THE 'F' WORD - The Pros and Cons of Obscenities.

 THE 'F' WORD.

Image credit: Calvin and Hobbes

It's probably the most used word starting with 'F' in the English language: the 'F' word.  You know the one I mean.  It's so well known that you don't even have to add the next three letters.  It is, by definition, a four-letter word: short words that describe sexual or excretory actions.  I, of course, have no statistics to back up my guess, but if you imagine, in the daily lives of people, the number of stubbed toes, whacked elbows, spilled or dropped anything, missed appointments, phone calls, buses, opportunities et al, and the things someone shouldn't have said but can't take back that cost them their job, promotion or spouse - well, you will no doubt expect that a large percentage of the people who have suffered one of those misfortunes, will have expleted.  (I don't care that 'expleted' is not a verb, I'm making it one.)  They may not have meant to, but it slips out.

I think an expletive is very helpful in the right situation or, rather, the wrong situation, when something bad has happened.  Uttering an expletive when you have done something stupid to yourself, or have had something bad done to you, is probably better than slamming your fist into a wall with frustration or into the face of someone else.  Expletives are a viable means of venting; of letting out intense emotion.  Swearing may well save someone who is upset from suffering a stroke, who knows?

When I decided on the subject for this post, it was because I had become annoyed with the prevalence, and apparent acceptance, by the entertainment media of, in particular, the 'F' word.  It has been tabu on live television since its inception.  Historically, It wasn't heard in the American movies until the 1970's, and on a very few rare occasions in British films earlier.  Little by little, over the years, its use has crept increasingly into films but, lately, it's not just creeping, it's marching boldly into television and streaming productions.

In both movies and television shows, with the exception of live and free to air, it is as if the media are trying to force that word, and similar obscenities, down our throats, and it makes me wonder why.  Are they trying to make it so commonplace as to make it acceptable, to lose its effect, or are they trying to lower our standards, to slacken our moral fibre?  Is it possible that the people who make entertainment in Hollywood and elsewhere overseas, spend their lives spewing profanities instead of other, purpose built and fit for purpose adjectives?  Does someone need to send such producers copies of the Oxford English Dictionary and a Thesaurus?

I am also going to be sexist here.  I know that men don't particularly like women to swear.  It's not about equality, it's about femininity.  Swearing isn't sexy.  I repeat that.  Swearing isn't sexy in conversation.  If you stub your toe, that's okay but if you use a swear word as an adjective, noun or verb in place of something more articulate, you're just trying to fit in, and it shows.  I'm old enough to be really sure about this.  It holds true for all ages of men down to the Millennials.   In groups born later than the latter, the 'F' word will have no more effect than 'bugger' or 'blast'.  Men want to respect women, and they won't respect a woman who doesn't respect herself.  They really don't like them competing with them in the profanity stakes.  Oddly enough, that's for the boys.  They want to be able to impress a woman occasionally by leaving the swear words out of their conversation, and that won't work if she swears like wharfie too.

I know some of you reading this will be guffawing at these sentiments.  You will, I assure you, eventually find out that I am right.  Times do change of course and that's why I take into consideration that Millennials onwards will take no umbrage at the use of the profanities we use these days.  Media producers today, however, do use them to shock and to add an edge to their shows.  I wonder, however, when the dialogue has the actress being as profane as the actor, if the screenwriter has the voice right for the character.  Sometimes it just doesn't work for me.  I sometimes think that when the dialogue doesn't seem right for a character, a male writer is writing female dialogue or, perhaps, it's a Millennial writing the dialogue for a middle-aged actress.

Is it a good, or a bad, thing that the media is force feeding us profanities in fictional shows?  Does it lower the standards of the audience and a younger generation?  Do we want impressionable youth spewing words many of us find offensive thinking it's the norm?  Will it demystify and take the power from these words?  I have personally watched over the decades, as the standard of humanity has deteriorated, and so I would like to see us maintaining a set of standards in relation to certain things in the hope of maintaining certain aspects of civilization.

Words have power.  It's no use pretending that they don't.  "The pen is mightier than the sword", first came to us from English author Edward Lytton in 1839, and has resonated ever since.  We all know words can hurt, especially when coming from people we love, like or admire.  Another old adage is, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me".  In truth, they shouldn't be able hurt us as they are but vapour on the wind.  But they can and do hurt.  They can even wound fatally, because of the affect they can have on the mind and emotions of their recipients.

I could go on and on about the power of words, but I don't have to.  Anyone who speaks and negotiates their way in this world using a language, knows how many ways their words can be taken the wrong way, misinterpreted or twisted by other people.  Words, as such, can even be dangerous.  I'm not going so far as to saying swearing is dangerous, but I think you're getting my drift.  It is the way people receive what they hear that must be considered when making an utterance.

At a personal level, I don't appreciate when the media, a very powerful instrument in our society, takes it upon themselves to be the arbiter of our morals.  In my daily dealing with people over the decades, I haven't heard the 'F' word used in conversation even a quarter as much as I hear it in television and movies.  I'm not talking about as an expletive; I'm talking about as an adjective.  I'm prone to letting out the 'F' word more often these days when I suffer a sudden misfortune, but then I chide myself.  That's because it used to not come so quickly to my tongue.  I still find it offensive, and I can't help wondering if I have started using it because the entertainment I ingest is so replete with the word, in even the blandest of entertainment, such as comedies, that it has caused the censors built into my own internal dictionary to accept it as a 'word safe for utterance around children and the general public'.

