No sex please, I'm not a human.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8529595.stm

Lets pretend that I, on an ideological or religious basis, don't like maths. I think it is damaging, and potentially harmful, and that my children shouldn't know anything about it. My faith have set up a school. Should it be allowed for the children attending it not to learn any maths? Or to learn about it whilst being subjected to repeated assertions that it is bad and wrong?

No. Children have to learn maths. Without it their life, both later and current, will be impaired. They will encounter situations they don't understand, or don't know how to navigate. They could be taken advantage of.

If my child should decide when they are older that they too don't like maths I should be very pleased, but its up to them to make that decision, once they have had the opportunity to learn it. Because if they don't learn it while they are young then any of the bad things that could result might happen before they know about it, and its much harder to learn once you get older.

This is, of course, a rather thinly veiled metaphor for what should be taught in faith schools with regards to sex education. I'm sure those who support the teaching of religious biased, fact omitted sex education might regard my alignment to maths as flippant and irrelevant, claiming that sex education isn't necessary for life int eh same way that maths is.

But it is. Biologically you cannot stop a child developing sexually, and they will encounter experiences of a sexual nature. Whether welcome or forced, knowledge of contraception, pregnancy options, sexually transmitted disease, relationships, and sexual self confidence are needed. Because everyone will encounter a sexual situation. Ignorance does not keep your children innocent, it just makes them a hell of a lot more likely to get hurt and damaged in the future.

I don't disagree with faith schools, but I see them as a way of incorporating some religious teaching along side a normal curriculum, not intruding into all subjects. Islamic schools work around prayer times, Jewish schools incorporate dietary requirements, in Catholic schools you sing hymns in assembly. But they shouldn't be the site of damaging indoctrination.

In this situation people often talk about parents rights, to teach their child the morals they wish. But by that vein some one could teach racism on the grounds of religion. The Catholic churches attitude to homosexuals in fact borders on that.

And what about the child's rights? To have the opportunity to learn about themselves, and given all the information one day make their own decision?

Its the children that need to be thought of, not the parents lobbying and bulling. And the Government need to be stronger and see that.

Those parents might be gloating now, pleased that they have 'won' the sex education battle. But when their child winds up pregnant, or with an STI, or can't talk to them and doesn't understand the advances of someone on the Internet, or is unhappy in their marriage (if everything goes perfectly and they stick with the religion and abstain before) because they haven't been taught how to feel about their body or their wants or sexuality.

And if the Government can see anything else they should see Britain's appalling statistics for teenage pregnancy and STIs going up not down in the future on the basis of their 'watered down' bill.

Soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief - deaths in order of importance

"When tragedy occurs, we ought to properly support the families, including the recognition of an entitlement to appropriate bereavement leave.”

MP Angela Smith called earlier this month for more employers to be more sympathetic with regards to compassionate leave. Admirable, until you add the fact that she is not appealing for everyone who faces a "tragedy", but just families of armed service personnel.

It is faintly immoral to 'rank' people's deaths is this way. Is it worse if your son dies because he was a soldier than a criminal? Should you be rewarded for your child or partner's career choice with more time off if they die?

Even that the death occurs outside of the country isn't a justification. Many other families have children or parents who live or work abroad.

I'm not saying people shouldn't get compassionate leave. But it should be given out equally, not a legal guideline set out privileging armed forces' families over all others.

http://www.labourmatters.com/sheffield-labour/mps-call-for-forces-families-to-get-bereavement-leave-guarantee/

REWIEW: The Road (Spoliers)

Having spent the last two days in the library next to my friend who was reading The Road I wasn't labouring under any misconception that an afternoon watching it would be uplifting.

Unrelentingly bleak, the feeling of fear and discomfort so brilliantly portrayed by Viggo Mortensen is conveyed to the viewer with incredible, realistic post-apocalyptic landscapes and a sense that something is always about to go wrong.

The flash backs play a key part in this too; the back story, the human element, what has been lost - home, sunlight, beauty, family.

