BLOG 131: PROUD and PREJUDICED!!!!

"This is the final test of a gentleman: his respect for those who can be of no possible service to him." William Phelps (British Colonist)

I have to admit to a standard lady crush on Colin Firth. The 50 year old British Actor features on most women (of a certain age) secret crush list... which is odd as there is little about his actual packaging that can be found on most women (of a certain age) desirable list. And yet..the crush continues...despite all reason.

Like most who enjoy this crush, I do not fancy Colin Firth. I have had the pleasure of seeing him in real life, and I have to admit that if you were that way persuaded he is undoubtedly an attractive man – but I have to admit that he does not ring my bell. Mr Firth ( or his gorgeous Italian wife) have no need to worry about him having to be a gentleman around me ….as I have no desire to compromise him. Colin Firth does not rise my passions... so what is with the crush?

Well... in his roles, in his real life... Colin Firth comes over as a Respectable Gentleman.

And no... this is not to do with the fact he played Mr Darcy in the now legendary 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. (I prefer Elliot Cowan's Darcy in ITV's 2008 'Lost in Austen'). This is not just about the roles he plays, there is something about the man that communicates Respectable Gentleman. It's just that you just can't imagine Colin Firth displaying the less attractive but often celebrated elements of masculinity. You can imagine him firmly repelling adverse situation with nothing more than a disapproving glance. This is to do with the quiet masculinity, the certain sense of what is right, the strength that comes with being respectable.

And it is the ultimate magnate to women... this concept of male respectability. And there is not one nation on this planet that packages the idea of the Respectable Gentleman better than the British.

The concept of the gentleman in the UK is not merely a social or class designation. True, as with all thinks UK social class has a lot to do with it... originally members of the British aristocracy were Respectable Gentlemen by right of birth … BUT in the case of being a Respectable Gentleman paradoxically enough, that birth alone could not make a man a member of this desirable status. But being Respectable Gentleman did used to require a certain degree of financial security and social influence.

By the 1800's the waters were very muddied... clergy belonging to the Church of England, army officers, members of Parliament — were recognized as gentlemen by virtue of their occupation, while members of numerous other eminently respectable professions — engineers, for example — were not. The whole concept was due an overhaul.

The modern rules of what makes a gentleman were founded in Victorian times when the new industrial and mercantile elites, in the face of opposition from the aristocracy, inevitably attempted to have themselves designated as gentlemen as a natural consequence of their growing wealth and influence. But the eventually, the Victorians settled on a compromise: by the latter part of the century, it was almost universally accepted that the recipient of a traditional liberal education based largely on Latin at one of the elite public school — Eton, Harrow, Rugby, and so on — would be recognized as a gentleman, no matter what his origins had been.

However as the Victorian period wandered into the 20^th Century the concept of the Respectable Gentleman became more behaviourally based. Yes financial security remained desirable (and NEVER mentioned) but social status less so. It became about cultivating impeccable manners, an implacable expression and a strong sense of fair play. A Respectable Gentleman must be patriotic but not shout about it, and always be perfectly turned out but not vain about it.

A Respectable Gentleman does not have a concern with power and the need to triumph or to win. He is primarily concerned with people, courtesy and kindness. He would never promulgate his own ideologies or justify pettiness and lack of feeling for people. A Respectable Gentleman would never reward qualities that arise from his sex, race, class or creed. He is the safe depository for trust that will not be misplaced.

So you can imagine my dismay to discover that Colin Firth... the poster boy for the Respectable Gentleman has recently been quoted as saying:

"It's true, I'm very associated with this stereotype, but I don't think that exists except in the roles I play.”

OH NO!!! … The Respectable Gentleman does NOT exist????

Well...I must say.... THAT was not very gentlemanly Col was it? What happened to the safe depository for trust that will not be displaced???

I'm so distraught! That was like telling kiddies that Santa isn't real!!!

(Side track here...Andrew Yau at the University of Calgary has proof Santa exists, www.nserc.gc.ca. )

Back to the main point...

There is a chink of hope here...

The mark of a Respectable Gentleman is NOT his infallibility it is his ability to retract a mistake.

Mr Firth... on behalf of all believers in the state of Respectable Gentleman-hood, I invite you to take advantage of the many avenues which are open to you to retract this statement so that we may grant you safe passage on the single path to forgiveness!

Come on Colin... I'M WAITING!

If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, please log onto : http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.

