Wednesday 26 November 2014

?Awesome Mix Vol.2?

Go, Star-Lord...

So, I'm going to go and say it. The Guardians Of The Galaxy Awesome Mix Volume 1 soundtrack, imo, is the best soundtrack of this year. True music that really gets us singing and that's good for the soul. However, at the end of GOTG, we see that Peter Quill's mother's gift to Peter just before she dies is a new cassette tape. 'Awesome Mix Vol.2'. Now, while it's fairly obvious that AMV2 will appear in GOTG2, many people are creating their own playlists showcasing what they think should be on the next cassette tape.

Given that this is happening, I started pondering what I would put on AMV2 were I the music director for the film. So, here's my list.



1. 'Old Time Rock And Roll' by Bob Seger
For some reason, I can just imagine Quill listen to this while the other Guardians put their fingers in their ears. However, this song covers the sentiment of Awesome Mix Vol.1, a lot of which had numerous rock elements to it. It also fits the criterion of the songs that would appear on these cassettes. (The fact that Peter's mum died in 1988 so basically anything she'd have listened to as a teen and just before Peter was born. So this would be a good addition because it adequately covers all of Awesome Mix Vol.1. To me anyway.


2. 'Go Your Own Way' by Fleetwood Mac
Again, it fits the criterion but it's also something slightly different to AMV1. Fleetwood didn't appear on AMV1 but this song would be good for an intro sequence perhaps, showing what the Guardians have done since the first film. Also, who doesn't like Fleetwood? Rumours is a personal favourite album of mine so it made sense for this song. which is their most commercial and one of their most famous, to be included on my list.


3. 'Baba O'Riley' by The Who

Now, let's get some British-ness in here shall we? This song would adequately sum up the Guardian's experience in space. "I don't need to fight to prove I'm right, I don't need to be forgiven" is in some ways the mantra of the Guardians themselves so this song works perfectly in that aspect. Also, being released in 1971, it's very possible this would've come out in Miss Quill's formative years. The Who were big around this time and it's one of the two songs from this album that have been praised. So it'd make a good song for those reasons.


4. 'A Horse With No Name' by America


A bit of a boring choice but I think it could work. Not one of my favourite songs ever but I think it could work on the soundtrack just to give it some variety. Used for a more sombre scene perhaps. Or perhaps we'll see Chris Pratt copy his new Ninja Cowboy Viking vibe for GOTG2?


5. 'Crazy Train' by Ozzy Osbourne

The only metal song on this playlist. I know it might seem odd to put Ozzy in this sequence but I think Crazy Train would be an interesting addition. Released in 1980, it fits the criterion but I also think that it could work for a ship scene. Possibly at the end? Either way, I just think it would make a weird yet workable addition to the soundtrack. I might be wrong but that's just my opinion! Feel free to disagree!


6. 'Seven Seas Of Rhye' by Queen
Ok, I'm a massive Queen fan and I couldn't help but put one of their songs on. I saw one playlist which suggested having Bohemian Rhapsody in AMV2 but I think that'd be too obvious a choice. I think something a little more obscure in their back catalogue yet one that people will know would be a better option. Like this song which was effectively their first break-through single. Until Killer Queen and BoRap of course! Anyway, it's just a fun song. Don't you think? I CHALLENGE THE MIGHTY TITAN AND HIS TROUBADOURS...reference to Thanos?


7. 'Fool To Cry' by The Rolling Stones
Ok, I have a slight admission to make. I'd originally put a Beatles song in the list when I was first compiling it and I felt that, for balance sake, I need to put the Stones in it. Anyway, The Beatles got replaced with Ozzy but I like this song. It's a similar vibe to 10cc's 'I'm Not In Love' on AMV1 so I thought, instead of changing it, keep it. Also, this could be apt for the possibility that Quill meets his dad in GOTG2?


8. '20th Century Boy' by T.Rex
Let's face it, Quill is a 20th Century Boy. So it'd kinda be his anthem. Plus, Bolan is brilliant! I can imagine Peter's mum totally being a Bolan fan. The man's a legend! Plus, it's fun to listen to. Weird lyrics but fun to listen to! So why not. Bolan! Also, it's pure glam rock at its best!


9. 'Wuthering Heights' by Kate Bush
Now, I know what you're thinking. "Kate Bush!? The hell Josh!" But hear me out. It's a fun song to listen to and it kinda fits in with the instrumental criteria of AMV1. Although it's not lyrically related to ANYTHING on GOTG, I can imagine this song focussing on Gamora or something. Also, Kate Bush is awesome! Why would you not put Kate Bush on a soundtrack as prestigious as this. (Ok, I am fan-boying a little bit...)


10. 'It's A Long Way To The Top If You Wanna Rock And Roll' by AC/DC
You had this kind of rock on AMV1. So why not stick with the same theme? This song is awesome and, again, fits with the instrumental qualities of AMV1. Except now you have a big name on it. Not one of their most famous tracks but still a pretty awesome song. It's also a pretty bad-ass song anyway. I could imagine this as being somewhere near the end. Possibly the scenes going into the credits too or something.


11. 'Born To Run' by Bruce Springsteen
Another person I'm a fan of. I love Springsteen and I think that, this song in particular, should be on the mixtape. Admittedly, I did have an internal battle whether to choose this or Thunder Road as both would be apt but I eventually rationalised that this song would better suit the Guardians themselves. The open sky and a ship going anywhere in the galaxy. Also, this album in particular put Springsteen into the stratosphere. This song and Thunder Road are both kind of road trip-esque songs so it made sense to put this on!


12. 'Tiger Feet' by Mud
Finally, to top off this list of my own personal contributions to what could possibly be Marvel history, Les Gray and Mud with their hit 'Tiger Feet'. Again, glam rock, so it's very anthemic and just a bit of fun to listen to. I can imagine Rocket perhaps singing this one while Drax got confused with the metaphors. It also kind of follows the theme of The Runaways' 'Cherry Bomb' on AMV1 so we're still having little stylistic nods to the first soundtrack. I can imagine Groot rocking out to this at some stage. I reckon Groot would be good in a mosh or at a disco.

So yes, that concludes our broadcast day.

Feel free to criticise any choice I've made on here and suggest your own additions or replacements in the comments below!

Happy listening folks!

All that's left to say is...

I AM GROOT.

Sunday 23 November 2014

Were The Tables Turned... [Fiction]

Love transcends...

"It’s been 10 years since he died. 10 years. Though it never feels like 10 years. It always feels like he died yesterday. Or the day before. It normally feels like yesterday to be honest. I can still remember the way he looked at me as he collapsed. I have nightmares about that face. I have dreams in which I saved him and caught him when he fell. But most times I just relive the moment over and over and it breaks my heart more each time. Every time the anniversary comes around it just feels like hours rather than years. It’s weird that, isn't it?

