ENEMIES ARE EVERYWHERE?!

Is chivalry sexist? Well, having got a new topic, I made a surprising revelation – some people (women mostly) do think that chivalry sexist… I could never think of that!...
And do you know what struck me most? The fact is – I came across such books as “The Language Police” by Diane Ravitch and “A Feminist Dictionary” (600 pages!!!) by Cheris Kramarae, Paula A.Treichler and Ann Russo. Well, I am not the person to judge, but the authors’ ideas sound somewhat absurd from time to time. In their attempt to make the language as inoffensive as possible, they create such words and definitions that are mocked at worldwide. For example, not to insult a she-citizen of the USA hinting on her sexual belonging, she is to be called “a vaginal American”! Would you like to be the one? If we compose a he-counterpart… What would it be? “A penis American”? I have never thought that it is shameful to be a Woman or a Man! Not a very beautiful woman (or should I say “person”?) is described as “having an alternative body image”; a prostitute is called “a sex-worker”. And, at last, this week’s topic – “courtliness” or “chivalry” is interpreted as “an instrument of suppression, making a woman incapable of solving life problems without a man’s everyday help”. It’s really beyond my comprehension!
In other words, I see the problem differently. And I don’t reject the idea of having equal rights between men and women, but everything should be reasonable! I don’t have an aversion for a business-lady/woman, she gained success and that’s great! I would admire her strong character and purposefulness. But what really makes me furious is much anger, seeing enemies everywhere without focusing on the real world issues that most men and women are facing (I am talking about feminism) or banning such scripts as: “Mother brings some sandwiches to Father who is repairing a roof”, should be: “Mother is repairing a roof”; “Boys are playing and girls are shouting for them”, should be: “mixed teams of players” (from “The Language Police”), etc. Isn’t that insensible?
Men are always men. They will always like real women – sensible, tender, caring, all in lace and curls. They are (well, most of them) defenders by Nature and they need a woman to protect her, to take care of her, to admire and love her, not to struggle with. Isn’t that only natural?
And vice versa, women will always be women.)) They will always like real men – strong, courageous, noble, caring, all in shining armour, ready to rescue damsels in distress. And real women will always be wise enough to let them do that! Have we forgotten a well-known saying: “A man is a head, but a woman is a neck”? A woman inspires a man for noble deeds, directs his energy to the right channel. A man, in his turn, tenders thanks to a woman doing all sorts of things we call “chivalry”.
Just imagine a situation: men pay no attention to women out of fear of being blamed for “conceptual rape” (meaning “an imagined participation of a man in a coitus without a woman’s preliminary agreement”; I wonder, how did she manage to read his thoughts?... An enchantress of a woman, really!), for example. But let’s go on imagining… You are at home, it’s boring, something has gone wrong with a boyfriend, then, suddenly and fortunately enough, a girlfriend of yours is calling: “Let’s get some fresh air somewhere?” After a few minutes of hesitation you decide: “Why not!” and start dressing up. Dressing up! Men usually put something on, ladies dress up! It’s an open secret, that dressing up is a kind of ceremonial for a lady – she is trying to show her best, her individuality in the clothes, it is even possible to talk about her mood judging by the way she looks like. So, you’ve spent about an hour (or more!) preparing yourself for a going out. You don’t practically remember about your problems, because you really like what you see in the mirror. Now you are in a club, waiting subconsciously for some response on the part of the men (because you are really stunning!), for compliments, for holding the door open… Instead, you receive nothing but indifference… They are afraid! Do we need that? Do we want to die out? No, I believe!
Finishing up, I would like to repeat that I AM FOR holding a door open, offering a seat, paying the bill, helping with a coat, offering a helpful hand and all that courtesy! Because I find it natural, for me it’s a special language men and women use to communicate with each other not to die out! After all, we shouldn’t forget that “Woman’s strength is in her female weakness”

ART IS LONG, LIFE IS SHORT…WITHOUT SCIENCE

A very provocative question, so I DO hope it won’t provoke bloody murders! In order to find an answer, I would like to draw two pictures of two different worlds: a world without ART and a world without SCIENCE; then everyone will decide for him/herself.