BLOG 130: Angry Young Men

Destiny is not a matter of change, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."- William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)41st US Secretary of State After having a giggle at the daft names demographers have given the generations born in the 20th Century, I found myself drawn into the findings and profiles of each category. It's actually quite fascinating - and telling. Like for instance, the children born 1990 onwards have been titled by demographers as the 'Net Generation'... and now that the early born ones of this generation have hit the age of majority, personality traits are being documented. Turns out the this latest brood have more in common with kids born at any time in the 20thcentury except those born mid 1970's through to the end of the 1980's. This is because the Net Generation have a three question mantra: What do I believe in? What do I think needs to change? What am I doing about it? I for one am unsurprised. WHY am I unsurprised? Well it makes total sense to me... every other generation have had passion in their belly. Every other generation have fought for something they believed in. They made their destiny from the changes the chose to show they wanted. Be it marches of the suffrage movement, the peoples marches against unemployment,or the legendary marches of the baby boomer generation – social change has been the end result of passionate generations who realised putting up and shutting up is a choice. The children born pre 1946 (Veterans) in the late 40's- 50's (Baby Boomers) and 60's-mid 70's(Generation Jones) all were very invested in upsetting the status quo and creating a brave new world. They were very passionate that short term unrest causes questions which generate answers for the greater good. The children born into Generation X (mid 70's – mid 80's) and Generation Y (mid to end 80's) however seem to be uneasy with upsetting the apple cart and are a much more passive set. Generations X and Y have a deep held passion- that a sensible question to ask is what is in it for me. As a consequence Generations X and Y are the least likely to cause any civil unrest and the most likely to be bewildered by the Net Generation's return to protesting about the state of the nation and demanding change. I am so glad the children of the so called 'Net Generation' (1990 onward) have more gumption than the generation that proceeded them. Thank heaven for them. I had come to the very sad conclusion that living in a democracy was destined to be something we could find only in a history book. My generation followed the famous baby boomer generation. It was a hard act to follow as they were phenomenal. That post war generation were very concerned about the world they lived in and wanted to ensure that the mistakes of the past were not compounded and visited upon us their children. They sang songs about children being the future, they organised and marched on the authorities around the world calling for an end to unjust wars , the suppression of women, unfair social policies, frightening nuclear weapons and created a counter-culture in which the mantra was 'If you are not part of the cure you are part of the problem'. They felt people should 'Come together' to express their ideas of how the world should be and that the voices of dissent or approval should be heard. They taught generations to follow to recognise the word politic meant idea and to state you were not into politics meant that you were not into ideas. The children of the baby boomers were instructed from the cradle that having ideas was a human state and to forbid you expressing your ideas was to remove your humanity. With that for an example my generation (Generation Jones) observed the world we lived in and made it clear about the ideas we thought worth keeping and the ideas we thought worth rejecting by coming together en mass. We marched on parliament about the racism of the 70's-80's, we marched on parliament about US Cruise Missiles being parked on UK soil, we marched on parliament about the North South Divide, we marched on parliament about the introduction of a tax payable for the right to vote. We believed it was our duty as young people to express our approval or disapproval of what the powers that be wanted to do with our world. Yes we did get a little side tracked by acquiring stuff during the 80's and lifestyle design became a mild obessession for life but over all, we were and remain an unashamedly a political generation – we're into ideas and into expressing them. And we've changed a lot of things about life in the UK: The Anti Nazi league changed the persception of the acceptability of the growth of white nationalist groups. It would be impossible for the 18-25's of today to have any idea how the increase in racial conflict of the 1970's and 1980's affected daily life back then, and I for one am so pleased that they have not to experience it. I recall 100,000 young people turning up each time at the 2 marches and subsequent Rock Against Racism gigs. CND's protest against 160 US missiles being parked at Greenham saw a quarter of a million people march on parliament to register their disapproval. This went on to generate the highest support for nuclear disarmament post WW2 . It would be impossible for the 18-25's of today to have any idea what it was like to live during the cold war and the constant threat of nuclear weapon usage, and I for one am so pleased that they do not have to experience it. I recall public support for unilateralism being such that 3 million marched in October 1983 to ensure their voices were heard. Protests regarding the segregation of the North from the 1980's wealth of South seem irrelevant today but the closure of the heavy industries based in Northern England under the 'New International Division of Labour' saw these areas decline rapidly . At a time where Southern England's fortunes rose, the economic and cultural differences between the areas gulfed. I would not expect the 18-25's of today to understand the incredible social strife this divide caused – especially as today many Northern post-industrial cities and towns are now experiencing renaissance. However unexpected support came when 50,000 students demonstrated to draw attention to the lack of investment in the North with 33% of the country backing them which triggered the renaissance we see today. What seems most unbelievable today is that 'The Mother of Democracy' once considered charging people for the right to vote. Now this had been done in the UK before... in the 14th century, but people were breathless to find that it was reintroduced in the 20th. The system was deeply unpopular as as it was based on the number of people of voting age living in a house rather than its estimated price - never the less the government of the day forced it through. I would not expect the 18-25's of today to understand how a shift of the tax burden from rich to poor (1 voting adult in a mansion paid less than 5 voting adults in a semi) angered people when they discovered the only realistic way to get a reduction was not to register to vote. From1986 there were mass protests, called by the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, as millions took to the streets in every town and city in the UK. This unrest was instrumental in toppling the government leadership at the dawn of the following decade and the removal of the Poll Tax. As many 20th Century generation discovered, a key tenant of the right to democracy is the right to protest. And throughout that century massive strides in social and cultural improvements were made through protest. All though the right to civil protest is not exclusively for the young, it is usually the 18-25 group who are the torch bearers... unencumbered with children and unshakeled to the status quo as they are. Besides, to look back and know you made a difference when you were young by being politically aware became more and more important as the world moved away from forcing change by war. The Veteran generation - who protested for better conditions for the working man and the vote for women, handed the torch down to the Baby Boomers - who protested for equal pay, and a ban to the bomb, handed the torch to Generation Jones who protested for an end to apartheid at home and abroad who gave the torch to Generation X and Y... who worried as to weather a burning torch should be a wall sconce or a garden accessory. Or if Health and saftely had any advice about what sort of fire extinguisher to get for it.