Of course, I'm not the only one who mourned. All our friend's mourned and all our family. Even some people in town that he'd helped over the years! He worked at the youth club at night for 30 years and he did odd jobs for people when they needed help. He was even mayor at one point! But there's a difference between the way I mourned him and how the town mourned him. The town remember him as John Kent: South African friend, handyman, youth worker, philanthropist who died at 77. But I remembered him as John Kent: South African human, husband, father, brother and soul-mate who died at 77. The town didn't know him like I did. Or how his children or his siblings did.

I still remember, even though I’m 87 and very old and losing my mind a bit, the first day I met John. It was February 1945 and it was a rainy day. I was waiting for a date actually. I wasn’t expecting much from it. Maybe a couple more dates, maybe even a bit of holding hands. Maybe something more but I didn’t dream of that. Anyway, we’re in this café in Morpeth. I’d seen John around but I hadn’t properly met him as I’d been off round the country making munitions for the war effort. I’m sat in the corner waiting for my date who never showed when John walks over to me. I look up at him and that was it. I was…amazed. He was so handsome that day. And he came over and he said to me “you seem to be on your lonesome, dear” so I confirmed his assumption to which he said “well, would you like some company?” and I suddenly felt star struck. I’d been slightly obsessed with this guy as I’d seen him around town in a uniform, and he was offering to keep me company after my date ditched me! That was a surreal moment. But I can honestly say that’s the moment I fell in love with him. I’d been dubious about love at first sight before that moment but then it happened and I believed. I still believe. And, as much as I love my life and my family, I can’t wait until I’m with him again. And I know he’d say the same were the tables turned…”


***************


"It’s been 10 years since she died. 10 years. Though it never feels like 10 years. It always feels like she died yesterday. Or the day before. It normally feels like yesterday to be honest. I can still remember the way she looked at me as she collapsed. I have nightmares about that face. I have dreams in which I saved her and caught her when she fell. But most times I just relive the moment over and over and it breaks my heart more each time. Every time the anniversary comes around it just feels like hours rather than years. It’s weird that, isn't it?

Of course, I'm not the only one who mourned. All our friend's mourned and all our family. Even some people in town that she'd helped over the years! She volunteered for the WI at night for 30 years and she did odd jobs for people when they needed help and helped with the carnival and with the rebuilding after the war. But there's a difference between the way I mourned her and how the town mourned her. The town remember her as Eleanor Kent: friend, volunteer, gardener, philanthropist who died at 77. But I remembered her as Eleanor Kent: human, wife, mother, sister and soul-mate who died at 77. The town didn't know her like I did. Or how her children or her siblings did.

I still remember, even though I’m 87 and very old and losing my mind a bit, the first day I met Eleanor. It was February 1945 and it was a rainy day. I was waiting for a friend actually. I wasn’t expecting much from it as they were awful with keeping time. Maybe a couple of drinks at the cafe and then at the pub. Perhaps even in the next village but I didn’t dream of that. Anyway, I'm in this café in Morpeth. I’d seen Eleanor around but I hadn’t properly met her as I’d been off on the base doing drills and basic training in case I was called up for the war. I’m stood at the counter waiting for my friend who never showed when I see Eleanor in the corner on her own. So I walked over to her. I look down at her and that was it. I was…mesmerized. She was beautiful. The most beautiful thing I'd ever seen in my 19 years. I said to her “you seem to be on your lonesome, dear”. She confirmed this assumption to which I said “well, would you like some company?” She said yes and I suddenly felt star struck. I’d been slightly infatuated with this girl as I’d seen her around town in a stunning red dress one time, and I was sitting with her after my friend ditched me! That was a surreal moment. But I can honestly say that’s the moment I fell in love with her. I’d been dubious about love at first sight before that moment but then it happened and I believed. I still believe. And, as much as I love my life and my family, I can’t wait until I’m with her again. And I know she’d say the same were the tables turned…”

Saturday 22 November 2014

MY SONG OF THE YEAR: 2014

Here we go...

Last year, I made a post where I crowned my own personal song of the year. Not that it matters a dime but, as a musician and music fan, I'm always on the look out for new songs to fall in love. So, I've compiled my favourite new songs from this year to crown a number 1. Last year's champion was from British tech metal group 'TesseracT' with a song called Resist which I praised for its slow start but brilliant gradual build-up and eventual breakdown at the end.

However, this year's winner is a different song entirely. But let's have a look at the shortlist for this year.

1. 'Free' by Brent Walsh
2. 'Yellow Flicker Beat' by Lorde
3. 'Blank Space' by Taylor Swift
4. 'Edge Of A Revolution' by Nickelback
5. 'Something From Nothing' by Foo Fighters
6. 'Come On Over' by Royal Blood
7. 'All About That Bass' by Meghan Trainor
8. 'I'm Not The Only One' by Sam Smith
9. 'Let Me In Your Heart Again' by Queen

Now, I must admit, even though a few of these are pop songs, I've really enjoyed them for some reason this year. I can't explain why I've just enjoyed them.

However, the song I've picked as my song of the year this year has many reasons behind why I've picked it. Here are some of them:

- The moment I heard it, I fell in love with it. It just sat well with me.
- It's not what I'd normally listen to so I was pleasantly surprised when I heard it and realised I liked it.
- The production on the song is incredible. The instrumental is somewhat minimal but it's effective for the song.
- The song features one of my new all-time favourite lyrics. "I'm locking up everyone who ever laid a finger on me". Despite the fact this artist is known for this type of song, I just love that lyric. I just love the semantics around it.
- I can relate to it on a certain level.

Now, I have to admit, when I heard that new Queen songs were being released, I automatically thought that the lead single, 'Let Me In Your Heart Again', would be my song of the year because I'm such a Freddie fan-boy. But sadly, it's only second! I do feel like I'm cheating on Freddie slightly with my choice but hey, I'm human. So I'll share it anyway just because it's Freddie but it didn't hit me as hard as the song I have chosen.

So here it is. But before I do, people who know me well might be surprised by this decision. But please remember I do have a very eclectic music taste and I only happened to come across it by chance initially anyway. So here it is.

My song of the year 2014 is:

....


.....

.......



.........




...........





...........




......


'Yellow Flicker Beat' by Lorde

I just find the song nice to listen to. I've always been keen on Lorde and this one just does it for me. So I'm sorry Freddie, you'll always be my favourite. It's just Lorde beat you this time round.

Hope you all have a lovely Christmas and a Happy New Year!







Oh, and here's the Queen song just because IT'S FREAKING QUEEN :D



Wednesday 12 November 2014

An Open Post To Katie Hopkins

I gave in.

I've refrained from talking about you for some time as, in the greater scheme of things, you're really not worth the energy. But I'm really pissed off at this so I'm gonna vent.

Katie Hopkins.

You are possibly the most annoying, hypocritical and opinionated woman in the country. The woman who makes Jeremy Clarkson look like Jesus. The woman who thought it was stupid to name your child after a place despite having a daughter called India. The woman who criticised the McCanns and who described Margaret Thatcher as "prey". (I don't like Thatcher, but you and I both know she was anything but).

