He explains that the majority "now look to themselves through the prism of their own vanities and lusts to decide what is right and what is wrong."
No doubt the younger generation will see euthanasia as a way of silencing us both. We are, after all, over forty and that's too long to stick around and want our minority views to prevail. Lol.
Parliament can legally call marriage what it likes but, law or not, homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are as different as apples and oranges and no new legal definition will change that.
I'm reminded of what feminist author, Robin Morgan, said: "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
Roderick C Meredith wrote recently about young people today not being aware of "a time when Western society truly upheld the values of respect for the family unit, the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, a basic standard of morality ... and the protection of all human life..."
He says that today's idea of morality is: "If it feels good, do it!" He explains that the majority "now look to themselves through the prism of their own vanities and lusts to decide what is right and what is wrong."
No doubt the younger generation will see euthanasia as a way of silencing us both. We are, after all, over forty and that's too long to stick around and want our minority views to prevail. Lol.
August 20, 2012
Insights into New Zealand
Unlike Peter Winter (North & South September 2012) I’ve never had the experience of returning to my homeland after 40 years away. I get homesick after a week. The only other scenery that makes me “homesick” like that is rural France – I must have some French genes hiding inside me.
I could not help wondering, when I saw the article, what impartial insights into New Zealand Peter Winter might have after living most of his life overseas. What could he teach us about ourselves, I wondered, after such a prolonged break from firsthand contact with his homeland?
One key thing Peter winter found refreshing, in contrast to his experience in the USA, was a New Zealand populace he described as “decent, practical, quiet, down-to-earth and well-regulated” and, in another breath, “as genuine, funny, loyal, fair, decent and self-deprecating “ as he remembered them in a country where “taking yourself seriously” is still considered offensive.
Now, he’s going to be popular in New Zealand for saying those sorts of nice things but I’ll assume he was genuine.
I could not help wondering, when I saw the article, what impartial insights into New Zealand Peter Winter might have after living most of his life overseas. What could he teach us about ourselves, I wondered, after such a prolonged break from firsthand contact with his homeland?
One key thing Peter winter found refreshing, in contrast to his experience in the USA, was a New Zealand populace he described as “decent, practical, quiet, down-to-earth and well-regulated” and, in another breath, “as genuine, funny, loyal, fair, decent and self-deprecating “ as he remembered them in a country where “taking yourself seriously” is still considered offensive.
Now, he’s going to be popular in New Zealand for saying those sorts of nice things but I’ll assume he was genuine.
August 14, 2012
Better Public Service?
The New Zealand government wants to increase the proportion of many public service transactions carried out on-line from 30% to 70% (The Dominion Post 14.8.12).
The most pure public service ethic is for a government department to provide its services, within the law, when, where and how the public wants them.
In practice, this ethic becomes tainted for various reasons and most of all when there is an economic climate of government cost cutting leading to public servant redundancies.
The above statistic shows that 70% of people currently requiring the government services referred to get them off-line either because they prefer it or for lack of availability on-line.
The ethic is not tainted if more services are made available on-line to meet known latent demand or when existing on-line services are improved to make them more useful to the public. Service cuts are another matter all together.
The current catch-cry of government is one of “delivering better public services”. It is apparent, however, that what is happening is what is good for the current government without much regard for the consumer.
As an example, once you could walk into a government department and be served immediately or after a reasonable wait. You can’t do that anymore in many situations and have to have an appointment. That is if there is still a local office to serve your needs. There are fewer of those nowadays.
Those inconveniences to the public are a lowering of standards of service. Our freedom of choice is reduced.
Let’s call it what it is rather than dishonestly try to sell it as better public services.
The most pure public service ethic is for a government department to provide its services, within the law, when, where and how the public wants them.
In practice, this ethic becomes tainted for various reasons and most of all when there is an economic climate of government cost cutting leading to public servant redundancies.
The above statistic shows that 70% of people currently requiring the government services referred to get them off-line either because they prefer it or for lack of availability on-line.
The ethic is not tainted if more services are made available on-line to meet known latent demand or when existing on-line services are improved to make them more useful to the public. Service cuts are another matter all together.
The current catch-cry of government is one of “delivering better public services”. It is apparent, however, that what is happening is what is good for the current government without much regard for the consumer.
As an example, once you could walk into a government department and be served immediately or after a reasonable wait. You can’t do that anymore in many situations and have to have an appointment. That is if there is still a local office to serve your needs. There are fewer of those nowadays.
Those inconveniences to the public are a lowering of standards of service. Our freedom of choice is reduced.
Let’s call it what it is rather than dishonestly try to sell it as better public services.
