Questionnaire

Age?
20

Sex?
Female

What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
Creative Writing and English Literature

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
Yes

If so, how? And if not, why not?
It provides a good insight into various taboo topics that provide good starting points in writing a story. The weblog proved useful as well as it required us to get into the habit of writing and to think critically, which is good for journalism and writing essays. I think the creative writing assignment related well to my creative writing modules. I think the creative writing tutorials proved useful as it helped us with queries that we had, for example dialogue, word count ect.

Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
I think the module was at an appropriate level; however I feel the word count on the assignments could have been longer as it was hard to include many of my ideas into one piece. I also think the requirement of the blogs being done on different dates would have made it difficult for some to carry out the weblogs.

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
The lists were appropriate. It was interesting to hear other people’s views on these subjects.

Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
Yes, I was surprised that suicide and euthanasia weren’t included in the list as they are equally debateable as the other subjects. However, these might prove very sensitive subjects for some. I think bad music would have been interesting to debate as some genres are quite controversial (rap music) and some have bad reputations (rock’n’roll and punk rock).

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
Yes

What did you think of the module team?
The team were very good. I think some of them made the lectures fun and enjoyable, especially the guy who did the Body Modification lecture, the other one who did stealing and stalking and also Jerry Carlin who did the drugs lecture. I also thought that the visual aids they used such as pictures and clips made the lectures interesting.

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions?
No, it didn't have the same impact as discussions made as a whole class.

Discussion and debate among the class as a whole?
Yes because interesting views and ideas were drawn from this.

Information and talk from lecturers?
No as there was enough of this given in lectures

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
Yes because it required us to interact with one another and express our views and ideas. It was interesting to gain the opinions of others because it helped me to develop my own understandings of the topics discussed

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
Yes, because they add variety to the other modules being done and enhances our critical thinking

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
Yes, it had developed my understandings of the topics covered.

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
No, because I feel this module is enough

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
No because I'm taking a module that relates better to my dicipline area

Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
Yes, it would be interesting to see how their opinions change on the topics covered.

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
Yes, because the reaserch also develops our understandings on the subjects. Plus, it was a fun way to note down our ideas and get everyone's opinion.

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
Yes, it would have been better if there were longer assignments beacuse the word restrictions meant that I couldn't get all of my ideas down.

What have you learned from the module?
That everything is fine as long as its the individual's choice and it doesn't hurt anyone else. Thats the conclusion I've drawn from most of the topics covered. I've also learned to think deeper into the subjects and instead of judging the person as bad for doing the deed, understand what drove them to it.

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
I thought most of the topics were interesting, esp Cheating, stealing, stalking, tattoos.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
I didn't enjoy the bandit lecture because it didn't explain why it was done. I also didn't understand how old folk tales fitted into the theme of being bad because its not a real life issue.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
Yes, I don't think the blogs should be done of different dates.

Is Ignorance Bliss???

I was thinking back to one of my lectures on stalking. The lecturer bought up a valid point: “if the person doesn’t know they are being stalked, is the act of stalking still considered as bad? I think this relates not only to stalking but other areas of being bad. For example, if the person doesn’t know they are being bitched about or a person doesn’t suspect that their partner is cheating on them.
I guess one could say that the bad deed is acceptable if the person isn’t aware of it happening because no harm is done to that person. Their sense of security isn’t affected and yes I can see how this is a valid point. However, whether the person knows that the bad thing is happening to them or not doesn’t excuse the fact that the act is down-right wrong. For example, stalking is wrong because it’s an invasion of someone’s privacy. That person didn’t ask to be stalked and most likely does NOT want to be stalked. Besides, there is also that enormous risk that the stalked person will find out about the stalker. The physical and mental damage will then happen to that person and because of the stalker; the unwanted nightmare will be an inherent part of that person’s life.
The same goes for cheating. I think I wrote about this in an earlier blog entitled “Infidelity in About Adam”, which discusses the goings on behind the protagonist’s back and how she never finds out. At the end of the film, she marries the cheater and lives happily ever after. But imagine being married to someone and then few years down the line, you found out that they slept with someone or a few people while seeing you. I can imagine how painful it would be to have that trust violated.

Link

http://www.femail.com.au/is-ignorance-bliss.htm

A Body to Die For

I found Rachel’s blog (check first link) on sites that encourage eating disorders shocking. Since I had a similar problem in my teens, I found the revelation of these sites quite disgusting. But, before I'd put down my thoughts, I decided to do some reseach on the net by looking at other articles and visiting the actual sites. Speaking of the latter, I was very disturbed at the idea of an anorexic building up a site for people like herself.

Its hard to judge whether these sites are bad because the intent is not malignant. I understand that life can be very isolating when surrounded by family and friends who don't know what they are going through and harshly judge them as "ill". So its not surprising that they turn to the net to find people they can relate to and build friendships from there. I'm not saying that this justifies what they do. If anything, what I find unsettling is that the sufferers are living in a cyber pretense. They want people to tell them that what they are doing is Okay when deep down they know its not. They want the easy option of carrying on with what they are doing instead of the gruelling process of recovery, as its not easy to switch from the idea of "annorexy" to "curvalious". Also, these sites aren't forcing or encouraging those who aren't anorexic to do the same. If you look on the Thinspiration website, it clearly states: "i would not encourage anybody to attempt to find ana" (ana is what the suffer has called her condition). I won't include the link here because its a sensitive issue.

Yet, it doesn't make these sites right as they encourage each other to to gradually kill themselves. Its also bad because it affects the friends and families of the sufferers. I don't have kids, but I can imagine the intense pain of losing a child at such a young age. I do think that sites like these should be shut down as they do no good for the sufferers. But what I find mindboggling is that if the person who set up the Thinspiration knows what she has is a nightmare, why is she encouraging people like her to carry on as opposed to encouraging them to get help?

One person argued in the comment section (see second link) that shutting these sites down is ridiculous. They say it's the responsiblity of the person viewing these sites and as for youngsters, the parents will be at fault, not the site itself. I strongly disagree. Most teenagers keep their disorder a secret from their parents. Who the hell is going to say, "Mum, I'm going to starve myself!". Young girls will hide food in their bedroom and make excuses so that their parents won't suspect. If these sites were shut down, sufferers won't have a haven where people tell them that they are not ill and thus will need to go to recovery.