Well, now, it appears you've crossed (another) line. So much so; people are calling for your arrest. And, imo, quite rightly so.

Over the past few days, you have put some vile things up in Twitter that have targeted Muslims, Palestinians and Ebola victims. Let's look at what you've said shall we?

"Palestinians busy knifing Israelis. 2 state solution my arse. Filthy rodents burrowing beneath Israel. Time to restart the bombing campaign".

I'm going to concentrate on just this one because that's the one that pissed me off most.

Ok. Firstly, you're effectively regurgitating what Joan Rivers said before she died. Just because she's gone, it doesn't mean you are her rightful successor. Also, not that I'm justifying what Rivers said, but Rivers had more of a personal connection to the situation compared to you on the account she was Jewish and, yes, Hamas have killed some Israeli Jews hence her annoyances. But secondly, you seriously need to read up on the history. I know you've made comments in the past how Britain's good and stuff, but did you know we're partially responsible for the creation of the Israeli state? 

After the end of the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine became a British Mandate (also after our conquest of Syria). In the following years following the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which favoured the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine (taken from US Department of State's Office of History website), there was an influx of Jewish refugees into the region which happened well into the Second World War and beyond.

Now, after the Second World War, the Americans were keen on the idea of a Jewish state to be created but refused to without consulting other Arab regions in the immediate area. The UK opposed this initially as it wanted to maintain control of Palestine as well as good political and economic ties in the region. However, to cut a long story short, after talk of division in the state itself, a UN resolution and the official recognition of Israel as a state.

The Palestinians did not ask for us or the Americans to intervene in their geo-politics and effectively doom them to almost unending conflict. 

And also, don't paint ALL Palestinians with the same brush you stupid woman. I personally pro-Palestine in the whole Israel v Palestine, but in the context of pro-Palestine-population. (I'm not keen on Hamas personally speaking). I'm also not naive in realising that Hamas don't do awful things as well as the Israelis. There have been reports of Hamas using citizens as human shields which I think are very likely but Hamas as a para-military wing and the Palestinian population as a whole are two separate entities. Whether it's true or not that some Palestinians have stabbed Israelis, that would be, at most, a small group and not a group that represents the actions or wishes of the whole Palestinian people. And what's your proposed response to an isolated knife attack? Bombs. Because that's measured.

The truth is Katie, you may not realise it or indeed want to realise it but you're actually promoting and condoning the killing of a people in what is effectively a slow genocide. 

Using your logic, we should bomb every town in the UK where there's a stabbing. 

Do you see how silly that sounds? 

Just because there's a conflict in the West Bank, it doesn't change the dynamic so much that the logic you're using becomes the dominant thought process. 

God forbid you ever get in charge of a country or a military. I'm aware you attended Sandhurst for a time, I'm also aware why you stood down from it. But I think that might have been for the best in the long run if that's your mentality during a war. 

If you don't want people to like or respect you, then carry on saying what you're saying because you're succeeding at that with flying colours. But if you DO want people to like or respect you, then clean up your act and actually form considered and educated arguments for a change rather than just saying provocative and ill-thought-out comments. Because you're not a nice woman. And when you say things like this, a very touchy subject to many, people do hate you more. Which every time we don't think that's possible, you prove us wrong. And also, please explain to us what you think gives you the right to say what you want and think that you can get away with it? Because I'm intrigued to know what goes on inside your head. And god forbid your kids pick up your opinions quite frankly.

Anyway. You seriously need to think about what you say before you say it. Because you're not a popular woman, you're not nice and you're not widely-respected either. So stop with the whole God complex thing?

Yours angrily

Joshua Frampton.

Saturday 8 November 2014

Doctor Who - SERIES 8 Review [PART ONE]

Or: "Moffat Needs To Go [Part One]"

If you've watched the 8th series of (New) Doctor Who, you'll have noticed 3 things.

1. Peter Capaldi is an excellent Doctor who has matured over the series. He has the right mix of hero and alien with some darker elements too.
2. Clara has really come into her own. Whether you like her or not, a few episodes have been strong for her.
3. The writing has gotten progressively worse. (Namely with the stories Steven Moffat has had a heavy involvement in).

Now seeing as, for the Brits, the series ended about an hour ago, I'd like to review Part One series (Episodes 1-7) in my own opinion*. So let's start right back in August.


8.1: DEEP BREATH (by Steven Moffat) - In which a dinosaur spits out the Tardis in Victorian London, we learn Strax can throw as well as Abu Hamza playing cricket and the Clockwork Droids return but the Doctor refuses to recognise David Tennant's existence.

The first episode of a new Doctor. What can we expect? Humour? Regeneration energy? Confused associates? HOW ABOUT A BIG ASS DINOSAUR IN VICTORIAN LONDON (WHICH THE DOCTOR ATTEMPTS TO FLIRT WITH), AN OBSESSION WITH OXYGEN RETENTION AND ATTACK EYEBROWS!? Sound good to you? Yes Peter Capaldi's first adventure as the Time Lord was a rushed story which started with the, somewhat, usual story of the regeneration affecting the Doctor weirdly which then progressed with the Doctor running off after his beloved dinosaur spontaneously combusted before finally returning in a homeless guy's outfit in a restaurant run by Moffat's creepy creations, the Clockwork Droids. After a long dialogue and realisation scene, the Doctor runs away, leaving Clara to play detective before magically rescuing her and possibly committing murder. It's a roller coaster of an episode if you can look past the shocking writing, the thinly veiled attempts at humour by exploiting Strax's Sontaran impulses and the fact Capaldi is actually kind of absent in this episode, it's not bad. The best thing about it for me was the inter-species-lesbian-kiss-come-life support. But THAT got the most complaints. Hmm. JOSHUA'S RATING: 5/10


8.2: INTO THE DALEK (by Phil Ford and Steven Moffat) - In which the plot to Innerspace is somewhat plagarised but instead of being injected into an unsuspecting man in a lift, they're injected into a faulty Dalek. Who seems to recover by the flick of a switch and we meet Danny Pink, another character you have a limited time to fall in love with before something bad happens to him.

OH MY GOD. THEY'RE GOING INSIDE A DALEK. WE'RE GOING TO SEE DEEPER INTO A DALEK. OH MY GOD THIS IS SO EXCITING. Oh wait. This is like 'Journey To The Centre Of The Tardis' and a let down. So much promise. The Doctor, Clara and a few other people get miniaturized and put inside a Dalek to repair it after it claims that the Daleks are evil and need to die. (Seriously, why would you try to fix that? Use it as an ally ffs). Anyway, we find out that the Dalek has an immune system that can kill. (Because obviously Davros foresaw the exploration of Daleks in the distant future). So, to test it, the Doctor tricks someone into dying before eventually working out how to get around it. After the team unwittingly turn the Dalek's evil mode back on, the Doctor attempts to have a mental struggle with it so that it would re-convert back to its good self. Although this may all sound good on paper, it was actually very poorly written, very rushed, and a bit of a disappointment. JOSHUA'S RATING: 2/10


8.3: ROBOT OF SHERWOOD (by Mark Gatiss) - In which the Doctor gets proven wrong about the existence of Robin Hood, Gold seems to be the main plot device and there's a distinct lack of Jonas Armstrong**.