Basically, my internal dictionary is being subliminally rewired to accept the 'F' word, but the moral code area of my brain does not and will not, accept it.  I will remain true to my set of standards, even if my mouth chooses to let the 'F' word fly occasionally, but I will never, ever use it as an adjective.

END

LET'S HEAR IT FOR DONKEYS and their 7,000 years of service to humans.

Happy Donkeys (DreamCafeArt)

DONKEYS came to my attention recently because they kept popping up on television news reports.  They were neither the reason for the bulletins in which they appeared, nor were they even mentioned, but they were there.  The televised coverage was about people fleeing their homes, their countries and their livelihoods to safety.  Among the mechanized transports carrying people and goods were donkeys, either heavily laden or pulling carts top heavy with goods and people.

Now, I feel terribly for people in such a situation, but my heart really goes out to the donkeys, mules, hinnies or whatever hybrids they are.  They haven't messed up the world, we have, and then we make these poor, innocent beasts carry the weight of our mistakes.

Donkeys are rather overlooked because of the horse, their showier distant relative, whom they branched off from over 7 million years ago.  Horses are to donkeys what supermodels are to the average woman, at least appearance wise.  Horses can be raced, groomed, ridden and sometimes change hands for huge amounts of money.  There are work horses of course, and even horses eaten for meat, but then there are racing thoroughbreds, special breeds of horses, Spanish Riding School horses and so forth.  Nobody gets a donkey to do dressage or spends a fortune breeding them.  They are the unsung darlings of the equine family, uncomplaining and mostly unnoticed in work and in war.  Yes, horses have suffered dreadfully in war, I know that, but you don't see Napoleon sitting on a donkey to have his portrait painted, do you?  No one thinks of a donkey as a majestic beast and yet, they have been of use to us for much longer than horses.  The truth is, however, that Napoleon rode on a mule, not a horse, to cross the Alps.

Paintings of Napoleon crossing the Alps: the idealized version and the actuality.

We've recently seen donkeys carrying people and their goods to safety (or wherever they've been told it's safe - and usually isn't) in the war between Israel and the Hamas/Palestinians.  I include Palestinians in that last statement (although this post isn't about politics) but in the interest of accuracy.  The Palestinians, innocent and complicit alike, are bearing the brunt of this war but I'm sure it's the Palestinians using the donkeys because the Hamas have so many weapons, they can surely afford mechanical transport.  They can also hide in the numerous tunnels they have dug under Gaza and so, don't have to abandon their homes on a laden donkey.

Elsewhere, in other news reports from Sudan, Ethiopia, Syria and Afghanistan, where people are fleeing from war, famine or persecution, you'll see the humble donkey, or its cousins, bearing burdens for humans.  According to my research, which, I've distilled from various sources, the donkey originated in Africa from the African Wild Ass and was domesticated in North-East Africa around 7,000 years ago, 3,000 years before humans domesticated horses.  Donkeys were first used to carry people and goods in Egypt before their reach extended South to Sudan, West to the Sahara, and East to Ethiopia and onwards.

Throughout history they have been of immeasurable assistance to humans in trade that must be carried out by land routes because of their endurance and ability to carry heavy burdens long distances.  They can also be used for milking, raising water, milling, as pets and even rides for tourists.  Sadly, they can also be used for meat.  Approximately 3.5 million donkeys and mules are slaughtered each year for meat worldwide. (Source: Wikipedia)

The first donkeys to arrive in the Americas came on the ships of the second voyage of Christopher Columbus and landed at Hispaniola in 1495. (Source: Wikipedia).  They reached Mexico by 1528 and only reached the United States in 1598.  In 2006 it was estimated that there were approximately 41 million donkeys in the world.  Since then, donkey populations in China, which had the largest population of them, have decreased as well as some other countries, and it would be very difficult to make an accurate assessment of the number presently in the world.

Donkeys have also found their place in fiction, probably the most famous being a toy, Eeyore, in the Winnie the Pooh books.  Poor Eeyore was always depressed and, considering how donkeys are used as beast of burden, I wouldn't be surprised if they were, but I think depression is only experienced by human beings.  Donkeys are generally gentle, tolerant and forbearing.  They are, however, considered stubborn, but that is probably because they tend to 'freeze' in the face of danger, unlike horses that are likely to bolt and flee.  They just have a strong survival instinct. 

Eeyore (Courtesy of Disney)

Like many animals, donkeys have been used in war.  At least they are mostly used as pack animals, not to be ridden into battle, although they have often been in the thick of it.  Probably the best-known instances of donkeys used in war arose from the Gallipoli campaign in Turkey in WWI.  An Australian and a New Zealand soldier, (ANZACS - Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) both became well known for using donkeys to transport wounded soldiers from the front to first-aid stations.  I found it interesting, in my research, to discover the story of the New Zealand soldier, Dick Henderson, a stretcher bearer.  I had heard of the Australian soldier, John Simpson, also a stretcher bearer, and his donkey, 'Simpson's donkey', as it's part of Australian ANZAC folklore.  I am Australian, after all.  Surprisingly, however, I had not heard of our New Zealand counterpart and his donkey.

Dick Henderson, New Zealand stretcher bearer and his donkey and the photo that inspired the painting.