Most won’t find this quest for thiness surprising, since we live in a society where rail thin models and celebrities are plastered everywhere from the pages of magazines to billboards. However, I think it’s short sighted to put ALL the blame onto the fashion industry and celebrity culture. Celebrities are bullied into looking like that due to magazines such as Heat that harshly criticise those who have piled on the pounds. Fashion magazines do glamorize skinny models; however you won’t find a caption or line that takes the Mick out of someone’s weight or encourage women to be rail thin. I read magazines such as Elle and Marie Claire and I’ve no intention to lose weight.
However, do women choose to be insecure by buying these bitchy magazines? I personally think so. I find it uncomprehendable why someone would want to buy a magazine that makes a mockery out of women their own size and shape. Despite the high sales of these magazines and insecure women’s strange obsession with this, it still doesn’t make this sort of journalism acceptable. If anything, it only encourages women’s obsession with weight and body shape, which in turn leads to problems such as anxiety and even worse, eating disorders.

On one of the comments (see third link), someone mentioned that unless curvacious models and celebrities are celebrated, bullemia and anorexia will always be around. Personally, I disagree. I don't think promoting the bodies of Kelly Brooke and Beyonce is going to help as that will also require dieting and excersise to get that in-proportion shape, which is where the obession starts. When a pound is lost, the dieter will fell the need to lose another to the point where they are out of control. Instead of projecting one idead of beauty, the media should promote a wide specrum of lovelies both big and small. That way, no-one will feel inadequate and feel the need to change. But I doubt that will ever happen, as magazines and the beauty industry make their money out of making people feel bad and providing solutions, such as the latest diet that'll make you lose weight quicker.

Link

http://rachel-ph1000beingbad.blogspot.com/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=557652&in_page_id=1879

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6935768.stm

Are Socialising sites bad??

I thought Danni’s blog (see first link below) on ‘MySpace behaviour’ was interesting. It seems people have different opinions on this. For example, last week I went out with a mate of mine in the London and I told him about a someone I had linked up with via the internet. His face dropped in shock as he said “Hang on, you met up with a random guy on the net??” To be fair, he had good reasons to be shocked. The internet can be a dangerous place to meet people. I remember watching Panorama back in January. This particular episode was about paedophiles using sites such as MySpace to come into contact with teenagers. One girl on the show accepted a request from a 25 year old woman on MySpace and had made conversations with her via messaging. This was Okay for no person details were exchanged. However, this girl and a friend had a conversation about a field trip they were going to and stated exactly where they were going via commenting (messages on one’s profile which the entire world can see!!!). When they went on the trip, a creepy older man approached the girl and it transpired that he was the 25 year old woman she had added. Luckily, she wasn’t attacked by the man, but the fact that she had not only been deceived, but also stalked can't go unnoticed. Not to mention, there was also that enormous risk that she could have been attacked.

I don’t mean to be harsh, but situations like these are the responsibility of the individual. The girl shouldn’t have posted personal information via commenting and if she did receive any of that information on her comments, she should have deleted them straight away. If she wanted to discuss the field trip with her friend, she should have done so via messaging (conversations that no one else can see).

Just because there are risks involved in socialising sites, does not mean that it is necessarily bad. Although you do need to take precautions when meeting someone from the net, for example, agreeing to meet in a public place, taking a trusted friend with you, keeping your mobile with you and so on. Also, person information such as address and where you hang out shouldn’t be shared on your profile. It’s ever so annoying when I hear stories such as the one I’ve described. Its literally common sense to keep information like that secret!
I know that the least you should be is fourteen to use MySpace. One might think that this should rise to eighteen because that way, paedophiles won’t bother with preying for potential victims. However, some teenagers might pretend to be eighteen, as social network sites are seen as cool. Yet, it can be argued that since the paedophile has no solid proof that they are not eighteen, then there shouldn’t be a problem. However, what if the teenager’s default shows otherwise? What if the paedophile becomes infatuated by the eighteen year old who looks about twelve? But then, there are people who are eighteen who look underage (I’m twenty and some people think I’m a school girl). I don’t think any more restrictions (anyone under 18 on MySpace has their profile set to private automatically) are going to help. I think teenagers and young people should be taught about the dangers of socialising sites and the precautions they must take if they decide to meet anybody.

Links

http://danni-being-bad-blog.blogspot.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7174814.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace(see the child safety section)

Raunchy Pop Videos

I thought this was an interesting subject to discuss in this module. Videos such as ‘Boot are made for Walking’ by Jessica Simpson and ‘Dirty’ by Christina Aguilera spring to mind when thinking of this subject. Some might call this an artist’s evolution into a more mature image. And some might even call this completely disgusting, especially for its young target group.
I think videos like these are bad because they are targeted at young children, especially girls. It is a known fact that young girls love to copy their pop idols. I remember when I was at primary school and I wore platforms because the Spice Girls wore them (yes, nothing to be proud of, I know). There has been a huge change in music from the days when Steps wore matching clean-cut outfits to now where the Sugarbabes dance around in their underwear.
But surly these raunchy videos will only encourage children to dress and behave in a manner that completely inappropriate? Once, a college tutor of mine told me about one Christmas when she was helping out at the Clothes Show. There were two young girls there who looked to be about seven or eight with their mums in the queue for the Santa’s Grotto. The girls were dressed in mini dresses. This is disturbing in itself. But what was more disturbing was when Christina Aguilera’s ‘Dirty’ started playing in the background and these girls suddenly started dancing to it, rolling their hips in a sexual kind of the way. What was more shocking was that the girls’ parents started cheering, “Oh aren’t they great!” According to my tutor, the other parents looked shocked and mortified. To be honest, I wasn’t surprised.
I can understand some people's hostile reactions to this. In a society where paedophiles are on the loose, we shouldn’t be encouraging children to parade around in mini-skirts and tight tops so that they become easy targets for these predators. This is a fair arguement, however we forget that children do not have jobs and thus do not earn money. They also do not wonder around Topshop or HnM alone with their friends. So where do they get the money from?? And who exactly takes them shopping?? The Parents.

I feel that what the child wears is entirely the responsibilty if the parent who buys that item. If a parent felt that the item was inappropraite, they would keep the cash in their pockets and drag their child out of the store.