In my opinion, the first decent episode of the series. Clara decides she wants to meet Robin Hood, but the Doctor rebuffs the idea and decides to be proven wrong. However, it appears Clara's right and he does exist although the Doctor disputes that he's actually a robot until the last 10 minutes of the episode. Although the premise seems a little unimpressive, the writing, directing and filming is absolutely brilliant as well as the acting. Tom Riley, who plays Hood, does an excellent portrayal of the legendary hero of Sherwood Forest and Ben Miller, who plays the Sheriff of Nottingham, also performs an excellent role, although a little under-used I think. Capaldi plays the Doctor as a very prickly character in this episode but it works well with the dialogue between him and Riley, especially in the dungeon scene. However, it is hard to look past the fact that, despite Robin pining for Marion, he's happy to chase Clara who practically goes fan-girl for the story. Also, if you go to the Doctor Who Experience in Cardiff and see one of the robots up close, it really makes you appreciate the upward camera shot. Very humorous, very creative and definitely one of the more entertaining episodes of the series. JOSHUA'S RATING: 7/10


8.4: LISTEN (by Steven Moffat) - In which this stereotypical Moffat story has everything you'd expect. Questions, more questions, and a real mind-bender of the concept of time and reality by all accounts.

As you may have noticed by now, I'm not a huge fan of Moffat's writing for Doctor Who. 'The Day Of The Doctor' was, by all accounts, phenomenal, (though I do have qualms) but I find most of his writing as show-runner stupid, terrible and reckless. However, when I saw the trailer for this episode, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt as it looked quite good. This is why I have trust issues. The start of it, and the basic idea of the antagonist, was good. Something under your bed, a primal human fear (which I seemingly missed out on. I was more concerned about the Muppets running around my room at night...long story). And this was, at first, interestingly tackled. You had the scene with young Danny Pink in a childrens home who was scared of something under his bed. When Clara investigates, something appears in the bed looking very creepy indeed. Now, this was great! If it wasn't for the fact that we kept having scenes with Clara on failed dates with Danny Pink or that we suddenly got ORSON Pink who was a time-travel pioneer despite the fact that we'd already met one in 'Hide' a year previously. So now we get an implied notion that Orson is a relative of Danny Pink and, perhaps, Clara! (Remember that, this becomes important when I cover the finale...) The end of the episode shows that, for one person, Clara is under the bed. But as for everyone else in existence, WHO FREAKING KNOWS. WE NEVER GET TOLD. Sleep tight, kids. JOSHUA'S RATING: 5/10


8.5: TIME HEIST (by Stephen Thompson and Steven Moffat) - In which the Doctor, Clara and two others attempt to rob the most secure bank in the universe under someone else's instruction. However, because it's Stephen Thompson and Steven Moffat writing it, it's guaranteed to screw you over once again.

The first half of the series should have a tagline: "With the exception of Episode 3, this half of the series sounds good, but actually we could've spent more time making it so much better on screen!" From the man who brought you JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE TARDIS comes another mind bender that doesn't quite make sense and, is really, just a disappointing filler episode. It consists of the Doctor, Clara, a human Apple Mac and one of Charles Xavier's students on day release, all attempting to break into the Bank of Karabraxos, THE MOST IMPREGNABLE BANK IN EXISTENCE. Except they manage to do it because it's not much of an episode if they failed and, if Orange Is The New Black is anything to go by, Clara wouldn't survive long in prison. However, they go up against THE TELLER. A stereotypical Doctor Who alien who can unlock the greatest secrets of a person by reading their minds. Which unfortunately has the side effect of turning you into a human egg-cup once he's finished. The team must race against time in order to enter the Private Vault before the Teller catches them and, ultimately, kills them. But when they do, THE EPISODE UNRAVELS AND IT'S A KIND OF ENDLESS LOOP THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE BUT IT JUST PROVES WHAT A WASTED OPPORTUNITY THE ENTIRE EPISODE CAME TO BE. Ahem. Decorum regained. JOSHUA'S RATING: 4/10


8.6: THE CARETAKER (by Gareth Roberts and Steven Moffat) - In which we go back to where it all began, Coal Hill School. With little to no reference to the first two human companions on Doctor Who, the Doctor's granddaughter or the fact that the Doctor is somehow CRB checked. (And, trust me, that cannot fit into psychic paper).

For all the stick I give Moffat, this episode was actually pretty good. It was in Coal Hill School, where the first Doctor Who companions from 1963 (Susan Foreman, Barbara Wright and Ian Chesterton) all found themselves day after day. However, Clara is a teacher there. As is her boyfriend Danny Pink. But when the Doctor (somehow) gets the job of Caretaker, shit gets real. The Skovox Blitzer is in town and it's out for blood. But do we know where it's from or why? Not really no. All we know it's one of the worst machines ever created in the history of ever. But do we get a focus on it? No. Instead, we concentrate more on Clara's love life. The episode is humorous and has some good bits but it's mainly more about how Clara is lying to Danny (which becomes commonplace as the series goes on) and how he deals with the fact she's dating him while running around creation with a grey haired Scottish man. I'd call that mixed signals. However, it all wraps up quite nicely in a little bow and it's an entertaining romp. However, I can't help but think that the fact it's held in Coal Hill is to pacify the classic fans more than the nu-Who fans... JOSHUA'S RATING: 6/10


8.7: KILL THE MOON (by Peter Harness) - In which the Doctor, Clara and Hermione Norris arrive on the moon in an attempt to work out why it's cracking. And it turns out to be something that most Game of Thrones fans will scoff at vigorously.

So. Simple. Go to moon, meet mutant spiders, avoid mutant spiders at all costs and blow up the moon. The only thing from this list they do complete without incident is 'Go to moon'. This episode features humanity at it's best/worst/most natural after a team of astronauts arrive in a shuttle with a hundred nuclear bombs on board ready to blow up the moon. Because a massive tsunami is threatening humanity's existence. What could possibly go wrong? It's Doctor Who, so, everything. The team attempt to work out what they're dealing with in the weirdest ways possible without being killed and consumed by the big-ass mutant spiders which aren't actually spiders. (Yup). However, at the end, we find possibly Doctor Who's most weirdest twist yet. THE MOON IS AN EGG CONTAINING SOME KIND OF DRAGON WHICH CAN ASEXUALLY REPRODUCE AT 10 SECONDS OF AGE. Only on Doctor Who could this make total sense and no-one bat an eye-lid. However, we also see the Earth condone the killing of an alien child buried in the moon on the risk it MIGHT cause them flood damage and make them lose their no claims bonuses. JOSHUA'S RATING: 6/10


TUNE IN NEXT TIME FOR SOME MORE CYNICAL REVIEWING AT THE HANDS ON YOURS TRULY WHERE I'LL (ATTEMPT***) TO EXPLAIN THE MUMMY, AN EPISODE SET IN BRISTOL NOT FILMED IN BRISTOL AND WHY I PERSONALLY HATE MOFFAT MORE AFTER TONIGHT'S SEASON FINALE.