The painting of Dick Henderson and his donkey transporting a wounded soldier, hangs in both Australian and New Zealand museums.  In John Simpson's case, the donkeys were bought ashore to carry water, but Simpson decided to use his to carry less seriously wounded soldiers to safety.  Those with life-threatening head, chest and stomach wounds could not be transported this way.  Simpson is credited with being the first to do this in the campaign.  The poor man died only three weeks after having landed at Gallipoli but had become a familiar sight in that short time transporting the wounded on his donkey and made his mark in history.

Obviously, donkeys and mules were used well before this war and for the same reason, but by the time WWI came around, photo coverage and in the field reporting, brought the animals to the public's attention.

A happier and somewhat less cumbersome task for donkeys and mules is to carry tourists.  Until I researched the animals, I didn't realize how capable they are of withstanding heavy loads.  I don't tolerate animal abuse, but once I knew this, I wasn't so anti their use for taking tourists for rides.  It's a hell of a lot better than being used in the firing lines or eaten once the food runs out.

Recently I found my late parents' photo album of their round-the-world journey and, 'lo and behold, there they were riding donkeys in Greece.  Mules tend to be larger and so I think that they are riding donkeys.

My parents riding donkeys in Greece 1974.

Donkeys, throughout history have been viewed as an inferior beast, possibly because they are servile and tolerant.  Their stubbornness has also made them appear stupid, when really, all they are is hesitant and careful.  A stubborn creature is not stupid, in fact, it knows exactly what it doesn't want to do.  They were, however, typecast early in written history and people's opinion of them hasn't changed much since.

"Donkeys were found in the works of Homer, Aesop and Apuleius, where they were generally portrayed as stupid and stubborn, or servile at best, and generally represented the lower class. They were often contrasted with horses, which were seen as powerful and beautiful." (Source: Wikipedia, Cultural references to donkeys.)

The Jewish religion even adds to this demeaning attitude to the creatures by considering them impure:

"In the Jewish religion, the donkey is not a kosher animal. In the Zohar, it is considered avi avot hatuma i.e. an ultimate impure animal, and doubly "impure", as it is both non-ruminant and non-cloven hoofed." (Source: Wikipedia, Cultural references to donkeys.)

I can't help feeling sorry for the dear creatures for being held in such low regard historically and, at the same time, used ceaselessly for our benefit.  At least by not being considered kosher, they are less in danger of being eaten in some societies.

Donkeys and their kin, asses and mules, have given us colourful analogies based on their perceived characteristics.  Examples of these include 'stubborn as a mule', 'make an ass of yourself' and 'donkey vote' (in which you simply mark your voting preferences 1,2, 3 without giving any thought to the candidates).  These sayings imply that donkeys and their kin are both stubborn and stupid, but that hasn't stop humans using them for all manner of things, and that's because these animals are reliable, capable and strong.  They don't bolt or flee in the face of danger either.  Surprisingly, they don't eat at much as horses either, making them more economical.

 "(Donkeys) need less food than a horse or pony of comparable height and weight, approximately 1.5 percent of body weight per day in dry matter, compared to the 2–2.5 percent consumption rate possible for a horse."  (Source: Wikipedia - Donkey)

Most of the world's donkey population is found in undeveloped countries and used as working and pack animals.  In developed countries where there are fewer of them, they are mostly used as pets and for breeding.  This is the case in the area in which I now live, which is at the edge of suburbia where farms and large acreages begin.  Near to me are a number of hobby farms with various unusual animals from llamas and alpacas to camels and donkeys.  Some of them have open days where children and adults alike can pet and interact with the animals.  Animals such as these are well cared for and a long way from poverty and war zones and it's wonderful to think that there are some creatures in the world being cared for by humans and living their best lives.

END

 

 

 

EDITING THE PAST: The dangers of whitewashing literature and history.

Image Credit: Paul Wood via Cartoon Stock.

Who dares erase the past?  A damned fool, that is who.  One who wants to rewrite history, or literature, in a context they judge to be palatable to the masses.

It is offensive to be considered a member of the masses, who apparently lack the ability to read literature in the context of the time it was written, and who must take offence at outdated terminology and opinions, and to have 'woke' members of society edit and alter original texts on our behalf.  These people take it upon themselves to be judge and jury of our morals (as if they were Nazis at a book burning) and alter original published texts written, sometimes, over a century ago, without the permission of a long dead author.

The result of such puritanical vandalism is to subdue, even negate, the original voice of the author.  It takes the words right out of his or her mouth.  It removes the historic attitudes of the time in which it is written, whereby the modern-day reader is denied insight into the mores of the times in which the text was embedded.  It is, thus, denying history and, as the saying goes, "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

What is most appalling about this 'editing' is that the majority of people are appalled by it and yet publishing houses that should have ethics, not yellow streaks running down their spines, are the ones taking part in the vandalism for fear of the 'woke' brigade.  The 'woke' brigade will include schools who have thrown themselves headfirst into the ocean of political correctness to protect the tender young minds in their care (over whom they refuse to exert discipline for fear of being sued), to protect their sensitivities and ensure they don't learn archaic discriminatory words or gender discrimination from Enid Blyton (author of Noddy) or Roald Dahl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory).

Okay, when it comes to children's books, I'm more on their side.  Frankly, the Noddy and Big Ears books creeped me out and, if I really wanted to erase some children's stories completely, it would be the Brothers Grimm fairy tales.  In my mind they were simply not fit for children.  Loathe them as I do, I would not erase them.  They represent their times and the attitudes of those times.  While I would read neither author to children, I would leave the texts untouched because you CAN'T CHANGE HISTORY.  They are testament to their times.