Yes...while Generation Jones took time out to have the babies that were to become the Net Generation.... Generation X and Y did not shirk the whole making choices thing. They were very active in making choices... they went shopping.(The rise and rise of the shopping mall is down to Generation X and Y's obsession with this activity). They certainly didn't waste the freedom to make choices on just shopping to be fair they also went on holiday. (Generation X and Y are the most well travelled generation ever). Passion is a private affair for the X and Y's who are the least likely generation to organise and take to the streets. They really don't feel there is anything to get publicly passionate about and find it all a little embarrassing all that radical stuff.

Thankfully they have handed the torch (designer,H&S approved and co-ordinates with EVERYTHING) to the Net Generation. The Net Generation however are less worried about what is in for them and more worried about the futures of those who will follow. They want to be heard about the environment, they want to be heard about tuition fees... they want to be heard about broken promises. They (courtesy of the Net for which they are named) seem to know how to organise. And they will be marching on a street near you. They figure that change is crafted through the choices you make.

I have been accused of being unfair to Generation X and Y. That their destiny was to maintain the status quo and that as a member of Generation Jones I am unable to recognise that things are fine the way they are - that there are higher things to think about than shaking up the system.

A very good friend of mine is a Generation X and Y member and works in the legal profession. Together we watched the demo's in Dublin and I noticed she shuddered violently. I asked her what she was reacting to and she said ( I quote):

"For heaven sake... what scruffy little herberts...surely they must have known there was a good chance this would be shown on TV, SURELY they could have worn something nicer"

To which I said very quietly under my breath...

"The prosecution rests mi'lord!"

If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, please log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.

BLOG 129: SEX SELLS

SEX SELLS

“Flesh Sells. People don't want to see pictures of churches. They want to see naked bodies” Helen Mirren

Today is the 40^th Anniversary of something the British Public hold dear. Almost 8 million Brits start their day by opening their tabloid newspaper and being greeted by a naked young pair of breasts. Yes, today is the 40^thAnniversary of the Page Three Girl.

For my readers not based on in the UK, let me explain.

The Sun newspaper started life in the early 1960's as a broadsheet newspaper. It struggled with sales until finally it was sold for less than a million pounds to an Australian publisher- Rupert Murdoch. The newspaper quickly turned into a tabloid newspaper aimed at the 'common-man' and carried an uplifting 'Glamorous picture' every day, which would greet the reader every time the newspaper was opened. In it's new tabloid format the newspaper was averaging around a million and a half readers. The world at that time was going through many political and social changes... most notably Germaine Greer published 'The Female Eunuch' in the October of 1969. Women were becoming enpowered. On 17^th November 1969, the then Editor of The Sun published as the days 'Glamorous picture' a German model called Stephanie. Stephanie was glamorous of course... but she was also topless. The newspaper repeated the stunt with various other 'glamour girls' for the next four days before changing the name of the slot to Page Three Girls. In the year that followed the readership of the paper soared to over two million and in the twelve months to end of March 2008, The Sun had a readership of 7,897,000.

