A Sobering Thought - Taki's Magazine
“I Am Not A Dress” by
@brandubh4
We are
women, we are warriors of steel.
Woman is
something no man will ever feel.
Woman is
not a skill that any man can hone.
Woman is
our word and it is ours alone.
I am not
a dress to be worn on a whim,
A man in
a dress is nonetheless a him.
Women are
not simply what we wear.
If this
offends you, I do not care.
I am not
an idea in any man’s mind
And my
purpose in life is not to be kind.
So while
my rights are trampled every day of the week,
I will
not stand by being docile and meek.
I am not
defined by sexist lies.
There is
more to a woman than that shallow guise,
That
guise of dresses, bikinis, and skirts.
Those
clothes are not what womanhood is worth.
I am not a
bitch, a TERF, a whore, a slag,
Hysterical,
witch, a slut, a hag.
No, I am
a woman. I am a female,
Who will
not let her rights be put up for sale.
I am not
defined by what men are not,
So to
hell with cis misogynistic rot.
I am a
woman, I’m not as subset of my sex.
If this
makes me a dinosaur, so be it, I’m a T-Rex.
I am not
a bleeder nor a menstruator,
A womb
carrier or a uterus haver.
These
words and phrases are such a sham.
Just call
me woman, it’s who I am.
We are
women, we are warriors of steel.
Woman is
something no man will ever feel.
Woman is
not a skill that any man can hone.
Woman is
our word and it is ours alone.
Call a General Election - Petitions
I would like there to be another General Election.
I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.
Everybody living with a terminal illness should be able to spend the last months and days of their life focusing on what really matters: making memories with their loved ones. But last year 18% of those that died across the UK were living in poverty.
That's over 111,000 people who spent precious time at the end of their lives worrying about how they would make ends meet – struggling to pay their bills, forced to make the impossible choice between food or heating their home, and building up debts that would be passed onto their loved ones after their death.
Life is often more expensive when you live with a terminal diagnosis and, with the rising cost of living, more terminally ill people are being pushed into poverty every year. But it doesn't need to be this way. That's why Marie Curie is calling on the UK Government to act now, and:
Make sure that all people living with a terminal illness have enough income to live their life comfortably until the very end, regardless of what benefits they may receive.
Introduce a social tariff for energy to protect people living with a terminal illness and their households from spiralling energy bills.
Please sign the petition if you agree that the UK Government needs to fix the cost of dying crisis.
At Marie Curie, we've known for a long time that people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness are more likely to experience poverty. Many will lose income after they need to give up or reduce paid work, will face the additional costs of assistance with aspects of daily living like transport and personal care, and will have to pay out of pocket for home adaptations or specialist equipment. On top of this, alongside the rising cost of living, people living with a terminal illness often have energy bills that are thousands of pounds higher than the average household’s due to the added energy needed for symptom management.
When the cost of living increases, so does the cost of dying. The UK Government needs to confront rising poverty rates head-on, and address the additional costs that people living with a terminal illness face.
An Answer to Inequity (by Theodore
Dalrymple)
Whenever I hear the word equity, my heart sinks, though I
won’t go as far as to say that I reach for my Browning. My irritation on
hearing the word is recent, however: I don’t think I would have reacted the
same way forty years ago, when it was rarely used outside the context of the law.
Woke ideology has given equity—the quality of fairness or impartiality—a
bad name, because in wokespeak equity as traditionally understood is deemed
inequitable. For example, to be color-blind (as far as individuals of different
human races is concerned) is to be equitable in the old sense, but inequitable
in the new sense because such equity does not necessarily lead to equality of
outcome, in fact it is pretty certain not to do so.
According to wokespeak, equity is that which leads to equality of outcome
between both groups and individuals, and therefore compels unfairness in its
treatment of both groups and individuals. As Orwell put it in Nineteen
Eight-Four, freedom is slavery.
“Woke ideology has
given equity—the quality of fairness or impartiality—a bad name.”
The fundamental error in all this was pointed out by Thomas Sowell, who
thought that modern liberals, and a fortiori those who were
woke, were in search of cosmic justice, that is to say a situation in which the
universe, the world, and the whole of human life could and should be made
perfectly fair. The English novelist L.P. Hartley lampooned this idea in 1960
in his novel Facial Justice, in which people who, through no merit
of their own, were particularly good-looking were forced to go through surgery
to make them only average-looking; and thus the prejudice in favor of the
good-looking would be overcome. Unfortunately, lampoons have a quality of
prophecy about them these days.
The demand for equality of outcome is, at heart, a revolt against the
very notion of justice, since justice as normally conceived implies desert. But
according to woke ideology, there is no such thing as desert, since everyone is
the product of his genes over which he has no control and his circumstances
over which he equally has no control. Hence justice can only be the equal
repartition of the goods of this world, without reference to individual
abilities or efforts.
Let us take a startling recent example of what the woke would no doubt
call inequity: It appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine. A
study of firearm injuries suffered by minors in the St. Louis, Missouri,
region, of which there were 1,340 cases in ten years, found that those who had
been injured once were at high risk of being injured again shortly afterward, 6
percent in one year and 14 percent in five years. This, of course, is
inequitable in itself: Surely the risk should be spread evenly throughout the
population?