However, when it comes to adult fiction, leave it alone.  For heaven's sake, the James Bond books by Ian Fleming are in the 'woke's' sights.  In this case, however, it is the publisher entrusted to the books' future imprints that has taken an initiative to not offend modern readers as they (and obviously the blockbuster movies) have managed to reinvent Bond by allowing him to change with the times.  

"Ian Fleming Publications Ltd, the company that owns the literary rights to the 007 series, hired sensitivity readers to review the classic books ahead of the reissue. The Telegraph said the new versions would feature a disclaimer: "This book was written at a time when terms and attitudes which might be considered offensive by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made in this edition while keeping as close as possible to the original text and the period in which it is set."   

BY THEARA COLEMAN, THE WEEK US PUBLISHED MARCH 9, 2023

In this case, the editing is to keep the character of Bond up with the times and ensure both the novels and the movies remain relevant to the present generation.  If, however, let us imagine, a publisher decided to edit Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", to appeal to modern sensibilities, what would your thoughts on that be?  Mine would be horror.  One of the beauties of Austen's works are that they take us back to the morals and mores of a past time.  Her characters are works of fiction that give us a glimpse into history and the workings of the society and attitudes of her day.  We can see the role of women in society at a time when marriage was considered the only option available to them.  Young women of today, reading about the limited options available to their gender in that era, can revel, be grateful for and be vigilant to ensure that their sex is never placed in this abominable situation again thanks to authors such as Austen's, albeit fictional account of women's lives in the past.

Would we rather edit that history out so we are not appalled by it, or be aware of what society is capable of and be on guard should it ever repeat itself?

 Theara Coleman in her article in The Week US also states:

"Modern publishers often enlist sensitivity readers to help to screen literature for potentially offensive material, especially for children's books.  While some argue that the practice is a form of extreme censorship, others say it promotes diversity in publishing. Though it's more common for publishers to use sensitivity readers for future work, some have utilized their services to help identify published books that might need edits."

It's one thing entirely for a publisher to pre-edit a manuscript it has accepted responsibility for publishing, it is quite another to edit a published book (even one of their own imprints) that is decades, even a century or more, old.  I believe that is because they are taking away something quintessentially part of the original publication and that is its signature, if you will, in time.

It's not just literature that is making historical alterations.  I was somewhat surprised a year or two ago when I began seeing trailers for a show set in Regency England.  It was obviously a costume drama set in a Jane Austen type setting involving the Upper Middle Class and, I presume, some aristocracy.  I was a tad confused by coloured actors playing some of the titled characters.  I have nothing against this BUT it is a show appealing to a young (late teens to twenties onwards) demographic.  Again, fictional it may be, but in no way is it reflective of the era.  It would be lovely to imagine English people of that time being as egalitarian as we are today; that people of African descent weren't instead used as slaves and, if free, never allowed to rise up the social ladder.  I just hope the young viewers will not end up with a skewed view of history.  History was cruel.  It is better they learn the truth and see how much better we have become, than to hide the truth.  That is because there is reason for shame, and it should not be whitewashed.  Perhaps the show's producers feel that presenting this altered version of history will ensure youth will imagine society was always so egalitarian and so will continue to be, but I really think that is a bit of an odd way to go about it.

There is a word we should all become familiar with in this age of 'woke' editing: Bowdlerism.  It's definition: A policy of Bowdlerization, or censorship of removing what is considered indecent.  This kind of editing has happened previously in history.

According to Nicholas A. Basbanes in "Every Book Its Reader: The Power of the Printed Word to Stir the World":  

"Long before the British physician Thomas W. Bowdler (1754-1825) and his sister, Henrietta Bowdler (1754-1830), took it upon themselves to make the plays of William Shakespeare 'safe' for innocent eyes, the wholesale editing of another author's writing so that it might be more palatable to prudish tastes was known as 'castration' to some, 'winnowing' by others. But with the publication of the first edition of the Family Shakespeare in 1807, the world of letters got a new verb—bowdlerize—to identify the process of literary expurgation."

 And so, even Shakespeare isn't safe from the prudes of history.  Certainly, let people make blander versions for their own spurious enjoyment.  Just let's be sure to keep the original texts intact for posterity and to appreciate their genius.

END.

NO, I'M NOT ON A DIET.

Many years (read decades) ago, when I lived in Hong Kong, an astrologer (Canadian, not Chinese - he'd come to me highly recommended) told me that, with Jupiter in my sixth house, I had a propensity to put on weight.  At the time I was by no means overweight but, at 5'4" (164cm), when I did put on weight, it showed easily.

During my adult lifetime my top weight has been 65kg (10 stone 3 pounds).  That's not including my fully pregnant weight, which topped that, but it doesn't count.  I mean, I had another person in me.  My bottom adult weight has been 50kg (8 stone).  Presently, I weigh in at 54kg and I'm happy with that.  Unlike most post-menopausal women, I have lost, rather than gained, weight.