A World Without Art

A man is lying idly on a sofa or in front of his/her PC. There is no need to strain oneself, everything is mechanized! There is also no need to go to a kindergarten, to school, to the University or even to work, because we have an electronic nurse-maid, a teacher-robot, electronic pets (a special thank to the Japanese) and we surely can earn money through the Internet. Life is comfortable, convenient, and as easy as anyone can imagine with lots of advanced gadgets! A man may live up to as many years as he/she wishes – it is possible now! You may easily spend a weekend on the Mars or Venus or even in the cyberspace; people can treat cancer and AIDS; public transport is totally powered by electricity; sun energy is used widely; all our shopping is done at the touch of a button; surgery is done using lasers; patients are able to consult a doctor via the Internet; smart wardrobes suggest us clothing according to the weather forecast (again thanks to the Japanese), not mentioning smart restrooms J, sending the results of our urinoscopy (or something else)) right to our doctor; … Do you like it? I may continue without stopping ))
But what are the reefs? Well, people don’t communicate with each other, people don’t think at all!!! Because any effort, mental is included, is obsolete… The world is shaped, we are just things controlled by robots. People don’t need any senses as they just don’t use them at all or forgot how to do that… A man lives according to some algorithm from the early birth, there is no such word as creativity or soul in such a world. A metal living without joy and colours… Do you like it? Hardly, I suppose.

A World Without Science

Will there be any? I’m afraid any disease may absorb Humankind if it doesn’t have means to struggle with it. Living in a cave, clubbing wild animals to death to provide food (as L2L team puts it), being afraid of any natural phenomenon and following the only law: “The strongest will survive”. Is that living we are dreaming about? Again, hardly, I dare say.

As you can see, both worlds are not quite what we expect them to be. The fact is a man can’t think about painting or music if he/she is hungry for example, or doesn’t have a place to live, clothing to wear on or if he/she is simply ill. Progressive technology should be a base of our life. When all our natural needs are satisfied, time comes to think about Art in all its displays. Art appeals to our soul, Science appeals to all the rest!J So, it is not quite correct to say that Art or Science is more valuable, we are to talk of good blending! Our life shouldn’t be too mechanized, when there is no place for thinking and simple enjoying a beautiful sunset on the one hand and it should be easy enough, so that we could live and not struggle to stay alive on the other hand.
To conclude, I would like to cite a poem of W.H. Davies “Leisure”, that reflects my viewpoint:

What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

No time to stand beneath the boughs
And stare as long as sheep or cows.

No time to see, when woods we pass,
Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass.

No time to see, in broad daylight,
Streams full of stars, like skies at night.

No time to turn at beauty's glance,
And watch her feet, haw they cam dance.

No time to wait till her mouth can
Enrich that smile her eyes began.

A poor life this if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

IN THE SEARCH OF WORTHY LIFE

Debate over immigration and immigration policy is not new and is a kind of a headache to each nation and State. As immigration rises and indignation grows, more laws should be implemented to release the tension and to regulate this overflow. While talking about immigration we are to distinguish between legal and illegal processes. Illegal immigration has some pros and cons. Let’s consider both.

PROS:

1. Illegals fill vacancies in non-prestigious industries where pampered nationals (as L2L team puts it) refuse to work. It is significant to mark here that some business groups (such as: construction firms, agriculture, hotels, restaurants and clubs and many others) have a lot interest in illegal immigration, because the cheap labour helps to cut costs and a result causes better competition.

2. Some immigrants are skillful workers.

3. The immigrant population contributes to culture mix. It provides diversity and helps to understand other cultures.

4. The immigrants compensate for falling birth rates.

CONS:

1. The workers who are willing to work for lower wages set up a competition with the local citizens, because the latter won’t be suggested a higher wage for the job in the situation.

