Postmodernist


DIY euthanasia

“An instructional video on the first step in making a euthanasia pill has been released…” and director of Exit International, Philip Nitschke, says that “the possibility is there for those who wish to act on the information.”

Dictionary defined, euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma; mercy killing; assisted suicide.

Basically a step-by-step euthanasia video, Betty Cooks with Sodium, is to be released in South Australia this week, and will be followed by workshops available only to those 50 years and over.

Surmising that my appalled reaction must be an indication of ignorance, I did a pathetic amount of research on the topic – see clip link below – and conclude that I actually have no strong objections to the pill itself. However, I think announcing its methods of production to the public isn’t a very good idea (FYI suicide rates are rising in Australia, see here.) But people need choice.

Article: here

Clip: here

Exit International: here

Advertisements


A Clockwork Orange
April 14, 2008, 4:02 am
Filed under: Film | Tags: , , ,

Was told it “fucks with your mind.” The story follows a man, Alex, who is your stereotypical-remorseless-violent-rebel-rapist-killer, who finally gets caught by the police when his friends turn on him. He is reformed in prison through unrealistic torture-like practices. Erm.. listening to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is supposed to turn a hardened criminal? The twist, however, suggests that he is not reformed within. At least I liked the message of the film – once a criminal, always a criminal (recidivist phenomena!) Anyway, the moral of the film is by no means a good reason to watch it – after just managing to sit through the repulsive beginning of the film – rape, rape, violence, and rape – I forced myself to watch it to the end and concluded that it was a waste of time. I wonder why I have this low opinion of it? Everyone that I’ve questioned about A Clockwork Orange has a great appreciation for it.



Insomnia
April 11, 2008, 9:29 am
Filed under: Insomnia | Tags: , , , ,

This insanity inducing phenomenon which keeps me fatigued and unnaturally active via a sadistic fraternization, could be any of the following: (bah!! what!? lack of sleep makes me say these things…)

1. Delayed sleep-phase syndrome where it is common for people to fall asleep after midnight, sleep soundly, and then have trouble waking up in the morning. They won’t feel drowsy if they are able to keep to their sleeping routine (ie. 4am to Noon.)
C. This is not me, because I will stay up till 4am, go to sleep, then wake up naturally at 7am very, very tired all day. (And I don’t nap.)

2. Obstructive sleep apnea which is characterised by pauses in the breathing during sleep. The sleeping individual is unlikely to be aware of this, but indicators are loud snoring, restless sleep, and sleepiness during the day. If this is you, in a worst case scenario you will develop a severe form of congestive heart failure called corpulmonale.
C. I am thankful that I do not have this.

3. Insomnia means you have difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep. Consequently you wake up grumpy and will experience functional impairment when attempting trivial tasks, such as typing an email – ir ceoemes veru diffiecult.
C. Yes. But not so much “difficult” as “I jist cannae be bothered.”

4. Nocturnal polyuria is when you get up to pee, all night long – very disturbing to sleep.
C. Not my problem. Surely this only happens to bad people?

This is by no means a thoroughly explained or exhaustive list, but what I was looking for was evidence – cited or claimed – that sleep deprivation can kill you, and I did not come across any, so that is good.



Lysistrata
April 10, 2008, 2:13 pm
Filed under: Feminism | Tags: , , , , , ,

Something that interests (enrages, rather) me immensely is the concept of female-male relationships now and in the past. Clearly injustice is a word commonly used to describe the gender situation throughout time, and I agree. The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir describes the concept of the One and the Other. In the case of female-male relationships Beauvoir argues that men have, from the beginning of time, appointed themselves as the One(s), and have thus appointed women the less important title of the Other. This apparent submission in women has thus shaped the way that we are both perceived in society, and more importantly the way that we have over time been conditioned to dress, act, and feel a certain way. Women were (and continue to be, but this can be argued) moulded into a social ‘norm’ where they were expected to be submissive, quiet, agreeable, feminine, and weak. Men similarly were denied these freedoms (is that a good way to put it?) are were expected to be masculine, strong, powerful, and dominating. This has its implications. To cut it short, women did the cooking while men discussed politics.

LysistrataNow this brings me to the play, Lysistrata. I have never seen the play, nor have I read the script – all I know about it is that it comes up a lot in Feminist papers and discussions and, of course, I know what I can find on the internet. The basic plot of the play is that women go on a sex strike and refuse to give their husbands what they biologically crave to try to convince them to end the Peloponnesian War.
Researching Lysistrata I was reading through reviews of the play and found a BMCR review saying the following,
“The sexual theme is just an attention-grabber. … the women turn the city into an extended household and seize control of the actual polis – not as “intruders” but as reconcilers and healers.”
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/lysistrata/a/lysistrata.htm
Image taken from: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Texts/Aristophanes/Lysistrata.html

I feel that this makes a very strong comment on women’s political standing and perceived ability, that women had (have) no understanding of war and politics (they belong in the home), and the only way that they were able to get in the public eye – in this case to make a statement/voice their opinions in a protest – was to use their sexuality. My point is woman’s sexuality, not woman’s intellect. Regardless, they are still ridiculed!!
So is sex appeal really the only way that woman was able to make an impact? If so, does this hold true in modern, Western society?
Texts that answer these questions are in abundance, but my problem is that they appear to be written with bias against the opposing parties – feminists vs. males and males vs. feminists.

I’m a feminist (look it up before you conjure up false images of the definition) but I am also a skeptic at the best of times. I believe in the existence of inequality in modern times, but to what extent does this inequality affect women? And to what extent does it affect men? No more writing :) but something to think about.