I have never been a big eater but that's not through choice or a desire to remain thin.  It is simply because I grew up with an appalling and easily upset digestive system.  I was a reed thin child but, as adolescence crept upon me, I was deposited in a boarding school.  The school's nutritional guidelines were disturbing to say the least.  Bread with every meal and afternoon teas of cream and jam filled buns. Fat deposits began to accrue on me.  Well, obviously, I needed curves, that's the point of hormones after all, among other things.  Those other things included a severe case of cystic acne that lasted well into my twenties.

Nonetheless, I was never overweight, but was always conscious that I might become so because my mother had been thin when she married my father and, by my teen years, she was two sizes overweight.  She wasn't fat, she just wasn't thin.  I resembled her in so many ways that I decided that I would always have to watch my weight.  She also wasn't a big eater and I presumed that we both had, what is termed, a slow metabolism.

Before I fell pregnant with my son, my weight had dropped to 50kg from around 61kg when I married.  Post pregnancy I was 63kg and this weight would not shift until four years later when I was living in Hong Kong and it plummeted, for a number of reasons that I won't go into, down to 50kg again.

Fifty kilograms, for me, is not a natural weight.  I tend to look skeletal.  Nonetheless, once back in Australia I wanted to maintain my svelte appearance but, try as I may, I began to gain weight, about one kilogram (two pounds) per year.  It took ten years for me to go from 50kg to 63kg.  I was eating normally, which is to say, not much, and so I began to eat less but I still gained slowly and relentlessly.  It seemed that the astrologer was right and Jupiter had it in for me.  I had a friend at this time who was very slim and could eat two helpings of everything and not gain a thing.  I believe it comes down to genes, rather than planetary alignments, but who knows?

I discovered one very important thing from trying to stay at a weight that my body didn't approve of: the body decides our ideal weight.  It will more than happily let us go over it, but it won't let us stay under it.  It would rather we gained fat in case of a famine and, for the same reason, will make us gain if we fall below a certain level where our fat deposits won't sustain us in a crisis.  At least, that's my theory.

I think it comes down to the fact that, throughout most of human history, we have not had food readily available to us.  Only in the last ten thousand or so years have we become agrarian and it's only in the last hundred or so years with the Industrial Revolution, mass global transport and trade, that most of humanity has been assured of food.

There are exceptions of course.  Wars and civil wars, including tribal wars in Africa, even more than drought, are usually responsible for food shortages in these food abundant days.  Our bodies genetic coding, however, is based on hundreds of thousands of years of the human experience and has programmed us to survive, even prepare for, periods without adequate sustenance.  Our brains also aid in this survival mechanism and make us crave fattening foodstuffs that have allowed food chains such as McDonald's, Haagen Daz, Pizza Hut, Dunking Donuts right down to your local fish and chip shops and greasy cafes to pander to your starvation avoiding whims.

What a pity our genetic coding doesn't instill a loathing of war in us as well.  Unfortunately, war probably arose out of skirmishes between people over food and hunting grounds and may be coded into us as well.  We haven't outgrown what was once a survival mechanism.

I eat less than most people do.  I do not exaggerate.  I am known for it in my family and by our friends to whom it's a bit of a joke.  I used to be able to eat more, when I was younger, although not much.  I watch with barely concealed envy as my daughter-in-law and her mother (both normal sized women) make scones for afternoon tea with an assortment of jams and cream and eat them with my grandchildren.  If I attempted the same, I would not be able to eat any dinner.  When my partner has our friends to lunch, he will also bring out a dessert of some sort that they will scoff down joyfully.  I watch in dismay and take a bite from my partner's plate just to get a taste.

My stomach has been my dictator since I was five years of age.  After what it put me through in my youth due to lactose intolerance and whatever else upset it, I do not test its limits.  It simply isn't worth it.  How I would trade with someone else for a day just to know the pleasure of eating a decent size meal followed by cheesecake or some such, let alone to be able to consume same with a milkshake or frosty shake.  However, it's just not even on the cards.  I don't even want to think where that would take me.

I'm sure you're not feeling sorry for me.  Most people would like to be able to curb their appetites at will but, if you have to sit at a table and watch your lunch companions eating a whole roll each, perhaps two, filled with ham, cheese, salads, mayonnaise etc., and you literally can only consume a third of what they're having without getting a stomach ache, it is just plain sad.  It is only since menopause that my usual small portions have not been responsible for me slowly gaining weight, as I did in those ten years when I was younger and tried to stay underweight.

I envy people who can go to an 'all you can eat' buffet and get their money's worth.  I am a huge devotee of the doggy bag when I go to a restaurant.  When I asked for one at a restaurant when I was first dating my partner, he was appalled but he came to understand that it's only fair considering my inability to eat enough.  I also can't eat too quickly and so, taking a doggy bag home, means I can enjoy what I couldn't eat in one go, later on.

Friends are now telling me my face is too thin.  This is the result of ageing and fat deserting my face.  Unfortunately, you can't stick fat back where you want it.  It has to be applied all over unless you have the money for a plastic surgeon to place it artfully where it is needed.  I'm not about to try eating enough to fill out my cheeks and couldn't even if I wanted to.

So, to end this blog, my advice to those of you who can eat well is, enjoy.  If you need to diet, don't do crash diets.  They just confuse the body because it thinks it's in a famine and you'll just end up programming it to gain.  The best way to control your intake is long term discipline, something I've had to acquire thanks to my temperamental tummy.  You don't have to starve yourself thin.  Go about it slowly and don't develop an, "I'll binge now and diet", later mentality.  Discover your body's ideal weight and work at keeping it.  It's also silly to say that any particular food is bad for you or fattening.  It's really all about how much of it you eat.