I do feel that what a Pop Idol wears does heavily influence what a child would see as hip. Its the same reason why a grown mature woman would buy a Topshop immitation of Gucci handbag worn by Kate Moss. Its all about attaining a degree of beauty, wealth, glamour and most importantly, acceptance. Children want to be cool to be accepted by others. The only role models for that are pop stars. Nothing is going to change that. Ideally, it would be better if there was a time machine that went back to the 90s where Pop Stars were cutely dressed and children copied their cute clothes. But theres no point in complaining about that, we all know that things change as time goes on.

Link: what the target audience think

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/chat/your_comments/newsid_1971000/1971057.stm

Liar Liar, Pants on fire!

I think everyone has lied in some form or another, be it a small lie or an enormous one. But I feel there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed when telling lies.
White lies are acceptable if you’re one of these people who are too kind to be brutally honest. Personally, if someone didn’t look their best and asked me what I thought, I’d be honest with them and give them constructive criticism. For example, “Yeah, I think you’re hair would look better if it was this way and so on”. This is because I think it’s cruel to let someone go out to be sniggered at and taken the mick out of by others. This way, I’m doing them a favour.

I’ll be honest; I’m not the most honest person on the planet (see the irony!).I do lie about little things. For example, when I go out and some guy I don’t fancy comes up to me and takes me for my number, I always make up something about having a boyfriend or being a traditional Hindu (meaning that I can’t date someone outside my caste). At the end of the day, I don’t know how secure the guy is and I’m not cruel enough to say that I wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole.
But I think lying in a relationship is very bad and something I would never do. For example, telling your partner that you’ll be working late when you’re really off to see your mistress. That’s abusing you’re partner’s trust in you and this often leads to them getting very hurt. I think lies that lead to someone getting hurt are unacceptable, whereas those that don’t aren’t. But then, some situations are very difficult to judge whether the lie is being told is good or bad.

I know someone who is Asian and is in a relationship with his White girlfriend. They have a daughter together. However, his mum doesn’t know about her. Now, many might automatically assume that this is out of order and is probably one of the worst lies anyone can tell. Especially to their own mother. The latter can be argued because it depends how close that person is to their mother. I know this friend isn’t close to their mum. He has described her as domineering and she has shown a lot of disgust towards him and his girlfriend because she doesn’t believe in multicultural relationships. I personally think the mum is in the wrong because she should accept that her son would be much happier with his girlfriend, instead of some random Asian girl. At the end of the day, being a good parent is about putting the child’s happiness first, not your own. Now, I’m not justifying my friend’s lie because it will lead to the daughter getting hurt if she found out that she was being kept a secret, which would lower her esteem. But I think it is the fear of how his mother would react to the news if he was to tell her that prevents him from being honest. I do think he should come clean, for the daughter's sake.

Link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

Views on being too religious

I think religion is a great way of leading a good moral life. However, I would never force my religion upon someone else. If they wanted to join a religion or were thinking about it, they would have asked about my religion themselves or did their own research. It annoys me when Jahova’s Witnesses come knocking on my door and pester me to join their faith. I believe everyone has the right to make up their own minds and follow a religion that they strongly believe in. If they don’t believe in that religion, then what is the point in them being faithful members of that faith? It also annoys me when certain faiths believe their religion is the right one to follow, as opposed to others. To be honest, I find this quite insulting to my own religion. If I choose to follow my faith, then I should be allowed to do so, and not be accused of being a sinner because I’m not following the faith that the person expects me to. It’s not like I’m worshipping the devil. Yes, I believe in God, but I just happen to believe in certain ideas of my own religion. I won’t follow a religion I don’t believe in because I won’t agree their ideas. I won’t be specific about this because I don’t want to offend anybody.
I also believe that a religion shouldn’t take over one’s life. One can follow their faith and also be free and be themselves. For example, I prey to God once everyday, but I still enjoy my life by going out and having fun, as long as I don’t harm anyone.

Link

http://atheism.about.com/od/jehovahswitnesses/a/SocietyControl.htm

Cults: faith or frivolous?

Cults have been causing a lot of controversy, not only for their ridiculous beliefs, but also for their money grabbing schemes. For example, the Church of Scientology have been receiving a lot of backlash from the media, courts and governmental bodies. It has been accused of exploiting its members and harrassing its critics (see second link). Not to mention, Scientologist follower Tom Cruise has been mocked by the media for his irrational behaviour, which then resulted in him being sacked by Paramount studios.

I found a website on cults (see first link), here are a few examples:
The Moonies
The Findhorn foundation
The exclusive Brethren
Scientology
Chaos Magick
The Humanist Movement

Personally, I think some of beliefs of these cults are too extreme. For example, The exclusive brethren forbids television, radio and the internet. How these people pass their time, I will never know. I also feel that some of these cults contradict themselves, as they believe that spending money is evil, yet they are more than happy to give it to the person in charge.
However, isn’t it the individual’s choice to follow these faiths? I think if these people were forced into that cult, then it’s very wrong as everyone is entitled to make their own choices and decisions. But if the individual has chosen that faith to follow, then he or she has the right to practice that faith despite how controversial it is. If they want to pay large amounts of money to these faiths, then let them.
However, I feel cults such as Scientology are disgusting as they only make a mockery out of the term ‘religion’. Religion shouldn’t expect money from anyone. It should give guidance to its members and help them live a moral life. However, businesses such as Scientology that disguise themselves as religions are just as bad as scams as they are only there to exploit people into parting with large amounts of money. However, if the individual chooses to ignore accusations fired at these cults and want to spend that much money, that’s their choice.

Link

http://hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Cults-and-Their-Beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

You're so vain....