Good night :)






*These opinions DO match the views of Writers Block and its affiliates. Namely me.

**I realise only certain people will get this reference. If you do, fab! If not, isn't Google fantastic!

***If I can I deserve a f*****g medal.

Saturday 25 October 2014

Nothing Happens In My Hometown

Let me have this rant.

Ok. So. I've been a Whovian since I was 10. I might be 20 now but I'm still just as much a kid now as I was then.

So imagine my surprise, shock and jealousy when I had numerous people message me telling me that Peter Capaldi, PETER FREAKING CAPALDI, was casually walking round my hometown today!

But was I in my hometown at the time?

THE HELL I WAS.

I was at university an hour and a half away.

Here's what annoys me most.

It's not that Capaldi was in my hometown. It's not that it was announced. He's a human being, of course he can do things to himself, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest.

It's that practically nothing happens in my hometown when I'm there. But it's all fun and freaking frolics when I'm gone.

When I'm there, jack shit happens. The worst that will happen is a cow escapes. But when I go, the BBC visit when they plant some (frankly stupid) snowdrops, the guy who appeared in the Hovis advert in the 70's returns to turn on the Christmas lights and, now, DOCTOR FREAKING WHO VISITS MY HOMETOWN.

Do you know what pisses me off more?

I'M GOING HOME FOR A HOLIDAY NEXT WEEK.

Grr.

It just seems all the good shit happens when I leave.

I've also just seen a picture of a friend's daughter who had her picture with her and that hasn't helped. I'm extremely happy for her, don't get me wrong, but I can't help but be EXTREMELY JEALOUS BEYOND WORDS.

I can only imagine some people's reactions to seeing Capaldi walking down the High Street just casually looking around. And I know exactly how I would've reacted.

(It would've involved some initial confusion, close inspection and then me making sounds I never thought I could make, before asking if I could have a picture taken with him).

I can't help but be rather saddened by this news.

I can't complain because I've met two previous Doctors (Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy) but still, meeting Capaldi would still have been amazing and I would've died a very happy man.

Oh well.

If you happen to read this and you did in fact meet him and converse with him in town, please keep it to yourself. Just know I'm very happy for you, I'm jealous and I wish you and I could've swapped places at that very moment.

Especially when I've been working all afternoon.

Shit happens. Or, in this case, doesn't.

Be just our luck Tennant visits in a fortnight.

Thursday 23 October 2014

Why I'm A Communist, And Why I'm Not

Let's paint the town RED

When I started my current University course last year, I was fairly certain that I was a Labour supporter or somewhere in the centre of the political spectrum. I accepted that some things had to be done in order to raise money to get us out of the recession but I also had my own ideas of what I felt was fair.

However, since starting the course, I've realised a few things. A friend of mine on my course, an open Thatcherite, used to call me a Communist. This was because, compared to her, I am one. But I realised that at that exact moment I was only one of 3 people in my class who were open enough to admit they have left-wing tendencies. In the class we had 3 open lefties, many who were dead centre, some who were Thatcherites (yes, there were 2!), many undecided and 1 Conservative Christian. We had a great mix of people and, for the most part, we all got on.

But the real world isn't the same as this. Since the 1950s; if you appear to be too left wing or self-identify with views that are stronger than Labour's, you're called a Communist. Some people are proud of the fact that they're a Communist and some would rather keep it to themselves. For a while, I thought I was a Communist. But then I realised a few things.

1. I agree with what a lot of Marxism has to say, but much of what we call 'Communism' isn't Marxism in its purest form. Our first major taste of "Communism" was actually Leninism and then, later, Stalinism. Leninism and Communism are not necessarily the same thing nor are they completely worlds apart. But many leaders who have implemented Communism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Il-Sung, etc) have added their own addendum's to the original Marxist text.

While a lot of Karl Marx's initial ideas are very good and practical, many of the mutated forms of Communism haven't worked. The Soviet Union went into economic decline in the 1980s and eventually dissolved in the 1990s. North Korea is one of the worst states imaginable to the point where calling North Korea a 'Communist' country is actually beyond a joke. But some Communist states do work. For example, Cuba is doing well for itself and China is set to overtake the American economy as the world's strongest by 2030 if current trends continue. Despite these, "Communism" as we know it is not pure Marxism. They're actually quite different.

2. I don't like Capitalism, yet I'm a slave to it. I know some Communists would tell me "this is exactly the problem" but some aspects of Capitalism do work. However, much like Communism, it can be easily corrupted. In the Capitalist world, workers are exploited on a daily basis. (If you don't believe me, take a look at your Nike shoes if you're working them. How much do you reckon those men, women and children are paid so that you can feel comfortable).

Factories burn down in Bangladesh and the companies do very little in terms of compensation and some companies (mentioning no names SHELL), will drill on the territory of African tribes who have been there since time immemoriam and get the country's military to displace them if they decide to act in protest. Capitalism, just like Communism, is so open to corruption in the higher echelons of its institutions that it's practically common practice globally. (And if you really want to see Capitalism at its best, look up the term 'Lobbyist' and have a read of what their job is. America have some amazing examples that...)

3. If you honestly think that there is no such thing as Elitism in the UK in particular, you are seriously deluded. If you cannot see that the class divide between Upper and Lower classes is still as prevalent, if not more prevalent, than the Victorian era then you're very naive and I pity and somewhat envy you. Not realising that the British system is fraught with favoritism to the upper classes sounds wonderful as you're blissfully ignorant to the terrible reality. Allow me to elaborate. My lecturer last year (I'm not mentioning names this time) always used to tell us that, if you're a member of the upper classes, an economic downturn/recession is a fantastic time to go shopping. Because, for them, the prices either remain the same or, in some cases, get better.

If the value price of a house plummets for some reason, it's wonderful if you're a member of the upper classes because you can just buy it up while it's at a reduced price should you choose to. While the rest of us are struggling to make ends meet, the upper classes are loving it. If you can't see this or choose not to believe it, I wish I had your ignorance sometimes. (Also, as another example, a man named Alessio Rastani said in 2011: "I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession". My point wrapped up in a nice little bow, from the horse's mouth).

Now, everything I've said there would be deemed as "lefty propaganda" or "commie talk". (Especially if you're a UKIP, BNP or EDL supporter). However, everything I have put in there is true. Up to and including the Shell thing. But does this make me a Communist? No. Not really.

It makes me someone who cares about the world enough in order to want to go out there and try to make it a little better.