END

CLOTHES, CLOTHES EVERYWHERE, AND NOT A THING TO WEAR.

 

It occurs to me that, if I live to be one thousand years old, I will never have, in my wardrobe, the perfect outfit for any occasion that just happens to arise.

For example, recently, I had to attend my partner's son's wedding.  It was a daytime wedding followed, later, by an evening through night-time reception and dinner.  It wasn't quite black tie, but it was well dressed.  It was also in an in-between sort of season.  You know the kind, Autumn going into Spring but, potentially, also Summer.  October, in Australia, is a pot luck kind of season.  Although I now live in Queensland, which is north of New South Wales where I grew up in Sydney, October can be fickle, to say the least. In Sydney, just as you were warming up from a cold Winter heralding the promise of Spring, October would blast us with an early heatwave before abating and pretending to be Spring again.  I'm talking in the 90 degrees Farenheit or the high 30's Celcius.

To put this in perspective, Sydney is relatively cooler, on average, than Brisbane where I live now.  Brisbane, however, can also deliver October heatwaves.   This is what caused my clothing conundrum for the wedding.  I had saved the dress from my son's wedding eleven years earlier.  His wedding was in our Australian Autumn of April.  It was an expensive, long sleeved, knee length dress with a bold black and white pattern.  I studied the long sleeves and decided that I would probably end up too hot if I wore the dress.  I have a propensity for overheating at the drop of a hat.

I have a kind neighbour who used to attend the horse races a lot and this required dressing up.  She offered me a selection from her wardrobe and I chose one dress as a standby.  I had tried her dress on in Winter and it fitted, looked nice but not exciting.  It would do.  I wasn't the star of the show, the bride and younger women would be.

The wedding day arrived, hot and sticky so, at the last moment, I put on my neighbour's dress.  Immediately, my skin could not breathe.  If there is one thing I can't wear here in Brisbane, it is any fabric containing polyester.  In Winter it had felt fine, so I didn't check the label.  If I'd realized that the dress was a polyester blend, I would have known it would be too hot on a warm day.  I stood before the mirror contemplating whether I could get through almost twelve hours in the dress.  The wedding was at 1.30pm and finished at 3pm.  The guests then had to find something to do until 5pm when the reception began in a ritzy nightclub in the city, some distance from where the wedding was held.

I doubted I would make it to the threatened hour of midnight, that my partner told me I was expected to remain, up until the bride and groom left.  We agreed I would take off solo at 9.30pm.  That, however, didn't solve the polyester blend dress problem.  Standing alone in my bedroom, partner long gone to attend to his son and make whoopee at a swank hotel, I had to make a decision.  I looked desperately into my wardrobe, which holds items up to thirty years old, classics too good to throw out, and grabbed a twenty-year old purple linen, sleeveless dress that I had had made by a dressmaker.  I had added some gilt edging to the neck at some stage to liven it up.  I had lost six kilograms since wearing it, but it looked okay.

I had also invested in patent beige shoes to go with the borrowed polyester blend dress, and I put these on but, as an afterthought, I took a very ritzy pair of high heeled sandals because I knew my feet would hurt.  I also took a black bolero jacket in case I felt cold.  I never did.  It just became a nuisance to tote around with me.

I arrived at the church, where I met up with my partner, feeling cool but underdressed.  It didn't matter.  All the young women were dressed to the nines and looked gorgeous.  The bride wore a very expensive gown, the material alone costing a fortune.  It was her dream dress and she looked lovely.  In fact, the whole wedding went off beautifully including the reception.  At the end of the service, however, my feet were complaining hugely, and, in the car, I changed to the ritzy sandals which let my bunions out for air.

In spite of all my preparations for the day, I ended up in a make-do twenty-year old dress.  I don't go to many events these days, but it surprised me that I had so little to choose from for this one occasion.  To be honest, I really didn't want to spend money on a new dress that I would rarely wear again.  You buy something for an occasion, and it ends up staring at you forlornly from your wardrobe for the next ten years.

I have tried, over the years, to accumulate a wardrobe that can cope with any occasion that arises, however, life changes and fashion changes.  Even when I think I have classics in my wardrobe, I find they have begun to date.  I've pulled out jackets that I think will do just fine after years of not having worn them, only to discover they have shoulder pads, are too loose or are too 'something'.  Some things stand the test of time, but most do not.

That's not the worst of it.  There are things that, at seventy, I do not feel right wearing any more.  My body is still slim, but I don't feel right wearing a halter dress that shows a lot of my upper back.  There's nothing wrong with my upper back, but I'm seventy.  The really, really galling thing are my arms.  The part of me I thought would never age have creases running vertically down the upper arms.  I will still wear sleeveless dresses, but I just don't get how these lines happened.  My mother was plumper than me and she didn't have them.  I figure that my slimness is the problem.  You really just can't win with age.  The lines are there, not too obvious yet, but they're working on it.

When I watch television and stream movies, I see some very beautiful older actresses who have had plastic surgery.  They look great through the years as they maintain their tweaks and tucks, but then, a little too much tweaking and their faces look startled and gaunt.  Fat departs from the face and botox freezes features.  There comes a time when too much is too much and you have to learn to be your age but, no matter what, you have to be cool, and I'm not going to hide my bad bits.  I shall wear them with pride or, at least, pretend to.