2. But they don’t pay taxes, though using social benefits. No doubt, it arouses a great deal of annoyance on the part of the nationals. They send money to their families outside the country’s economy they live and work in for the moment. It results in a monetary problem.

3. Sometimes multi-cultural society may have negative consequences. For example, some foreign communities are at war with each other and even hostile towards the local citizens. It criminalizes the situation in the country. More than that, in the search of higher wages the immigrants are involved in drug traffic, arms traffic, money trade and even human traffic, as well as in making and selling false documents.

4. It’s an open secret (and L2L team has already mentioned that) that in many cases immigrants are escaping the famine, war and pestilence that plague their homelands. Surely, our duty as humans is to help them (granting asylum?), we are to respect their human rights, so should they – making this process legal! Having escaped from an unfavourable place, the immigrants are transferred automatically into a risk group, because when they come to a new country, they do not get tested for diseases that might infect the population. This can be very dangerous!

5. Stateless people cost a lot of money. The State has to pay their education, health care, lodging, nourishment and other social services.

So, as you can see, the problem of immigration is rather complex, and the cons column turned out to be filled to a greater extent. More than often immigrants face exploitation, persecution and misery. We are to be humane towards them, and we are to find humane solutions. Repatriation is not a way out to my mind, though sometimes it should be applied concerning immigrant gangs. In this respect I would also like to mention Italy’s migration policy, which I find rather reasonable. An entry visa will granted only if an immigrant has a labour contract, not less than for 2 years at that. After the expiry of the contract and if a foreigner can’t find a new job, he/she has to return back to his/her homeland. A permanent domicile will be granted only after 6 years of permanent work. The law also implements some radical measures concerning those people, who help illegal immigrants to get into the country – up to 12 years of imprisonment.
My personal opinion is not in favour of illegal immigrants. I believe that if they decide to leave their own country due to some reasons, they are to respect the adopting country and its laws, which is not sometimes the case. I’m inclined to think that mere escaping won’t solve the problem. The immigrants should do everything possible to improve their own country’s economy. And I don’t like the idea of their taking up social services that legal residents use, if they don’t pay taxes, because most of the ellegals’ net income goes outside the country. Why should it support them then??? In spite of this, I don’t think that immigrants are destroying national identity. A healthy nation is difficult to dilute! One more argument – they say that mixed marriages give birth to strong (in terms of health) and clever children.
The conclusion is quite evident – mixing of different races doesn’t always result in destroying one’s nation, in some cases it is enrichment. We are just to have a systematic control over foreign citizens’ transit and stay and to improve our legislative base. Whether we are on this or that side of the fence, we’ll meet consensus in the issue that the immigrants’ flow should be restricted anyhow.