Everyone is vain to a certain extent: we make sure our hair is neat and that we dress presentably. But to what extent is vanity bad? Is it when we spend three hours perfecting our expensive hair style? Or is it when we resort to plastic surgery?
I personally have no problem if someone spends hours in front of the mirror. There is nothing wrong in looking after yourself and to feel confident in the way you look, whether it takes an hour or an entire morning. If anything, some level of pride is healthy as the person won’t suffer from negative unhealthy emotions such as discontent, anxiety which stems from low self-esteem.
However, vanity can lead to arrogance or egotism and I think that’s a form of being bad because it can lead to other bad behaviour such as bullying and snobbery. These types of behaviour are bad as it does harm to another person’s self worth and esteem.
I think the media’s obsession with vanity is quite cruel to those who don’t and never will reach the standards of those in the modelling or film industry. What’s more disgusting is that they increase people’s insecurities by airbrushing actresses and models to an oblivion, creating images of flawless perfection that hardly exists.
However, this could be seen as acceptable as the media only gives the public what they want. If there was an over-weight person on the front cover of a magazine, would people buy it? No, they won’t. So are we responsible for the stresses we are under with regards of being physically accepted? Or are the media’s obessesion with raising the stakes that makes people more anxious. Lets face it, vanity sells. If we were all taught to be content with ourselves and love our flaws then there would be no beauty industry. No-one will buy magazines because they wouldn’t have any interest new trends or the latest diet that will enable the reader to lose 5 pounds in two weeks. And there certainly would be no need for beauty products. Companies need to invent better and more effective makeup in order to keep their businesses running. So we end up rushing to the store to buy the latest mascara that make our lashes look like sky scrapers. So because of this, I guess vanity in this day and age has become publicly acceptable, despite how disgusting our obsession with it has become.

Link:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/fashion-beauty/2007/11/13/are-women-obsessed-with-their-looks-86908-20099263/

Art or Crime?

Over the weekend, I went to a friend’s house. We started talking about art and he showed me some of the stuff he was interested in. So he opens up a folder on this computer and up comes thumbnails of vivid street-style bubble writing that all can recognise as graffiti art.
This suddenly reminded me of this module. Most would consider graffiti art as bad and even tasteless. The latter is true. Nasty scribbles that look as though they’ve been done by a five year old are an eyesore, especially those that depict obscene or offensive messages. But the more artistic ones that had taken a lot of time to do are quite cool, as well as the fluid street-style scribbles.
But I do disagree with graffiti art that’s applied on someone else’s car, house or fence. This is because it’s unauthorised. The artist hadn’t asked the owner to draw on their property and violates the owner’s right to have their property the way they want it: nice and clean. Not to mention, it is the owner who has to pay to get the unwanted scribbles removed, not the artist.
I think this sort of behaviour is considered bad because the artist isn’t considering the fact that the owner of the house doesn’t want their property damaged. After all, you wouldn’t draw on someone’s clothes because you feel like it? And you certainly wouldn’t smash someone’s window because you think the house would look better if the window was smashed?
So why else is graffiti art considered bad? I think it’s because of its connotations with delinquency and the fact that it’s done by poor youths with ASBOs. After all, have we ever seen a well behaved rich kid spray-painting a wall?
What annoys me about graffiti art on public transport is that the tax payers have to pay to get it removed, so we waste money every year for something that we’re not responsible for and doesn’t benefit anyone. I’m not dismissing the art itself, if anything I think it should be showcased somehow. According to Alex Rayner in the Guardian, “curators, dealers and buyers now accept graffiti as worthy contemporary art”. It would be a shame for such impressive work to be dismissed and looked down upon because of its association with crime.

Link:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2007/01/status_symbols.html

Cash, rockstar lover..drugs?

It seems that drugs are becoming more acceptable these days with models and artists such as Kate Moss and Amy Winehouse having being reported in indulging in some nose candy.

Despite the feirce critisism during her drug scandel, the media were quick to forgive Kate Moss as they praised her for her Roberto Cavalli photoshoots. If anything, the media coverage has just made her more famous and more sucessful as more campaign deals comes flooding on her doorstep. So the question is "Are the media resonsible for making drugs acceptable and to some extent cool??" It is known that the tabloids make more money from celebrity scandels. Hugh Grant taking a stroll isn't exactly going to sell papers, but throw in an article about Winehouse's latest drug problem and the shelves would be empty. Maybe it is the public who have a morbid curiosity in drugs and the papers are just giving them want they want.

What I find shocking is that Britain is now Europe's biggest cocaine consumer alongside Spain. Plus cocaine use in Britain has doubled among 16- to 24-year-olds in the past 10 years. There is no definate proof that these statistics are linked to the glamourisation of drugs in the media. But I wonder if there is a link? Anything that has an association with glamour or success is going to make young people want to copy - like in the 1940s glamourous film stars made smoking look cool and sexy. Maybe smoking isn't enough these days. I find it quite sad that young people need to emulate a model of success in order to have a morsel of glamour in their lives. Snorting cocaine isn't going to make anyone as cool as a supermodel or a singer. Snort cocaine and you're status is just as ordinary as everyone else. The only difference is that you'll be gaunt and hooked onto something that'll make your life hell.

Link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/18/wcoke118.xml

Judging a book by its cover

I was watching the Wright Stuff this morning, and they bought up the subject of ‘Judging a book by its cover’. Are having negative assumptions about people without knowing them a form of ignorance? Or is it natuarally our human instinct?

One man came onto the show and his face was coveredin tattoos – he said that he usually gets negative reactions from people. Personally if I saw this guy walking down the street I wouldn’t give him dirty looks at all. But I would avoid looking at him, as it’s rude to stare. But although I wouldn’t show any signs of condemation towards him, I do have my assumptions. Seeing a guy like that, I would assume that he was a biker into heavy metal and probably a tattoo artist, considering that he shows a love of body art. However, the shocking thing was that this guy works with children and does volenteer work.

But why do we assume that because someone wears something in particular, that they are bad? For example, as bought up on the show, if one saw a 13 year old boy wearing a hoodie, they would automatically assume that he is up to no good and is capable of mugging or stabbing someone. However, a lot of my friends wear hoodies and they have no intnentions to commit crime. It’s just something that young people wear these days because it’s easy to wear and they think its cool. But as Wright argued, since there is an inherent connotation to a particular garment and the person knows of this, then surely its their own fault for getting those unfair reactions from people?
This is a fair argument. I used to know someone who was a goth. She told me that the negative reactions she gets from people sometimes annoy her. But if this was the case, wouldn’t she stop being a goth to avoid that?? Or is it society simply being ignorant and their inabilty to accept that everyone is into different things and should be themselves as opposed to conforming to societies norms. This in a way, is a form of control. We are told what clothes we should wear, how to behave, how to be feminine or masculine. Things like this can cause anxiety for some people, especially if they lack money, or are sexually different. For example, someone could be looked down upon because they don’t have the money to afford designer clothes in order to fit in. Or gay person could be mocked and ridiculed because hes not considered masculine. However, because this is an inherent part of everyday life, it’s not considered bad. It’s just something we have to put up with.