END.

AM I LAZY OR JUST TOTALLY UNMOTIVATED?

 

Image courtesy of Shannon Wheeler.

Is there a fine line between unmotivated and lazy, or does one just lead to the other?  Honestly, I don't know.  I do know that when I have something to do or undertake a project, I go at it full pelt.  Having something to do motivates me.  Finding something to do, however, now that I'm retired and don't have to work, is difficult.  At first, I'd try to find useful things to do to fill my day and, not finding enough, had guilt trips.  What is the point of living if you're not contributing in some way?

This line of thinking became rather tiresome and just led to anxiety as well as to the mindset of digging my heels in and not wanting to do anything, because I was pressuring myself too much.  I've pressured myself all my life and I'm fed up with it.  When am I allowed to do absolutely nothing without guilt?  I know that if I did manage to, I would go stir crazy with boredom anyway.

I will not consider taking up cleaning my house to Good Housekeeping standards to justify my existence.  That is mind numbing stuff.  I do the basics, I'm tidy and hygienic but that is all.  Dust and I, for instance, barely acknowledge one another.  One day when my six-year-old grand-daughter was visiting, she flung herself on our loungeroom ottoman.  To my absolute amazement, a cloud of dust rose up around her.  Her mother was witness to this fantastic sight and so I resolved to vacuum it without further ado.  Every now and then, I also put my glasses on when I am indoors and see the layers of dust on my furniture and force myself to wipe every surface.  It always surprises me when the dust comes back.  It's funny stuff.  You just don't really see it in the air, but it's there.

It occurs to me that it is difficult to do absolutely nothing when you are at home as it is seen as lazy as opposed to being relaxed.  In order to get away with it, one must really be on vacation or on a trip.  This way, sitting around reading a book all day or watching television is condoned.  After all, you're on holiday.  I don't really have the funds for either lately so I must do these things at home, where I will be judged.  Vacations and trips can also prove taxing if you are travelling and must move from one place to the other and take organized tours.  These require effort.  It's an effort that I'm absolutely prepared to take if it's an excursion to the Greek Isles or the Pyramids in Egypt, but not if it's bus trips to places of total disinterest domestically during which people might decide to have singalongs between towns.

I have written about boredom in other blogs and also about hobbies.  In truth, the only thing that really interests me is writing and, sometimes reading, if I can find a good book.  The latter is also difficult.  I have taken to borrowing books from the library again in the last six months. I have read many good books in my time but finding one lately is becoming a quest.  I have read the newly released novels of two well-known crime writers and been appalled.  It is as if they are now being ghost written.  I know this can happen, as I've spoken to a woman who worked in publishing.  I was expressing to her my surprise and disbelief that a particular author managed to bring out a new novel every year in time for Christmas.  I was also amazed that he hadn't died of old age.  She told me that publishers often employed ghost writers to fill in the novels of best-selling authors after the authors themselves wrote the whole plot line.  The ghost writers copy the author's style and fill out the manuscript.

No wonder then, that it's hard for new authors to get a break in the industry, especially as publishers must compete with the internet and online publishing.  Unfortunately, although that resource allows new authors to publish, we miss out on the marketing and advertising that publishers take on for an author.  It is expensive and that is why we want to be accepted by them in the first place.

When I go into my local library, the newly released novels will have little stamps on them like, "Staff's top picks", meaning the library staff.  Most of them also boast, "New York Time's Bestseller".  When I come to that last one now, I go straight past the book.  As sure as it has that label, I will hate it.  I can't believe the dross I have picked up in these last six months.  I have read in this time a couple of new, young female authors, who are both listed in their blurbs as having done creative writing courses at elite universities.  I could tell within the first chapters they had undertaken writing courses as their writing was formulaic.

This isn't sour grapes.  Good luck to them for being published, but I don't want to read what they write.  It was also immature and fit for Cosmopolitan Magazine fiction.  I have, happily, found one author whom I really like.  Kate Atkinson is an English author who can go off on so many tangents, with so many well drawn characters, that I completely lose myself.  I've read five of hers in a row now and need a little break.  I'm also running out of her novels.  A novelist needs to have a unique voice, not one gained from doing a writing course.  There is no template for a novel.  The rule basically is that it needs to have a beginning, a middle and an end with a resolution.  I'm sure some novelists have played with these rules, but then, it depends how artfully they do it.

I've been told by a literary agent, who I phoned for advice, that my latest novel is, 'too long'.  My thoughts are, 'Well, how long is a piece of string?  As long as it needs to be."   She said, "No, it's the publishing costs".   Apparently, that wasn't a consideration with Tolstoy's, "War and Peace", or Margaret Mitchell's, "Gone with the Wind".  Going over one hundred thousand words is not a good idea these days.  Also, she told me that one needs a social media presence and followers.  At this point, I decided to stick with Amazon Publishing.  I'd already reduced the manuscript by thirty thousand words, and I wasn't reducing it anymore.

There is a book I recommend reading regarding Artificial Intelligence and writing and it is, "The Well of Lost Plots" by Jasper Fforde published in 2003.  It is fantasy fiction but very relevant today where AI is writing essays and business letters and the like for people.  In "The Well of Lost Plots", authors are at risk of losing their jobs because a computer program will take over writing novels and the people of BookWorld, a world inhabited by characters from fiction, must fight to save their own lives.  That's a very loose explanation of the plot, however, the novel is very clever and, I thought at the time of reading, very far-sighted.