Although the girls are quite decidedly topless and often completely nude, the style of the photography is very neutered. Somehow the Sun have managed to present pert nakedness without sexual over tones. Such is the strength of the affection the British public have for these images that many of the girls who have appeared on page three have gone on to become national treasures and an attempt by parliament to outlaw the images was thwarted.

The original Page Three photographer was Beverley Goodway. He remained the main photographer until his retirement in 2003. I asked Mr Goodway what the photographs were supposed to convey and he told me it was a cross between a saucy British seaside postcard and accidentally getting a glimpse of a young girl undressing.

However there have been many over the years who have called the images published on Page Three sexist, demeaning and exploitative.

Being a national Newspaper means the Sun is a 'low shelf' product and can be sold to any body any age. The Sun has often been accused of pushing soft-porn by featuring the images. This claim is supported by the fact that the Page Three feature has gone interactive... you may now make the girls rotate for 360 views of their bodies by downloading an app to your i-phone. The girls will pirouette to your command. The newspaper has been accused of drifting a long way from Beverley's 'accidental glimpse'.

When Rebekah Wade became the Sun's first woman editor in 2003, many expected her to either to terminate Page Three or to modify it so that the models would no longer appear topless. Instead, she retained it unchanged and later wrote an editorial defending Page Three against its critics.

Many have found it hard to understand how a newspaper which campaigns for stricter laws on the sexual abuse of minors, including the public identification of released paedophiles, while publishing topless photographs of girls whom many other jurisdictions would legally classify as under age minors. In the past young girls have been featured clothed with a count down until their 16^th birthday which will be the magic date when it will be legal to expose their breasts in print. Debate withstanding many thousands of girls as young as 13 site being a Page Three girl as their ideal career choice.

I'm not sure where I stand on this particular issue. Regarding Page Three I cannot take it seriously as pornography, I have to go with Mr Goodway's original vision there. In the days before the internet when getting your hand on images of naked women was a more complicated issue, for many young boys page three was their first glimpse of naked breast. Because the images were de-sexualised it simply answered the question “What is inside a girls bra?” I am yet to meet a man who has become depraved as consequence of exposure to page three.

However the concentration on youth in these images strides very close to a line that should never be approached let alone crossed. I recall the count down to Linsey Dawn Mckenzie's 16^th birthday and the whole thing still leaves me rather sick.

Then we have the use of the girls images in other ways. Back in 1980's The Sun had 16 year old Samantha Fox had her head and torso printed on pillow cases...so their readers could 'nod off with Sammie'. Then of course the Sun ran a poll for the readers to vote whether or not the then teenage 'Jordan' should have surgery to increase her natural breasts to the size of improbable beach balls. (Yes she did the latter). It's hard to square any of that with a cheeky seaside postcard or harmless 'fun'.

BUT it also has to be considered that although the UK were the first,they certainly are not the only country to have national newspapers that regularly feature scantly clad or topless girls within them. Of the top of my head, I recall similar features in newspapers in the following countries... Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile,Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Romania, and South Africa. As for the very moral USA... they were lead astray by a Brit who started a publication in North Carolina called FOCUS...which features... Page Three! However is that a good excuse... everyone else is doing it?

And what of the girls who feature on those pages? For every one that achieve fame, discovers a talent for business or acting or marrying footballers ... is there really one addicted to drugs and involved in abusive relationships as shown by Julian Jones documentary The Curse of Page Three? Do these girls have what it takes to be a suitable aspirational role model for young girls? If you are asking me.. I really don't know. I know ex page three models who fall in either camp...but most slip quietly into obscurity after their moment in the Sun. I suppose the question is..would I want my daughter if I had one to do it... and I'm afraid my answer is a wishy washy I should hope it would never be something I would have to deal with! Because really... I don't know. Do you?

But all these things are side issues. We ALL know what the big issue is:

The big issue is … does a feature of no news worth designed blatanly to do nothing other than titillate (excuse the pun!) belong in a national newspaper?

It is something that should be addressed.

The Sun newspaper for one was very much looking forward to the free publicity that goes with such a debate. They were poised... they were ready.

In the other corner, physiologists, criminologists, feminists and social historians were very much looking forward to demonising a publication that aims and scores so effortlessly at the lowest end of aspiration.