But the greatest inequity was in the sex and race of the injured. 84
percent were male, 12 percent were white, and 87 percent were black. Of those
who suffered a second firearm injury, 98 percent were black.
The policy implications from the point of view of equity are obvious.
Since it is far easier to get people to behave worse than to get them to behave
better, the gross underrepresentation of females in the statistics suggests
that everything possible should be done to encourage more firearm injuries
among female minors, to bring them up to scratch, as it were, with male minor
firearm injuries. And it does indeed seem to be that some slight efforts in
this direction are being made: For example, the ratio of films in which young
women carry Kalashnikovs to those who carry handbags has risen very quickly of
late. This can only be applauded by those for whom firearm injury equity is
important, but more must be done.
The racial disparity must also be addressed. It would surely be wrong,
even if it were possible, to reduce firearm injuries among black minors; for
that would, or at least might, imply that there was something not quite right
about the way they, or their parents and neighbors, were living, and this would
wound their self-esteem.
The better and more practicable approach would be to increase the rate
of firearm injuries among white minors, if necessary by the handout of guns
with little precautionary information to such minors. Moral education, to the
effect that retribution or armed robbery is normal, might also be helpful.
The fact that the disparity is even greater among those who suffer more
than one firearm injury must also be addressed, by for example discouraging the
parents of the minors who have been shot once from taking precautions against a
second episode. Perhaps a system of rewards for those injured more than once
could be instituted, along the lines of the heroines-of-motherhood awards in
communist countries for mothers who had more than five children.
For those who would say that firearm injuries are bad in themselves, I
would reply that first, they are the consequence of self-expression, which is
vitally important, especially for the downtrodden, and second, that attempts at
reduction must be very cautious, lest they widen disparities further. For
example, if you could reduce the number of firearm injuries suffered by black
minors by twenty and those of white minors by ten, which superficial thinkers
or conservatives might thoughtlessly welcome, the disparity between blacks and
whites, already wide, would widen yet further, and thus would inequity
increase.
Years ago, I heard a British minister say that she was determined to
eliminate all the disparities between men and women—she
repeated all. I asked whether she meant that men should live longer
or women shorter lives. At this point, a civil servant jumped out from the background
to defend her minister from the need to think for herself and not merely in
clichés, as was her wont. “That,” said the civil servant, “is not a serious
question,” though in fact it went straight to the heart of the matter.
But in this vale of tears, it seems, going straight to the heart of the
matter is both unwelcome and unimportant. The mouthing of sentiments without
examination of their presuppositions, their implications, their corollaries,
and their consequences is all that is necessary to obtain a reputation for
wisdom and goodness.
Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is Ramses: A Memoir,
published by New English Review.
An Answer to
Inequity - Taki's Magazine
The Envoy (by Jane Hirshfield)
One day in that room, a small rat.
Two days later, a snake.
Who, seeing me enter,
whipped the long stripe of his
body under the bed,
then curled like a docile house-pet.
I don’t know how either came or left.
Later, the flashlight found nothing.
For a year I watched
as something—terror? happiness? grief?—
entered and then left my body.
Not knowing how it came in,
Not knowing how it went out.
It hung where words could not reach it.
It slept where light could not go.
Its scent was neither snake nor rat,
neither sensualist nor ascetic.
There are openings in our lives
of which we know nothing.
Through them
the belled herds travel at will,
long-legged and thirsty, covered with foreign dust.
𝗜 𝗦𝗮𝘄 𝗛𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 (by
Marge Piercy)
Nothing moves in a straight line,
But in arcs, epicycles, spirals and
gyres.
Nothing living grows in cubes, cones,
or rhomboids,
But we take a little here and we give
a little there,
And the wind blows right through us,
And blows the apples off the tree,
and hangs a red kite suddenly there,
And a fox comes to bite the apples
curiously,
And we change.
Or we die
And then change.
It is many as raindrops.
It is one as rain.
And we eat it, and it eats us.
And fullness is never,
And now.
This 15-week course presents a theoretical, historical and social scientific analysis of cultural socialism. Uniquely among university courses worldwide, it focuses attention on the western cultural left and its accompanying symbolic system of wokeness – defined as the sacralization of minority identity.
The aim is to assess woke in an empirical and analytical manner rather than from a particular political or normative position.
The course begins by defining terms and setting out competing theories regarding the origin and reproduction of wokeness in the West. Students will obtain a grounding in the history, ideology, organizational dynamics, public opinion, electoral implications, policy aspects and philosophy of this idea. This will involve consideration of how woke interacts with classical liberalism, populism and conservatism to produce a recursive radicalizing pattern, abetting polarization. Woke will also be examined in light of global population shifts and techno-economic developments.
The course is non-credit bearing, with students able to select from one of three options:
This is for prospective students who are interested in completing:
OR
Seminars and in-person classes begin in October 2024.
Woke: the Origins, Dynamics and Implications of an Elite Ideology | University of Buckingham