It is, therefore, also hard to be motivated when I see writing that I personally find uninspiring being published because it will sell easily.  There is also a lot of dross on the Amazon Book site but, because of its sheer size, there are also many good books.  I'm sure many people read the books on Amazon with covers showing men with six pack abdomens and adoring women draped around them, but there are all sorts of novels, including the classics.  Don't always go by the star ratings.  I think people get paid to pump up ratings and some very odd novels have five stars.  You just need the patience to peruse the millions of books on the site and sort the wheat from the chaff.

I now return to my quest to motivate myself into useful occupation or enjoy the sheer abundance, and lack of it, of choice in retirement.

END

HUMANS, THE HIGHEST LIFE FORM. SERIOUSLY!

Apartment Block in Huangzhou, China, housing 11,000 to 22,000 people

Most creatures on this planet spend their lives fighting for survival, but there is one exception - humans.  We consider ourselves to be superior to all the others based on our ability to reason, communicate, invent and have dominion over the rest.  However, in direct contradiction to all this cleverness, is our determination to drive ourselves to extinction.  It is worth noting that no other creature on the planet shares this death wish.  We are supposed to be blessed with foresight, but to all appearances, we aren't using it as we breed ourselves out of existence.

While we turn a global blind eye to population and ignore exponential equations and extrapolation, clever, socially isolated scientists and billionaires are working on ways to send humans to colonize Mars and even further afield.  Firstly, would you really want to live on a barren red planet?  Secondly, there's no place like home and, thirdly, those scientists and billionaires aren't planning on taking a whole lot of people with them.  Can you imagine eight billion people fitting into, say, five to ten space vehicles?  No, you can't.  The resources required to achieve it, let alone in time, simply don't exist.  For such a huge population, the idea is simply unfeasible.

So, let's grow up and stop blaming the burning of fossil fuels, et al, for climate change, shall we?  Those fossils fuels are being burned to sustain the energy needs, industry and travel needs of eight billion people.  The number of cows farting out methane is also based on the number of them being bred to feed the non-vegetarian humans of this world.  Let's also consider the rocket launches, and their associated fuel use, to send satellites into space to feed our addiction to mobile phones and the internet.  Aren't you just a little bit amazed that when a news bulletin shows you images of people in war torn parts of Africa (also courtesy of satellites), where the fleeing residents and rebels are equipped with mobile phones even though they are, apparently, poor?

I also see, via news reports, young, healthy, properly clothed (that is, not in rags) African men overloaded in boats crossing the Mediterranean to escape to a better life.  Some boats include women and children, of course, and some are genuine refugees, but access to the internet in these countries has, I believe, given the people in these poorer countries, an idealized view of life in Europe and elsewhere.  Europe is buckling under the deluge of them.  It is one thing to help immigrants, it is quite another to create economic chaos in your own country so that your own people will need to flee it to get work in the long run.

At base, this comes down to massive overpopulation as well.  Of course, there is a struggle to survive in many African countries.  It's because it is overpopulated and there is also massive corruption.  The overseers of such countries may appear on the media in their tailor-made suits or military uniforms loaded with braid and masses of medals, but no one is actually doing much of anything and that is why they are always having coups, which keep Medecins Sans Frontiers busier than a department store on Christmas Eve.  Coups also just take power from one bunch of corrupt politicians and gives it to another.

Now, getting people to breed less in Africa is a very big ask and I don't really need to spell out why.  China and India really need to get their acts together and address their population issues, by which I mean, they need to make a plan to stabilize their populations.  It will require rigorous education programs, incentives and financial disincentives.   All countries should do the same thing before it gets to the very unpleasant situation of people killing each other for food.

If you don't see that happening in the next thirty to forty years, remember that you are supposedly the species at the top of the evolutionary scale and you have foresight.  I have had people abuse me on Facebook when I have responded to posts regarding population.  I have been moderate and have only suggested people think about where the world population is heading, suggesting couples do not exceed three children.  No one wants a one child only policy, such as the one that failed in China.  I have had women telling me off, saying they can have as many children as they want, it's not my business.  Well, yes, it is my business.  It's everybody's.  They don't live on another planet, and I share this one with them.  The worry is that these people, who do not think of the world they are creating for their offspring, are the ones creating more just like them.

I'm not a dictator, I can only suggest that people think.  It is circumstances that will eventually dictate to us as a species.  Do you think that, if you were invited on one of those rockets taking a very few to a space colony, that there wouldn't be a hierarchy?  It sure won't be Utopia and no one is going to let you breed more than the oxygen supply will support.

I know this is a contentious post but I'm just SO tired of hearing about fossil fuels being the reason for climate change.  The latter is the follow on, the result, of sustaining a population that really can't afford to grow bigger until it finds a more efficient way to produce energy.  Even if we do, do you want to end up living in a high rise such as the one shown on Facebook the other day in Huangzhou, that houses up to twenty-two thousand people?  Do you want the whole world to be as crowded as China and India?

Do you want to crowd the planet so much that other species become extinct? Oh, sorry, that's already happening.  Do you want to beauty of this exceptional planet to be sacrificed for our not very exceptional and transient species?  I'm just grateful I've been able to live here while there is still magnificence left.  If you dream of living in a totally artificial environment to the one that you evolved to fit, go for it, but please leave this Earth intact.

END