And then this is up-ed by some brutal scenes; inner-eds of a just cannibalised man, a light less basement-come-larder full of naked mad men, an arrow pulled out of a calf, baths of blood. Harrowing. and not for the faint hearted.

But the most faint hearted of all is the child in the film who plays the other half of the central duologue (Viggo being the first). Despite having always lived in post-apocalypse America the boy cannot fend for himself at all and is not in anyway hardened to what he sees; there are several times when a dying of something resembling TB father has to carry him away from danger because he can't run, he can't fire the gun, when hiding he makes noise, and he is incapable of alerting his father to danger, again just makes noise. He seems incredibly ungrateful for what his father does;protesting when his father fires back at someone who has just shot him in the leg, getting angry when they leave places that have been safe havens because of impending danger, placing himself in harms way through trusting other people and then behaving like a spoilt brat when his father tries to protect him and themselves from it.

He represents the hope for mankind, the inherent innocence and good of humanity. Trusting; rejecting revenge, killing and selfishness. A true child. And as such he obviously couldn't fend for himself, couldn't kill, couldn't adapt; and can't be expected to.

Bollocks. It is a picture of the social construct of Western childhood placed in a world it wouldn't have survived in.

There are children all over the world who have faced hell, a subject which haunts me at the moment as I am researching a dissertation on child soldiers. The Road's presentation of childhood, this inherent goodness that stands against our bleak world and adult destruction, belittles every child who has ever adapted, and picked up a gun and learnt to fight so they don't die. They are failures because they would have helped their dad pull the cart not sulk at the back. Like "real" children.

In the film you see Mortensen loose his trust in other men, become bitter and selfish. And he doesn't survive. What does this say?

The Road, although brilliant and beautiful, condemns each one of us who see ourselves as Viggo, or even as one of the "bad guys", as lost, gone wrong, nonreturnable, in need of childlike goodness to save us. And when you're only 21 that's a pretty grim outlook. For children who live in this world and have had to go through real life apocolypses it's even worse.

Lets not have, 'as long as you're good children, you'll be ok'. Thats not fair. Its not a choice everyone has.

It's ok to carry a knife, as long as you're a home owner

Happy New Year

and happy new blog - http://argyattemptsapostgrad.blogspot.com - everything I can learn, find out, beg, borrow and steal about applying for masters courses as I go about it myself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/myleene-klass-knife-intruders

Piano playing, M&S wearing Myleene Klass has been told off for brandishing a kitchen knife at 'youths' in her garden. A gasp goes up from middle England - can we not even protect ourselves in our own home? Thank god for David Cameron, the superman with a plan to be more lenient on people who bludgeon buglers to death.

These youths - presumably wearing hoodies. probably scarfs too. clearly to cover their own illegal weapons rather than because they too get cold when it snows - were 'peering' in at her windows. Intrusive yes, and unpleasant, but not necessarily threatening. They would probably have been gotten rid of with the banging on the window alone, and if not a call to the police. They were certainly not in the house itself and aren't reported as having made any any action towards Klass, therefore I wouldn't say it was technically self defence.

And there's the problem. One man's self defence is 'I woke up to find a balaclava-d man going through the drawers in my room with an uncovered gun in his hand so I hit him over the head with my bed side lamp.' Another's is 'I saw some kid at the bottom of my garden. he looked suspicious. so I stabbed him with a bread knife.'

You would end up with a situation where "they carry knives so i can", or a call to more widely legalise guns. And the shockingly high gun crime figures in America show that it only makes things worse.

I've had a penknife since I was a kid. I live in the country and its useful. But my dad always told me the worst thing I could do was carry it in self defence. Because if I get that out truth is my assailant will probably trump me and respond much more strongly than they would otherwise have done.

Our society isn't perfect, but lets not give up and make allowances for violence but keep trying for a weaponless, peaceful country, with police not vigilante justice.



The friendliest O.A.Ps in the world...

