You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2016.
As Anne Thériault suggests in Vice, Ghomeshi will most likely recover from this scandal. “Men in his position very rarely suffer any real and lasting consequences for these types of allegations — look at Roman Polanski, or Woody Allen, or Chris Brown,” she writes. “Even when there is plenty of solid evidence and a conviction has taken place, men who abuse and rape manage to come out on top.” Indeed — and incredibly — #TeamJian was trending on Twitter earlier this week. Why were some so quick to jump to his defense?
We live in a world where calling out sexism makes you more vulnerable than perpetuating it. That’s why people like George Will, a rape apologist who has called survivors of sexual assault “privileged,” can go on to earn $48,000 to speak at a college, while feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian is forced to cancel her speech after the school…
View original post 294 more words
Boom! Victory for Women in France. :)
On April 6, 2016, France adopted a new law in the country’s fight against prostitution, inspired by the so-called “Nordic Model” — a model which seems to be frequently condemned, little understood and often mocked. We would, therefore, like to help clarify the ins and outs of this new law for you.
The French parliament, with its representatives elected directly through universal suffrage, had spent several years in parliamentary inquiry committees (the reports of which we invite you to read) and hearings in which all parties involved. This new law will place France in line both with its international commitments, and more importantly, in our opinion, with the 1981 law penalizing rape. In the 1981 law, rape is defined as “an act of sexual penetration, of any nature, committed upon the other person, with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.” The National Assembly has come to the decision that sexual intercourse…
View original post 956 more words
Rather than referring to a one musty-tomb or another why not consider what life actually is and base our questions about existence (or not) on that basis?
This video asks some great questions. What is your take on the questions it asks?
“No single part of the cell is alive everything inside is dead matter moved by the laws of the universe.”
Is life the aggregate of all of these reactions taking place?
Living things can evolve into dead things as long as it is beneficial in forwarding their genetic code in the evolutionary process (mitochondrial DNA).
Is life simply information that manages to secure its continued existence?
This vid might make some of the deep thinking philosophers mad. :)
“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. They are gender abolitionists, and understand gender to provide the framework and rationale for male dominance. In the radical feminist approach, masculinity is the behaviour of the male ruling class and femininity is the behaviour of the subordinate class of women. Thus gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create.”
I love Mahler No.1. The second movement is such an amazingly happy dance suite. I smile when listening to it.
The second movement is a modified minuet and trio. Mahler replaces the minuet with a Ländler, a 3/4 dance-form that was a precursor to the Austrian waltz. This is a popular structure in Mahler’s other symphonies, as well as Franz Schubert’s. One main theme repeats throughout the Ländler, and it gathers energy towards a hectic finish. The main melody outlines an A major chord:
The trio contains contrasting lyrical material.



Your opinions…