Now, I make no secret of the fact I'm not religious. I'm a Humanist and I'm open of that. I don't hate religion, I think it's good in some respects but I find myself disagreeing with many things some religious people say or teach young children. (For example, an evangelical in America saying recently that you can catch AIDS off a towel in Kenya because "they have AIDS in Kenya". Yeah. And I can catch Ebola from a Djembe drum because "they have Ebola in Africa!)

The same works with politics. I don't hate politics in the slightest. In fact, I love it. I wouldn't be taking a degree in it if I didn't love it. But what I do hate is how things that happen in the UK has now become commonplace and to be expected. And I don't like the stigmatization that some groups get just because Government have talked about them briefly. (Hence my deep hatred for UKIP on some things. And the less I say about Nigel Freaking Farage the better we'll all be).

In fact, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the UK, Iain Duncan Smith, said today that people who have Multiple Sclerosis and Parkinsons will be deemed fit for work. To be satirical and cynical, he's lied so much in his life and on his CV I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Doctor at some stage.

But I don't hate politics, I just hate what it's becoming. I see in the UK people like UKIP and some Conservatives wanting the UK to leave the European Union after the next election. This saddens me. I hate how people presume that benefit fraud is one of the worst problems in this country yet, while the evidence suggests otherwise, the Government are doing nothing to ease the stigma or to change public perception of the poor and disabled. I'm not naive enough to say benefit fraud doesn't happen but I know it's not as bad as people think it is.

So does this make me a Communist? Wanting a fairer society with a reformed version of the Capitalist system we have where the class divide is as minimal as humanly possible? Does wanting real change in terms of a living wage, environmental policy and treatment of the lower and lower middle classes make me a Commie? Does wanting to stay in Europe and wanting Britain to play a significant role in it's overdue reformation make me a Red? And does wanting more input into political and religious education in primary and secondary schools make me a revolutionary?

I personally don't think so. I'm a Green Party supporter and they stand for most of what I stand for as well. (Admittedly, I have a slightly different approach to nuclear power than many other supporters but hey). But despite this, I still believe in a fairer society for all. And though that may sound idealist (or Liberal if you're a politics student/political scientist) I'm enough of a Realist to know that it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime. But as John F Kennedy said in his inaugural address:

"All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin".

I heard this for the first time the other day and I cheered internally.

So am I a Communist? I don't like the current Government, I want them out and I disagree with many Labour Party Policies of late.

Or am I not? I just want a fairer society for my future children and their children to live in and if I can have a hand in creating that world then tell me where to start.

You decide.

They say "Better dead than Red". I'd definitely dispute that...

Sunday 28 September 2014

All It Takes Is...

(Based on a post from Julie Borowski on Facebook)

I've followed this woman's page for some time. She's a very inquisitive and insightful woman and I admire her a lot for the stuff she puts up as a lot of it is rather gutsy. Then I saw this. This was a picture she put up from the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. I know very little about this event. All I know about it is what I've seen from following the wonderful George Takei on Facebook (who himself was interred) and an episode of Hawaii Five-0 which delved into the inner workings of internment camps on Hawaii.
Anyway, I'm not here to slam the Japanese for Pear Harbour, nor am I slamming the Americans for how they treated Japanese-Americans in its aftermath. If you look at Julie's original post below, you'll see that the last sentence says:
"All it takes is fear".
So why am I commenting on this and why am I bringing it to your attention? Well, as well as this, I saw someone (who shall remain unnamed) share a Britain First post which showed a picture of a "Muslim" pointing a gun at the camera with a caption saying:
"It's not immigration, it's not Asylum Seeking, it's an INVASION!"
Now, this is what I take um-bridge with.
When I saw the Britain First post and then saw this, the two made sense. Especially the "All it takes is fear". This is exactly what's happening with the whole IS and terrorism situation across the world. 9/11 happened, it's revealed an extremist Islamic group committed the atrocities, Bush goes to war. 7/7 happens, "Muslim Extremists" bomb the Tube, people start to worry. Lee Rigby is murdered, "Muslims" commit the murder, people like Britain First and the EDL have a field day. The SO CALLED Islamic State and affiliated groups behead Westerners, suddenly all Muslims are the enemy. [Personally, I was very intrigued that Anders Breivik was a white Christian male who committed a terror attack because, just for a moment, the West stopped for a moment and looked at itself. Especially, if you believe reports that Muslims were being attacked on the streets of Oslo 5 minutes after the bombs went off in the Government buildings].
Can't anyone see where this could lead?
When the Japanese bombed Pear Harbour in December 1941, this caused so much anti-Japanese feeling that Roosevelt allowed these camps to be erected and detain anyone of Japanese heritage. Completely "legally".
Now, if right wing groups such as the EDL, BNP or Britain First get into power, they'll do everything they can to make sure something like this happens with British Muslims.
Or, let's look at this another way. What if the media, social media and other news agencies are subtly and secretly feeding this anti-Islamic feeling so that this country starts to become intolerant to Muslims in this country, until the people of this country pressure the Government to the point where something like this happens again? What if IS succeeded in their supposed plan to launch a terror attack on British soil, killing hundreds of Brits across the country and the people decide that anyone of Arabic or Islamic origin should be separated from society?
Just like the Japanese-Americans?
I know this all sounds ridiculous, but I imagine Americans in 1936 would've said much the same back then about the Japanese? People like Britain First are feeding Islamophobia at an exponential rate and people are buying into it. There have been friends on my list that have and I know of a few people who have been removing friends because of them sharing Britain First and related groups posts. All it takes is one event to trigger a chain-reaction.
People want scape-goats. The Americans had the Japanese, the Germans had the Jews, 50s/60s Britain had the Windrush Generation, the Americans now have Al-Qaeda and who do the Brits have now? The Eastern Europeans and the Muslims. When I see people share posts from right-wing groups, which deliberately stir-up hatred and intolerance, it makes me be ashamed to be British.
We are not an intolerant people, Islam is not a violent religion, Muslims are not the enemy.
We need to realise this before it's too late...
"All it takes is fear"...

Tuesday 1 July 2014

A Little Comment On A Right-Wing Post...

So I'm not a fan of right wing groups...

So, I saw this today on my Facebook. It was about how Islam is being "forced" onto school children via "indoctrination". Which is all well and good, (well it isn't really let's face it), but it's just scaremongering, racist and frankly not true. It's a part of the curriculum because it's good to understand many religions in order to, ironically, prevent prejudice and fight any misconceptions that might be presented in the mainstream tabloid media. (+ the Daily Mail of course).

So here's what I wrote. I felt the need to give some balance. But if anyone would like to add to what I've written, then please feel free to comment and contribute.

"To play devil's advocate, and as someone who currently works in education, why would you want to? I can understand why some parents are uneasy about their kids participating in sex education but, frankly, this is insanely ridiculous. 