CUTTING OWN THROAT

A new day brings not only a new sensation or innovation, but also a new trouble. So the copyright pirates are! They really ARE the trouble, a splinter in the finger – not quite dangerous for a life, but very annoying. A question is – Will Copyright Pirates Kill Television? – personally I don’t think so! I will try to prove my point.
The problem is that people blame piracy, mentioning the low quality of their “production”, but at the same time it continues to flourish thanks to our connivance. The State tries to struggle somehow, but all in vain, because the means they choose are not quite appropriate and fruitless. For example, what’s the sense in collecting pirate copies and crushing them with the help of a road-roller? None, I believe… My idea is that the evil should be extirpated in the root; otherwise it will continue to thrive.
Why do people buy low quality copies? It’s very simple:
1) they are cheaper (the most frequent argument);
2) they are offered for sale earlier than they appear on the big screen;
3) some films just don’t appear on the license discs at all;
4) the choice among pirate copies is wider.
Thus, the most disturbing for a population is a question of the price. Some people just can’t afford buying a license copy. So, the way out is quite obvious – to sell it at the price of a pirate copy. This is the only way to cope with the illegal business on this stage, because changing the national consciousness is even more enduring process.
Frankly speaking, sometimes I also download different films or music from the Internet to watch at home…((( It happens due to some reasons. For example, my friend and I tried to get to the cinema to watch “The Painted Veil” twice or even three times, but failed, because first – the tickets were sold, then – the time-table wasn’t very convenient. More than often it is impossible to find a film or music I like or need on sale. But nevertheless, I strongly believe that licensed CDs and DVDs or a film on a huge screen with a good sound will always be without a rival. And our duty is to contribute to developing the real Art; not playing into hostile copyrighting’s hands.
So, my idea is that unduly copyrighting is only a parasite on the media industry’s body. It won’t be able to survive without its victim; that is why there is no sense in killing it either. It is equal to sawing off the bough on which the piracy is sitting. But we are to do away with a parasite itself!
To sum everything up, I would like to cite the words of Karen Shaknazarov, a famous film director: “Pirate films are very much like singed Vodka”. Everyone knows that it is destroying and dangerous, but resorts to it at least once in a life willingly or unwillingly.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

Is euthanasia fundamental to a civilised society? Well, people have been discussing the problem since the XVIIth century and haven’t come to an agreement yet, as the demarcation line between for and against the problem is rather vague. There are a lot of people who consider euthanasia as a crime, an act of killing. Though, there are other people who have many counter-arguments. Here we’ll try to consider both points of view.
The weightiest argument of those who consider euthanasia as a crime is, I think, that admitting it, we break the God’s Law. God has a unique plan for each person and when another man interferes into it, it means that he wants to act as God. That is why euthanasia profanes, according to them, both – life and death, rejecting the role of God in a man’s destiny. The followers of this opinion strongly believe that a person should take as a gift everything that God gives to him/her, including all the sufferings. If God gives death, a man should accept it, even if it is agonizing, he/she may only pray for a quicker death. Here a question appears: why should we have doctors and medicine at all? Should we cure illnesses? I do believe in God, and I do believe that He gives us as many sufferings as we can endure, but I don’t think that spiritual cleaning is a sufficient argument in favour of sufferings.
Now let’s consider a contrary point of view. People, who stick to it, say that euthanasia is a person’s right to decide for him/herself to live and suffer or to die. In American literature they even use such term as PAS – “physician assisted suicide” instead of “euthanasia” to underline the strict observance of civic rights.
As for me, I’m not pure black and I’m not pure white… I’m somewhere in the middle. Is euthanasia fundamental? – Hardly, I guess. Should a civilized society allow it? – I think yes. But no doubt, this process SHOULD BE STRICTLY REGULATED by the law to AVOID ANY POSSIBLE CHAOS.
It is a very difficult problem from a moral point of view as well. We surely have no right to decide for somebody, but one thing is obvious: we should respect the last will of a person. A problem of involuntary or compulsory euthanasia is even more complex, as in this case a person can’t express his/her will, especially if his/her life is maintained with the help of special equipment. Relatives and doctors are to decide themselves. And it’s surely the most difficult choice, but it should be done, as a life of a plant is not a way out when there are no chances for recovery.
I would also like to touch one more aspect of the problem – palliative care, i.e. a system of medical means that help a person to leave the world with dignity, not resorting to so-called active euthanasia. On the one hand, it is a “golden middle”, because the main principle of palliative care is a patient’s comfort, i.e. alleviating and relieving his sufferings and pain, when it is already impossible to save him/her from a fatal disease. But on the other hand, more than often palliative care means being in a half-conscious state of a dream. Is it really living? Hardly…
Concluding, I would like to say that euthanasia, to my mind, is a very difficult, agonizing, but sometimes necessary element of a civilised society. We should bear in mind that it is possible to resort to it only in extreme cases, because life is still above all!