A phycologistt called onto the show and he said that is human nature to judge. As children we make quick judgements about which strangers to talk to and not to talk to. However, some judgements are influneced by environmental factors, such as the media’s portrayal of certain people. Of course the media have a habit of portraying youths wearing hoodies as thugs as well as creating a guide of what is acceptable and what isn’t. Since when had the media glamourised long leather jackets and tongue splitting? We assue that a goth is a devil worshipper, or we might assume that someone with big boobs is a slut. Yes, these are prejudices that are inherent to society, but when that prejudge stretches to discrimination, it is considered bad. At the end of the day, you don’t know that person and by observing their clothes, one can’t assume that they’ve got that person figured out.



Link:

http://blogger.com/www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/aesthetic-judgment/

Are Racist Jokes funny???

We all know that Racism is a sensitive issue. Lest us take the reactions towards the Big Brother rows between Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetti and we have a good idea of the uproar this subject causes. But why do comedians tell racist jokes?? To what extent are these jokes acceptable??
If a white comedian made a joke about Asian people, then people would take offense. However if an Asian person made that joke, it would be acceptable. The best example I can give of this is ‘Goodness Gracious Me’, written by and Asian person and performed by Asian actors. The sketch basicly makes fun out of Asian stereotypes. In the example provided (see second link), it raises the issue of the pressures young Asain people get from their parents and the show uses irony for this comedic effect. Also the fact that the audince can relate to the situation makes it humourous as well. The intent here is to make fun out of themselves as opposed to making fun out of people in their community. So, I guess these sorts of jokes are acceptable. But, I’ve known people who’ve taken offense and there had been critism that the show was racist. However, I think people can be very hypersensitve. The jokes in the show were never told in a malignant manner that showed opposition to someone of a different colour or race. But at the end of the day, everyone has a different idea of where the tabbo line of racism lies.
Personally, I feel there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. For example, Ann Winterton’s train joke (see link) is very offensive. I’m not of Pakistani origon, but I do think this crosses the line of rascism. Firstly, it’s told by a white woman. And secondly, she states that the “Englishman” throws the “Pakistani” out of the window. How I took it was that the white man has no regards for Pakistanis and that he feels that they aren’t worth living. I also think bigotry like this only encourages racism, which the government had spent years trying to abolish. I find it shocking that some people find this joke acceptable. But despite how much we argue about this, we can never change the fact that what is racist and what isn’t racist is debatable.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1972565.stm

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vFL0w1ruiCM

Body Modifications

We discussed body modifications in the previous session. It was interesting, because I merely assumed that body modifications were tatoos, piercings and surgery. But apparently, there is a wide spectrum of modifications that we often over look because they are acceptable. For example, dieting, make-up, weight training, hair cutting/bleaching or dying. So to what extent are body modifcations unacceptable?

Personally, I feel that body modifications, despite how painful or bizzare they are, are acceptable, as long as it is the individual’s decision. Some people think tattoos look nice, others do it to get kicks from the pain, some do it in rebellion or even as a form of control of their own lives. What ever the reason, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, its fine.
However, in some countries, body modifications are imposed on the individual in order to gain control. For example, the rings that are worn by African tribes women are done in order for men to gain control. If a woman was found cheating on her husband, the ring would be removed, causing her neck to break as punishment. I feel examples such as these are unacceptable, as the individual has no choice in whether they want it done or not. This opinion can be considered ignorant because it is the African tribes’ way of life and I have no right to comment on that. But if that was the case, would we allow forced marriages in certain faiths, or even sacrifice in other more extreme cults? I’m very understanding of all faiths, cultures and traditions, but I do feel that some beliefs are very wrong and can lead people to becoming unhappy or even in danger. I believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions, be they right or wrong and shouldn’t be forced into anything.

Reasons why body modifications are considered deviant were also bought up in class. Tattoos are considered immoral in some religions such as Judiam, Christianity and Islam. They believe that modifiying the natural body that God has created is a sin. I understand that some religions put an emphasis on what God has created and having an appreiciation of that. However, God has also given us choice. I’m not saying that because of this, everything is acceptable because some things are immoral or wrong and can cause grief or pain on other people. In the case of the latter, yes, the individual should be punished to compensate for what they’ve done to the victim. However, tattoos cause no pain except for the individual who decides to have it done. And they choose to undergoe that pain.

Some people consider body modifications as wrong because they don’t fit in with society’s expectations or norms. For example, in the 1950s, tatoos were considered unfashionable. However, everyone has a different idea of what beauty is and what it isn’t and so amount of reprimandation or disapproval is going to change that. I feel that people are very stubborn of what they think is acceptable or attractive. I think because of this, some people feel like rebelling because they don’t want to look like a pattern free, scrawny celebrity. I’ll be honest, I find some body modifications unappealing such as tongue splitting, genitial piercing and tattooos literally covering every part of the body. But I wouldn’t show disgust to these people who choose to do it. At the end of the day, if they like it, they like it. But according to an article I found (check the link), some people have negative attitudes towards tatooed or pierced people because they under go pain and thus must be sadist, fetish or narsisistic. But as I believe, never judge a a book by its cover.

Another form of body modification we dicussed was surgery such as liposuction and breast enlargment. I remember discussing this with a college tutor and she said that people should apprieciate who they are as opposed to paying thousands of pounds for something so shallow. I think that if it makes the person's life better, then let them do it. That way, they won't feel the anger, discontent and anxiety that some people feel when they are dissatified with what they see in the mirror.

Link:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0999/is_7225_319/ai_58614613

Cheating

I found this article that looks at reasons why couples embark on affairs.
Due to long hours away from the spouse and being in the company of others, its not surprising that there are temptations, especially when one is stuck in a humdrum marriage. Plus new age communications such as mobiles phones make it easier to cheat.
Does flirting count as cheating? In my opinion, No. If theres no genuine feelings or sexual intimacy involved and is done as a trivial hobbie, then it’s OK. As long as the two parties are OK with this and know their limits, then flirting is fine. However, if one party doesn’t feel comfortable with this, then the other should be respectful of this and avoid it. Besides, isn’t this a relationship is about? Compromise?
How about meeting up with someone of the opposite sex while in a relationship? Again as long as there are no intimate feelings or contact that’s fine. However, there is a risk that this could lead to emotional infidilty, especially of the pair meet up too many times and the spouse is neglected.
What struck me the most about this article is that there are now sites that hook unhappy maried people twith others who want to cheat. Shocking. Seems like everyone has forgotten the importance of trust and loyalty. Some people do it to feel young again and have the excitement of relationship at start. But I’m wondering if this is immature and selfish thinking? I think sites like these just encourage marriage break-ups which can seriously affect the children. Yet people in affairs very rarely think about this, which is sad. Whenever I hear about an affair, not only to I feel sorry for the cheated, but also for the children who are stuck in the middle of this. If there was more communication in the relationship, surley both parites will be much happier and no one gets hurt? Personally, I feel it’s better for the couple if they talked about ways in which they can spice up marriage as opposed to getting it elsewhere.