If you take your child out of a lesson in which Islam is taught, then that child could potentially miss out some key facts about Islam that will help them understand who they are, what they believe, and how they choose to present their beliefs. That child could then grow up, meet a group of Muslims and believe that all of them are terrorists or something! (Or worse, become a member of a far right group...)


People like Britain First are very quick to point out things related to terrorism and security but, as this suggests, fail to understand that the key to understanding the terrorists and working with the Islamic community to fight them is by educating our children that not all Muslims want to kill you. Islam is no more violent or prone to terrorism than Christianity, Hinduism or any other religion worldwide. 


If you're going to take Islam off the curriculum, then take off Buddhism, Christianity and every other religion learnt in school because if you take just Islam off then that's just picking on Muslims in a different way than shouting abuse in the street or writing stuff on social media. 


RE is on the curriculum with the intention of educating, expanding understanding and helping children understand that, just because someone might be a different religion or skin colour, they're still a human deep down. Doing something like this only teaches your children that it's ok to de-humanise a certain group of people just because they look different or because a small minority are dirtying the name of that religion by killing in its name.


You have every right to do this should you wish to, but you'll be doing your children, your community and your country a great disservice in the long run. Stuff like this post and subsequent act only fuels religious intolerance further. Just look at (rather recent) history to see what happens if you let things like this happen."

Feel free to comment below if you'd like to add things.

Tuesday 17 June 2014

The British Government and the Return of the Double Standard

[WARNING: CONTAINS *SOME* LEGAL JARGON]

So I've just seen something which is absolutely disgraceful. But, the topic also has two sides.

This headline from the Independent sums it up:

"Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official"


Now. Before we go into this, let's look at what the article has to say.

"The mass interception and surveillance of UK citizens’ activity on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google is legal, the government’s top anti-terror chief has said. In the first detailed defence of the UK’s surveillance policies since the Snowden revelations, Charles Farr, the director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, has said that the surveillance of such popular sites is legal because their US origins means they count as “external communications”*.

The basics of this is, following the revelations from Edward Snowden last year, it appears that the Government can legally access your Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google Searches WITHOUT  a warrant in the name of counter-terrorism.

Now. In this day and age, Counter-Terrorism is a big thing that is now part of life and designed to keep the people of a certain country (and/or area) safe. This I understand, accept and admire. However, as far as this is concerned, this is double standards.

I was under the impression that certain search terms online we red flagged and if someone looked up these terms a number of times, the authorities could apply for a warrant to track the IP address and THEN access Facebook, Google searches and other social network messages etc. But if this article is to be believed, this is evidently not the case. It appears that, in the name of counter-terrorism, GCHQ and other organisations can just look at our Facebook and things willy-nilly without a warrant. 

To me, this amounts to hacking. Now, I understand that hacking is an umbrella term. However: 

"hack. VERB. Gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer:

they hacked into the bank’s computer[WITH OBJECT]: someone hacked his computer from another location(as noun hackingoutlawing hacking has not stopped it"
Now, for the moment, let's concentrate at the "unauthorized access" part. The article from the Independent says that:
"In a 48-page statement issued in response to a legal challenge brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty international and seven other civil liberties groups, Farr admits that the government allows the interception of a massive range of online activities without a warrant"*.
With this in mind: 

"warrant. NOUN. A document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or another body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice:

magistrates issued a warrant for his arrestan extradition warrant"
If you remember these two things, you start to realise that the fact that Governments and Security Firms are accessing your personal information WITHOUT A WARRANT, is illegal. Police cannot pursue a suspect in a case without a warrant for their arrest or to search their dwellings. This is a similar case. The authorities in question should be able to access your personal information and social network pages as long as they have a warrant. 
The fact that they do and don't have a warrant is technically illegal and you could, potentially, sue them for invasion of privacy and for hacking.
So why can't we?
Counter-Terrorism. And a major legal loophole that Britain is exploiting in order to do this unchallenged.
"By defining these web services as “external communications," they fall under the general warrants of section 8(4) of RIPA. This means that a range of activities – from emails to Facebook messages to Google searches – can all be intercepted even when the police have no grounds to suspect the individuals of wrongdoing"*.
Basically, because most of the websites they can access were made and based in America, Britain don't have to follow the same rules as the Americans. So they can search through your internet history without challenge in the name of counter-terrorism.
But what would happen if I, for example, were to hack GCHQ?
According to US Law: "This crime is a class B misdemeanor but if the person causes over $2,500 in property damage it is a class A misdemeanor if the person acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of his or her actions and class D felony if the person acted maliciously"**. Otherwise, I get a hefty fine and a possible prison sentence of many years. Possibly even a Treason charge.
Double standards? Well, it depends on how you look at it. I personally believe it is because it's a case of punishing the many for the actions of the few. Not everyone in the UK is a terrorist. Nor is everyone who's a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh etc so why not stick with the red flag? OR actually find some conventional evidence that someone is participating in terrorism activities?
I know some people might say to this "Well if you're complaining about this then you obviously have something to hide". That as the case maybe, how people like being hacked and watched by their Government, Big Brother stylee?
That's just my opinion anyway...

*James Vincent, The Independent, "Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official", http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mass-surveillance-of-uk-citizens-on-facebook-youtube-and-google-is-legal-says-official-9543455.html** Christopher Reinhart, Office of Legislative Research, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0254.htm

Monday 16 June 2014

Apple-Ogies

Believe it or not, I still have a blog! Which I haven't actually attended to for some time!

For this I apologise. But please allow me to explain why I have not attended this part of my life for some time.

1. Uni Exams: I had revision and things so any and all non-social focus was place in that endeavour. I got a good result on one of the exams so obviously a wise move!

2. Music: Cardiopath (my music project) is taking off! I have an EP ready to be recorded, a video in the works and a 12+ track album ready to be recorded also. So music's also been taking up a lot of my time recently. (As well as live gig prep too!)

3. Work: I have a job! I'm working 8:30-3:45 5 days a week now so I'm also concerning myself with that and all this entails.

4. Lack of things to write: My Swedish friend, Marion, has asked me when Ducks By The Lake will return. It will at some stage but the fact is that I don't really have that much to write right now. So, if I do write anything, it's likely to be this. DBTL will be finished. I promise!

Anyway, until that time, I hope you're all ok and well!

Speak soon!

Joshua x

Sunday 13 April 2014

Does The Introduction Of The Feminist Agenda Bring Anything New To The Study Of Global Politics? [Essay]

An essay I'm quite proud of. I got a 1st for this. As some of my friends are feminists, I thought I'd share it with you.