An old man named Roger asked me to cross him over the road in the snow. Having acquiesced he took my arm, told me he was only joking he didn't need help, he just liked to get people to. I was the third that day.

A woman on the train moved her bag so I could put mine on the luggage rack, telling me sternly it was too heavy to go on my lap and then gave me a copy of Heat.

REVIEW: Bright Star

As the most stereotypical of English Literature students I am a massive Romantic poets fan. I have considered putting 'I love Lord Byron' as my Facebook status. I genuinely think Blake might be god.

Having said this Keats has always come pretty far down my list of faves (there is a list). Not as low as sell out Wordsworth, but I generally have found him a little too serious, not enough sparkle, and sometimes just baffling. Beautiful, but baffling. Bright Star however, changed my mind.

Its not the Fanny Brawn/Keats love story I was taught it seminar, where it was largely overshadowed by his potential prostitute dabblings, Byron's incest/Shelley's swinging, and the fact that there is no direct mention of the affair in his work. But it doesn't matter what really happened.

True or not, hearing Keats' poems read to Fanny, and read by her, gives them a relatable to context and meaning that illuminates their beauty beyond abstract musing on poetry and death. And fantasy it may partly be, but its a beautiful fantasy. Why do we need all the facts, a rounded picture, proof? This film is all about Fanny Brawn - how see saw it, how she saw him, how she saw them.

This is not least because of Abbie Cornish's acting, (as much as it pains me to admit out of loyalty to Reese Witherspoon). It is the best performance by a female actress I have seen in a long time. Incredibly subtle and considered. But so real. I have never seen anyone cry so realistically on stage or in a film. Not just superficial tears running down MAC finished cheeks onto heaving breasts tumbling out of a period inappropriate low cut dress; choking, hyperventilating, stubborn, resisted sobbing.

The whole film feels real. Not Hollywood realism. And, as above, not necessarily factual realism. There are some shots that would defiantly have been re shot under a more mainstream director, because there's a brilliantly recognisable awkwardness (Fanny's sister and Brown providing some of the most poignant) and one particularly aching moment ( I wont ruin it) where you're just yelling in your head: 'for gods sake say something!' But there's only silence. Because no one knows what to say then. No one ever says anything in those situations.


The film is pretty sparse on continual dialogue. There are lingering shots that add to the feeling of honesty but enough scene movement to make you feel the fleeting nature of both the love story and Keats' life.

Knowing the ending of a film before you begin is never a good way to go, although it does add to the sense of passing time and your involvement in the relationship. But the film is so beautiful and so wonderfully crafted with shots and music (typical Jane Campion stunning light, nature shots and music - all played within the film at some point as well as over laid) it doesn't really matter.

See it. If you hate Keats, if you were confused by The Piano, if you have no idea who the actors are. If you know the ending. It's worth it. And Keats gets a little more pay back for the lack of appreciation in his lifetime. And a little more street cred for looking like Ben Whishaw.

Student prostitutes on the up...if you raise fees.

As a student the potential fees increases hang pretty heavily in the forefront of my mind. Not necessarily because it will affect me directly, but because, despite assumptions, as someone currently in the situation under discussion I do care.

Combine this with the recent unveiling of the identity of Belle du Jour and I was stuck by an interesting possibility.

If you raise fees are you going to end up with more student strippers and prostitutes?

Don't laugh, its already on the up. Belle herself became a call girl to cover PHD debt. A google search for the potentially rather compromising combination of 'student' and 'pole dancing' not only reveals a lot of classes taking place at universities around the country, but includes a report from several years ago in The Times about Cambridge students not only learning but getting paid to do this. I was actually looking for an article I remember from not long ago about students from a London university taking up work in a strip club, but my searches have proved unsuccessful thus far.

I don't wish to discuss whether this is moral, or right, that's another story. But it certainly isn't on the election manifesto of any of the three major political parties to legalise prostitution, and I'm not sure they're that comfortable discussing the future's bright young things dancing topless in bars either. It's heated enough collars as it is trying to contemplate that anyone with higher education would go into prostitution. By raising fees might the Government end up with more money in the education pot, but a whole different kettle of problematic naked fish to deal with?