Link:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1509033,00.html

Comment 5: in response to Linda

I don't have any experience in internet dating but I do when it comes to social sites such as myspace and facebook. I do agree that these sites are a great way of meeting new people (even those who don't live in your area). But at the same time, you there are some disgusting people on there. You just have to remember to be careful by checking the person's profile before confirming them as a friend. But to be honest, perveted/weird men are never a big deal(one even wanted to marry me)- just delete them and they'll get the message. No harm is never done when meeting these people.
http://formybeingbad.blogspot.com/

Comment 4: in response to bad blogs

I completely agree that shoplifting isn't as serious as mugging an old lady or breaking into someone's house with a knife. At the end of the day, you are not traumatising a person or causing them to live in fear and paranoia.But isn't that the reason why people shoplift in the first place?? Because the item they are buying is over priced, so they steal an exrta item or two??? So if the prices continue to raise due to items going missing, wouldn't that encourage more and more people to shoplift???
http://mattward502.blogspot.com/

Comment 3: in response to Musings of a Miscreant

I partly agree with your second point. Its dead annoying having smoke floating into my face everytime I walk past a pub on the way to the bus stop. Plus, it gets onto my clothes. But then, I’m only in their presense for a split second, before I walk away (a little smoke not exactly goingto kill me), whereas if I was sitting in a bar, I’ll probably be absorbing more of the smoke while Im socialing for a few hours. And I can’t exactly tell the person to stop smoking, can I? So in all, I’m kind of glad they banned smoking in pubs. But to be fair, some heath advice is necessary in order to look after ourselves, eg the wearing of condoms as well as the dangers of smoking. However, people like Gillian McKeith I do disagree with! At the end of the day, people are given a choice in whether they want to follow the health advice or not. Besides, isn’t that what makes Britain democratic???By the way, I think Natalie and Scarlett are equally pretty lol
http://musingsofamiscreant.blogspot.com/

Comment 2 in response to r3615

I think thats where teenagers' bad behavoiur comes from..lack of communaication between their parents as well as eduacation. When parents either don't care or turn a blind eye to the activities their children get up to, the children will continue to indulge in this sort of bad behaviour. Although, I don't think locking them up inside the house will do them any good either, because they will rebel eventually.

Comment 1: in response to angellimp

You bring up a good point, celebrities do lead a privacy-free life and they can't enjoy good moments for grieve during the bad because the pap are always stalking them. However, when you sign a contract to feature in a major film, you'd be foolish to think that your life would be the same after that. Everyone knows the lifestyle of a celebrity and some people become famous for the attention anyways. So if someone chooses to be stalked, surely that type of stalking is acceptable, compared to an average person who recieved unwanted attenion from a weirdo???
http://naughtyornice23.blogspot.com/

Infidility in About Adam

Last week, I went to a friend’s house and watched ‘About Adam’, a romantic comedy written and directed by Gerard Stembridge and starring Kate Hudson and Stuart Townsend. It was a weird coinsidence as it relates to one of the topics in this module, infidility. But it was its strange ideas of the subject that struck me.
Basicly the films about a waitress who meets a handsome stranger. While seeing her, the guy seduces her two sisters, her brother and his girlfriend. Since it’s not worth watching, I won’t feel guilty in giving too much away, but heres the deeper stuff. The two sisters and the brother all have something lacking in their lives. The first sister wants a guy who shares her love of poetry. The second is in a humdrum marriage and wants excitement. The brother is sexually frustrated as his virgin girlfriend doesn’t want to do it. But when Adam starts an affair with all of them, they all find the contentment they want. The first sister has found a companion, the second sister has her excitement and the brother has a love life with his now non-virgin girlfriend.

Although they all got what they wanted, the fact that they had to get it from their sister’s boyfriend, seems disgusting to me. Very rarely would somone get away with sleeping with their best mate’s partner, let alone their siblings’. But I guess the message of the film was that as long as the cheated doesn’t know about it (which she doesn’t), then its OK. But what Stembridge has added to make the infidility more justifyable was Adam’s motives. At the end of the film, he confides in her married sister that all he wanted was to give everyone what they wanted and make them happy. Well, no selfish reasons there on the cheater’s part. But does it make it right? Or is it the risk that the cheated might find out that makes this sort of infidilty wrong?

I personally think that sleeping with your partner's brother/sister is chav territory. For me, trust and security in the family environment is very important and I think behaviour like this only shows disrespect to the sibling who has so much faith and trust in the person they grew up with. It doesn't matter how miserable or lonely your partner's brother or sister may feel, its the principle. The partner's siblings are a now go area.

For more info on the film, check:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199314/

Cinema Gone Too Far

I found this article with regards to the Bad cinema topic. It seems that cinema has gone all hardcore porn as real sex are depicted in arty films such as ‘9 Songs’ and ‘Baise Moi’ (oh my god, there I was thinking that Bully and A Clockwork Orange were bad!). Are they showing us relaistic glimpse of real issues that we turn a blind eye to because we want to live in a world full of daisies and sunshine? Or is this just a ploy for ‘nobody’ film-makers to grab headlines?
With regards to the first question, I do think that some sex scenes in films are integral to the plot. For example, the sex scene in the film ‘Don’t Look Now’ is important to show love between the couple and it is this depiction of love that helps the audience understand the ending (won’t give too much away, but do check it out). However, that wasn’t real sex. There is a difference between simulated sex where the bits are covered (eg the Trinity and Neo sex scene in the Matrix) and unneccessary sex where there is too much being shown and done. I don’t mean to sound pedantic about this, but with the wide spread of HIV and AIDS, should the film industy be more sensible as opposed to letting attention seeking filmmakers show stuff that doesn’t add or contribute to the plot? What difference does real sex make to the film compared to simulated sex, other than to shock? To be honest, I think this sort of cinema has gone too far. According to the directors of French film Baise Moi, the sex scenes were “used to celebrate female sexuality rather than to excite men”. But if this was the case, why was actaul sex neccessary when simulated sex would have achieved the same effect??