Feminism, as a political movement, has been present in the world for many generations. But the idea of equal rights for women has been around for much longer. The first recorded convention for women’s rights was held in 19th July 1848 in a little chapel in Seneca Falls, New York, with the Declaration of Sentiments also being drawn up around the same time[1]. This declaration stated that men and women were born as equals, something which is the central ideological point for many active feminist groups today. When the women who organised the Seneca Falls Conference all those years ago chaired it, they could not have pictured the traction it would slowly get throughout the world and how their initial ideas would stem into many different versions of the same desire. They could not possibly have realised that their new liberal thinking would start a worldwide movement that would branch out into many different ideologies and influence many different parts of the world in the coming centuries. For example, the suffrage movements right across the world that fought and protested for the right of women to vote. Of course, we now know that women would get the vote but at the time it was a big step for the feminine thinkers of the day. To the point where one of them, Emily Wilding Davison, would (arguably) die for the cause by throwing herself under the king’s horse during the 1913 derby. Showing the lengths that women would go to at the time to achieve what is one of the most basic of rights[2].

As we come into the modern era though, into the age of Globalization, we see feminism as a very topical issue. Not just in the political sphere but in the cultural sphere. Many people are still unsure as to what feminism is or does, or at the very least, many people have a certain idea about what it is. However, in the modern world, there are certain views of feminism coming out that have been seemingly caused partially by feminists themselves. The amount of infighting that has occurred over the past couple of years on social media have made people wonder what the real goal is. Many feminists took to the social networking Twitter in order to try and place the cause further into the public consciousness but it soon turned into a large influx of comments that turned the social media idea “toxic”[3]. The whole debacle made some feminists appear to be like young children who were just fighting for the sake of fighting. Or, as Hadley Freeman for the Guardian described it, the incidents made some “sound like the bitchy babies that sexists have always suggested we are, incapable of being given any position of authority without throwing tampons at one another[4]”. 

Obviously, that is not what feminism is about in the slightest, but this is the image of feminism that some seem to accept. People like this, who are often Marxists critiquing the liberals, often become categorized with the aged thought that women are irrational as all they appear to do is take issue with the logic of other feminists and, thanks to the spread and proliferation of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, this is become much easier to do. But in the process, many other feminists believe that this behaviour is damaging the view of modern feminism. Again, Hadley Freeman sums it up by suggesting “Critiquing and educating is one thing, publicly slamming leftwing feminist writers as "low-level media whores", as one prominent blogger did this weekend, is, I think we can all agree, another[5]”.

However, in the broader context of today’s Globalising world, feminism is starting to percolate further across different cultures and, in some respects, it has started to become implemented in global politics. For example, the idea of a certain number of women that should be in elected positions such as corporate boards and positions of politics has been in many country’s policies since the first UN Conference on Women in 1975 and continue to used today[6]. With this in mind, it is difficult not to suggest that this current form of Globalization has enhanced the spread of feminism due to the fact this version of Globalization, itself, has been partially characterized by the spreading of many different ideas across different nation states[7]. Thanks to this, and to the united implications of the global community, the impact of feminism on world politics has slowly become more recognised. But this doesn’t mean things are by any means fairer.

As a UN Report in 1980 illustrated, “Women make up half the world’s population, perform two-thirds of its work hours, receive one-tenth of the world’s income and less than one-hundredth of its property[8]”. There is still a glass ceiling for women in many different professions because of what’s expected or viewed of them as well as stiff competition that still remains in the job markets. Even in today’s rapidly changing world; men are still more likely to get the promotions to the top jobs than women because many female managers are seen as “deceitful, pushy, selfish, and abrasive” compared to many male managers[9]. Despite this thinking among some, there are still feminist writers who still believe this will change and that the Globalizing world is still a positive thing for many women despite that many institutions around the world are still heavily male dominated. As Myra Marx Ferree says: “Globalization can work to a woman’s advantage-as especially seen in the UN-but also unleash the forces of inequality that will further disadvantage women[10]”.

But as far as to whether the feminist agenda brings anything new to the study of global politics, it depends on the view which you take of feminism itself. There are people who would argue that the feminist agenda does bring something new to the study of global politics due to the influence of many women that are now becoming more prominent in the global political sphere. But there are also those that would suggest that because the global political landscape is still very male dominated that the feminist agenda is being generally over-looked. These people would argue that the current Globalised system has disadvantaged women further because many CEOs are still men. I also refer back to the UN report of 1980 where it also suggests that women own “less than one-hundredth of its property[11]” as another argument as to how Globalization is actually diminishing women’s power in the world. But one argument against THIS notion suggests that Globalization is actually a tool that feminists can use for the better.

As one feminist website explains: “The immediate challenge for the international Women's Movement is to mobilize and take the lead in building a new political order better suited to a world already being reshaped by globalization[12]”, suggesting that the current system is not as disadvantageous to women as many others perhaps make it out to be. But it’s this kind of discourse that does make the study of feminism in global politics interesting. Because the idea of gender equality in the global, political and cultural sphere is constantly being talked about and is ever present on social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter. But it also brings out more discourses with those who demand on having a “politics of equality[13]” based on gender difference, and those who believe that this is a more radical approach to an equal standing of men and women right across the political and industrial world. But, in the long run, you need to study feminism and all of its different elements in order to understand its continuing relevance in the Globalized world that we have today and how the policies they put forward actually can influence many political decisions across the board because, like the study of Global Politics itself, it’s constantly changing and evolving.



[1] Watkins, Susan Alice et al, ‘Introducing Feminism’, (New York, Totem Books, 1994), p43
[2] Nancarrow, Sally, ‘Emily Davison: Votes for women's Derby Day 'martyr'’, BBC News Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22725094
[3] Goldberg, Michelle, ‘Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars’, The Nation Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.thenation.com/article/178140/feminisms-toxic-twitter-wars
[4] Freeman, Hadley, ‘Feminist infighting only takes our eyes off the real struggle’, The Guardian Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/feminist-infighting-eyes-off-real-struggle
[5] Freeman, Hadley, ‘Feminist infighting only takes our eyes off the real struggle’, The Guardian Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/feminist-infighting-eyes-off-real-struggle
[6] M Marx Ferree, ‘Globalisation and Feminism’, Globalization and Feminism: Opportunities and Obstacles for Activism in the Global Arena, 1, (2006), 11
[7] M Marx Ferree, ‘Globalisation and Feminism’, Globalization and Feminism: Opportunities and Obstacles for Activism in the Global Arena, 1, (2006), 11

[8] Watkins, Susan Alice et al, ‘Introducing Feminism’, (New York, Totem Books, 1994), p163
[9] Quast, Lisa, ‘Is There Really A Glass Ceiling For Women?’, Forbes Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2011/11/14/is-there-really-a-glass-ceiling-for-women/
[10] M Marx Ferree, ‘Globalisation and Feminism’, Globalization and Feminism: Opportunities and Obstacles for Activism in the Global Arena, 1, (2006), 23

[11] Watkins, Susan Alice et al, ‘Introducing Feminism’, (New York, Totem Books, 1994), p163

[12] Neuwirth, Jessica, ‘Globalization: A Secret Weapon for Feminists’, Feminist.com, 04/03/2014, http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/inter/globaliz.html
[13] Di Stefano, Christine et al, ‘Feminism/Postmodernism’, (New York, Routledge, Chapman & Hall Publishers, 1990)