The plight of students from low income houses has been raised, but if my prediction comes true then what about male students? The now rather more obvious search for 'PHD' and 'prostitute' pulls up an interview in New Scientist with Brooke Magnanti aka Belle du Jour, and one male commentor remarks that he would have considered prostitution for a financial stress free doctorate if he was a woman. Women it seems have a lucrative way of supporting themselves; boys faced working behind rather than on a bar might have less luck.

The same search also gets a quote from Catherine Stephens, and activist for the International Union of Sex Workers: “At a brothel I worked in, I think I was the only one not doing a PhD.” Convinced yet?

I don't think I'd be swayed, but then its not, as is so often pointed out, (including already in this article), me who is actually facing the debt increase. When push come to shove maybe that is what more female students would rather.

Couldn't see the wood for the 'n'

I had thought that in the whirl of my dissertation I had missed the wave to write about this - but then Le Monde changed my mind.

http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/11/15/guerre-ouverte-entre-gordon-brown-et-le-sun_1267431_3214.html#ens_id=1245893

The issue under discussion is Gordon Brown's 'offensive' letter to the mother of a soldier who died in Afghanistan; the coverage of which has been frankly appalling and revealed the poor excuse for journalism that The Sun continues to tout.

I saw the letter in The Times last week. Brown arguably didn't spell anything wrong. The 'n' of 'Janes' could be an 'm', but it's not really clear either way. Also the minute nature of the spelling error, even if it is so, is what makes it laughable. I frequently think peoples names have 's' on the end when they don't, or put 'e' is Davis when that's not right. It's not really a big deal.

The issue over whether he spelt 'Jamie' wrong is a non point. His pen clearly slipped and he wrote over it. Oh no.

I consistently have people spelling my name wrong. On my driving licence it is spelt 'Argtropulo'. That's not even pronounceable. And it also means my driving licence is an invalid form of identification for things like CRB checks. I did not however write into a tabloid.

My landlord think my name is 'Argdyropulo'. This is also not pronounceable. But in the wider context of world events merely slightly irritating, although I have wondered if it doesn't possibly void my contract if that is the name they have me signed under.

When I ring the bank no one says my surname. They ask if they can call me by my first name, or simply call me 'Miss Palmer'. Highly offensive obviously as the hyphen between the two denotes that they are both my surname. Obviously.

Clearly the matter under question is more sensitive, and perhaps with a more complicated name more excusable (although I think, perhaps biasedly that it makes it worse - if you know you're not going to be able to spell something why not check? 'Janes' could easily with an accent or speed be miss heard as 'James'. 'Argtropulo' cannot be said, as pointed out before, therefore this is not an excuse.)

But I think what was ignored by The Sun and Mrs. Janes, and pointed out by Le Monde, is that Gordon Brown is a busy man. A busy man with very poor eyesight. Yet he took the time to hand-write a letter to a mother with whose situation he can sympathise with having lost his own daughter.

I also found the timing of the outburst rather inappropriate. The week of Armistice Day, when we are supposed to be thinking about everyone who has died in war - those never found, the civilians caught in the cross firing, those who suffered terribly - what this woman wanted being thought about about her son was not his bravery or that his death was a tragic loss, but that Gordon Brown didn't spell his surname right.

I'm not denying that the loss of her son is awful, and as with every death in war prompts questions about the campaign. But I've had to look past my dislike of his mother who seems determined to grab 5 minutes of tabloid fame using her son's death, whilst criticising a man who actually has nothing to be ashamed about, to remind myself of this.

Le Monde reports that PoliticsHome did a survey and found that 65% of people asked disagreed with the actions of The Sun. That means 65% of people feel the same as me about Brown, Mrs. Janes and The Sun in this incident. Well Done. Good Move.

Gordon, if you would like to write me a letter, at anytime, feel free to spell my name wrong.