Another thing that shocked me in the link was that the French film Irreversible featured a nine minute rape scene. Apparently, "250 people at a screening in Cannes were so sickened that they left before the end, some needing medical attention!". Being a Creative Writing student, I have to bare the audience in mind when writing a story. But it seems that filmmakers ignore that rule, as they seem to depict what they want as opposed to thinking about what the audience view as acceptable.
Apparently, director Gasper Noe wanted to tackle the issue of rape. However, we all know that rape is a disgusting crime even when watching soaps that deal with the issue, the Moe and Trever storyline in Eastenders being an example. Even though the actual rape isn’t shown, we understand the distressing impact it has on the victim afterwards when we see them crying or having difficulty in dealing with the ordeal. So why Noe had to feature a nine minute rape scene to tell us that rape is disgusting when we already know this is mind boggling to me. Not something I would watch, even if the cinema ticket was free.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3725545.stm

Smoking

The media, especially cinema, have been projecting images of sexy smokers for years, Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct being a classic example. A single ciggerette has connotations of glamour, cool and seduction. So what makes a thin white tube full of nicotine and other stuff sexy??? Or is it the person smoking it that makes it so sexy??
If a haggard old tramp was smoking a ciggarette, would it make us think smoking is sexy? Probably not. The fact that Sharon Stone is beautiful and dressed in chic garb is what rubs off on the cigarette. Its that "if that ciggarette makes her look sexy, then I want one" sort of thing. At the end of the day, its the way tabacco makes its money.

However these connotations are becoming less common as more and more anti-smoking adverts are being bombarded on telly. But has it put people off smoking? Or are these pedantic ads only encouraging smokers to continue in rebellion?? According to BBC News Health, it hasn't. Apparently, ads that glamourised smoking in cinemas encouraged young people to smoke. And most people on a forum agreed that the anti-smoking adverts didn't encourage them to stop (check links at bottom).
I don't think any ban or advert will encourage smokers to stop.Smokings an addiction and addictions are hard to break out off, despite how many images of clogged up arteries and large warnings they push in smokers' faces. The only way someone's going to give up is by will-power and personal choice alone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6741707.stm
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-6860.html

"Stalking? I call it love"

The closest I’ve been to having an encounter with a stalker was at school. I met this boy who was a year below me (year 7) whilst waiting in the sick room for my mum to arrive and take me to the hospital for an injury. After a long while of sitting in silence, we eventually started talking. He asked me what form I was in an after telling him, he then asked me if I knew a girl called Louise, whom I did know because she was an acquaintance of who occasionally hung around my mates and me. He told me that he had a major crush on her since he first saw her and that he had asked her out several times despite her constant rejections. Ignoring her contempt for him, he continued to call her and send her love letters and presents. I asked him why he felt this way and he told me that it was because she looked like his ex-girlfriend and that he wasn’t going to give up until she agreed to go out with him.
At the time, I thought he was just plain strange, but looking back at that, I think there was more it to. It wasn’t Louise he couldn’t get over. But his ex-girlfriend. To be honest, I find this sort of mentality is pretty sad. At the end of the day, there’s a choice when a relationship finishes. You can either cry over that broken heart or re-cooperate. Unfortunately, some people choose the former option, probably because they can’t control their emotions, or don’t know how to deal with intense heartbreak and unrequited love. But why would someone be so desperate for love?? Are they lacking it at home or in their lives in general?? Do they believe that by pestering the one they like, it will lead to that person eventually saying yes, in the case of the boy I’d just mentioned? Speaking of the latter question, there is an element of selfishness to that kind of stalking. The stalker is clearly more concerned about gratifying their own needs and filling that void in their hearts, as opposed to thinking about the anxiety that they are causing to that person they are obsessed with. But to go to extremes such as sending threatening messages, bizarre gifts and disturbing phone calls in order to fill that void isn’t understandable, not to the sane mind anyway. Clearly stalkers of any type have a mental or personality disorder, such as erotomania and depression. So should we put all the blame on them for their actions, when they are not in the right mind to judge whether what he or she is doing is bad??

No I don't think they deserve all the blame, however, it doesn't make the mental and physical harm they inflict on the person right.

Link

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/stalking/victims.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1158559.stm

Stealing

I have been tempted to shoplift once. It began when the girl at the counter dropped the eye-shadow I was paying for on the floor and as a result the lid flew off and the makeup became dusty. So she told me to get myself another one, since I’ve already paid for it. What could I say, there was a shelf full of other pretty colours and lipstick in front of me and there was no security at the door and probably no alarm (this was Boot’s Dudley branch). I guess the attraction was the thrill of easily getting away with something that was considered “bad”. Plus, Rimmel aren’t going to cry over one lipstick worth £2 that was stolen from them, especially when the creator’s handbag is probably worth more than all of my possessions put together.

There is a reason why shoplifting is against the law. If it was legalised and everyone took whatever they wanted without paying, there would be no businesses or economy. However it seems to be acceptable by many, which isn’t surprising as according to BBC news, more than 3.5 million people have admitted shoplifting in the past five years in 2005http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477596.stm.
It can be easily justified because no one is physically or mentally hurt when it’s committed. This is true, as you’re not stealing something that someone else has worked for or as someone pointed out in class, holding a gun to their face and causing trauma to that person. But as someone else pointed out, there is a spectrum in shoplifting. There is a difference between a teenager stealing one lip-gloss from Boots and someone who makes a living out of shoplifting to supply their drug habits. The latter can be classified as dangerous, especially for the consumer. If the consumer bought a stolen item and the police happened to find out, that person would be arrested, despite the fact that he/she didn’t know the item was stolen. And would the thief who sold it care? No, as long as they have the money to snort their pleasure. It can be argued that the police may never find out that the person had bought the stolen item, but it is the RISK that they may find out that makes this type of theft harmful.