Today the nation is much distracted by it's other great passion... the Royal Family, so the 40^th Anniversary of boobs on parade is passing quietly. Debate has not roared as loudly as maybe interested parties may have wished. Love it or loath it , it is an indisputable fact that The Sun newspaper remains the newspaper that access to the vast majority of homes in this country. In fact The Sun is, by circulation, the 10^th biggest newspaper in ANY language in the world.

Maybe this is a debate that needs to be had.

One thing for sure... from a failing newspaper to top ten global success The Sun's phoenix rose from the ashes of a fire sparked by the appeal of naked young flesh. As they say... sex sells.

If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, please log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success

BLOG 128: Gold

"Lots of people want to ride with you in the limo, but what you want is someone who will take the bus with you when the limo breaks down."
---Oprah Winfrey (said on 7/12/2002)

I lead a very charmed life.

This time next month I will be 17,897 days old and in all that time I have never been without a friend. Amazing given some of my more controversial moments when my choices have been questionable to say the least.

I seem to attract the very best people in my life. People who even though they couldn't be more different from me physically, morally, politically, emotionally, spiritually they stay by my side. They encourage me to be the very best version of me based on their deep understanding of who I am. Who I am seems to be enough to draw in some of the best people and I could not imagine being me without them.[To be fair, because I am who I am I attract a fair few toxic people too... but I am ruthless at cutting out that cancer as soon as it is detected]. Like I said I seem to attract the very best people. And for that I am eternally grateful.

I learnt early from my parents the true value of friendship. They had immigrated 4682 miles (7535Km) to England, leaving family behind so learnt the hard way the meaning of the words 'Friends are the family you chose”. They were solo immigrants who met in England and probably never would have in their homeland (coming from different regions and different classes as they do) .

You cannot under estimate the importance of friendship. Without it my parents would have been lonely people in a foreign land. But a smile or a chance comment lead to friendships with the most unlikely people and subsequently generated from the zero network of nothing an entire web of interconnected lives and support systems.

People go on and on about family being the most important thing... and maybe it is if you need a donor match for an organ! But glibness aside, family are not the people who value you the highest. They may have known you the longest.. but nine times out of ten have to be introduced to you at weddings, christenings or funerals. They don't know what books you like to read. They don't know how you met your spouse. They can't name your tipple. They are unaware of your phobias. They don't know your five year plan. They can't name the genre of music dear to your heart. They have no idea if you sleep nude or in pj's. They are the most shocked at dramatic developments in your life. And you can't blame them. They really don't know you...and to be fair you really don't know them either. And that's fine... cause they don't need to know you to love you and 9 times out of ten not knowing you is never a reason to stop them giving you the organ you require. Family has its place. Cursory knowledge is all that is required.

However, friends are a very different proposition entirely.

To be considered a friend you would of course know if the person you are friends with likes books, you'd certainly know how they met their other half, you know what they drink, you know they are scared of chickens, you know in 5 years they want to be living in Maui, you know they have a penchant for drum n bass that no one can talk them out of, and you know they sleep wearing a BA flight mask. And yes you saw it coming that they would one day leave Blighty for life on the beach.

You can't be friends without knowing someone.

And that's the great thing about being friends. You chose this person based on your knowledge of them. There is no DUTY to stay in touch. No contract. It's the ultimate act of free will.

It's also the ultimate act of validation.

There is nothing that says “the way I conduct myself, the way I live my life, the choices I continue to make, the person I am turning out to be.... has value” than someone exercising their free will to associate with you.

The ultimate stamp of rejection is to withdraw friendship.

To absent yourself from someone emotionally, physically, supportively....is to say loud and clear... “I reject you, I reject the way you live your life, the choices you make and the person you are turning out to be”.

So yes, I lead a very charmed life. 17,897 days old in a month and NEVER, not once have I experienced a moment of friendlessness.

I value each and every one of my friends. I love the diversity they bring to my life. I relish the smiles we share, the experiences we gain, the points of views spoken quietly and shouted loudly. The new friends, the old friends, the somewhere in between friends... I value you all. (As Eammon Holmes so memorably said “An old friend is just a new friend that got there first”.)

This daughter of immigrants that came to a cold island over half a century ago, thanks you for your warmth. As the nights draw in and winter wraps itself around us for the next 5 months I am delighted to be kept warm by the fact I am the family you chose. The family who knows you well... VERY well... and still chooses to stick around.

And the family who... if you ask very nicely may even consider giving you an organ!

If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, please log onto : http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.