So can petty shoplifting be justified? It depends on the store/shop. I personally would never shoplift from my local new agent because the owner knows my parents and I get on with him very well. Plus, he doesn’t charge £3 for a lollypop, so everything is never over priced. However, for larger (and more pretentious) chains, I can understand why some might shoplift. Top PR executive Belinda Mowbray wrote in ‘The Times Online’ on November 2007 “I was in a Topshop in Central London buying jeans. After I’d paid (I steal only from shops where I’ve also made a legitimate purchase), I spotted a little grey vest top I quite liked the look of. At £28 I could comfortably afford it, but thought it was very overpriced”. http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article2923540.ece
Of course £28 is reasonable of it is a plain vest by Jasper Conran. But for a highstreet quality I can see where Mowbray is coming from. A £28 for a vest that’s identical to one that costs £5 from Dotty Ps is a rip off. But what struck me about this quote was how Mowbray only stole from shops where she had already purchased from. I think some people justify their theft because they already pay money towards the company/shop. Pay for an overpriced pair of jeans and take a vest without paying and then it'll be even.
However, it can be argued that if these people don't like wasting their money, why can't they purchase from a store/shop thats kinder to their account. I guess the reason for shopping at a more expensive store is that the quality of the clothes, especially jeans are much nicer. Plus, people are more attracted to the label or the superiority of the store (whether its trendy to shop there or not) than how much the clothes cost, especially when we are living in a society that is obbessed with consumerism and quality.

Emotional Infidelity

I chose this media example of infidelity because it could be argued whether it was infidelity or not. In January 2006, Brad Pitt met Angelina Jolie on set of Mr and Mrs Smith and developed a close friendship with one another. This ultimately led to Pitt leaving wife Jennifer Aniston for Jolie, although couple assured the press that there was no sex involved while they were friends.
Emotional infidelity is an interesting one. We assume that since there’s no sex involved, it doesn’t classify as infidelity. But it tends to be more hurtful than a drunken one night stand your partner had with someone whose name they forgot. After a fling, they could still want to be with you and promise never to do it again. Now, I’m not justifying that type of infidelity as it’s just as hurtful as a meaningful affair. But what I’m saying is that emotional infidelity is often ignored, when in fact it’s much more painful because your partner can easily dump you for this “friend”. And watching your partner being with someone else and knowing that he/she prefers them to you is much more painful than the thought of him/her sleeping with a random stranger that he/she had no feelings for.
So what could be said in Pitt’s favour? It was rumoured that he wanted children, but Aniston wanted to concentrate on career. But Aniston stated in an interview with Vanity Fair, “I've never in my life said I don't want children. I did and I do and I will. I would never give up that experience for a career. I want to have it all."
When reading this quote, anyone would judge Brad as selfish to be so impatient to run off with Jolie who has kids and still wants them straight away. I can’t think of any other plausible reason for Pitt to cheat other than his biological clock, which at the age of 40 seems to die down as quick as a withering flower. It can also be argued that if Aniston wanted to save her marriage, she would have given Pitt a child and hire a nanny while she’s working on her career, since they can afford one. But having children without concern for their emotional upbringing would also be considered selfish. Surely the child would feel neglected if neither of their parents were around?
But if Aniston’s quote was untrue and Brad left because she didn’t want to have children, does it make the infidelity plausible? Leaving a relationship to have children can be considered selfish, but everyone enters a relationship for a reason, be it for start a family or just purely for companionship alone. If the needs of both partners aren’t met, there is no point in that relationship. But having said that, if communication was in the relationship, then maybe they would have realised how unsuitable they were for each other before the infidelity could happen. Of course hurt will be involved, but to a lesser degree as it doesn’t involve a third person. Obviously, when a third person comes into it, it will affect the cheated person’s self esteem, trust and confidence in future relationships.

Field Trip

Hey Guys

Just been browsing through the net to find some ideas for a field trip. I've found one show at the NEC which relates to one of our topics, Tatoos (if you consider them to be bad).
Its the "Ink and Iron Tattoo Convention and Custom Show", which is held between 12-13th April in the Pavilion. Its only £8 to get in, so its pretty cheap. Apparently, it features all the famous tatooist around the globe. And there will be music there, although the name of the band isn't mentioned on the site, http://www.necgroup.co.uk/visitor/whatson/5712/

DOG or MOTHER

In the first session of the module Being Bad, we had to write down the worst thing we had done on a piece of paper and put it in a hat. After being split into tiny groups, we randomly chose two to three papers and discussed if they were bad. But the most interesting part of the session was at the end. We chose two of the worst confessions and debated on which was worse. Firstly, was drugging the neighbour’s dog, which resulted in its death and then denying knowing anything about it. Secondly, was a blind mother falling down the stairs and instead of helping her up, the confessor said “mum, you’re an embarrassment”.
Personally, I felt that the former confession was worse for the following reasons. Firstly, the dog can’t object to having the drugs being injected into it. If one drugged another human without their consent, there would be uproar about the shocking immorality of it. At the end of the day, the dog was still a breathing, living creature. However, one could argue, “would we think twice if we killed a spider?”. I personally do, for I believe that a life is a life. It is put on earth for a reason. Just because an animal can’t communicate with us, does that mean we can treat then however we like without second thought? Factors such as intelligence, ability to communicate or size should not determine superiority over another who lacks these. It shouldn’t give the one who has these factors the right to do what they please to the other.
Secondly, the dog was someone else’s property, bought up and bred by that person. By murdering it, it shows no concern for the neighbour, who could have been attached to it. Yet one can argue that there’s no proof to show that the neighbour was attached. As someone argued in class, “Its just a dog. At the end of the day, you can buy yourself another dog, but you can’t buy yourself another mother”. This is true, but it wasn’t as if the second confessor had killed their mother. There may have been a reason why the confessor said what they said. Children are an example of their parents’ parenting skills. It would have been down to the mother’s upbringing of that person that caused them to say what they said. As Ronald L. Pitzer, Extension Family Sociologist demonstrates, “Children learn more than social skills and table manners from their parents”. http://www.extension.umn.edu/specializations/youthdevelopment/components/6141-19.html

Another in class argued that a mother is the one who had bought you up and took care of you when you were sick. However, as Mark Jones had pointed out, just because one is a mother, does that mean she is a good mother? There’s no evidence to prove that mother was a good mother. If she was, than yes what was said was bad. But comments like that can easily be brushed away. At the end of the day, it’s just words. There are worse things that could be said. But going back to the point, the neighbour obviously had the dog for a reason, be it for company, guidance or what other. One wouldn’t have one if they didn’t want it and they certainly wouldn’t keep it if they had no concern for it.