Global Warming

Global warming, some say it's the fault of car drivers and the rear end of cows – others say its a natural cycle.

I personally believe we should all be living in a sustainable manor. Not to try and reverse global warming. It is a fact we already have a deficit of food and clean water through out the planet. If we all limit the amount of food to the amount we need and no more there would be no wastage and the same goes for water. If we all used public transport as far as possible it would become cleaner and more reliable.

Surely, if people leave the cities to get peace from all the traffic and noise, it makes sense to not drive as much? If everyone limited the amount of time they spent driving it would reduce: noise, air, visual and sent pollution for us all. I would of loved to live back in the days were the air spelled of nature and the sound of birds in the trees is all that could be heard.

Also if we reduced our usage of everything but food as a primary topic, we would reduce the amount of trucks driving around with our dinner in the back. Not only this but the thing many people don't give consideration to is, farmed foods generally require machinery to stock the fields/barns/waters before they can be tended then harvest it. Not to mention after it has been harvested. It often needs to be moved to a place of sale or to an intermediate place for sorting or preparation. Looking at something as basic as milk. The cow has to be bought and moved to the farm (requires a truck). The grass or feed needs to be planted but the seed needs to be bought and also moved to the farm. To plant the seed a machine is required. Once the foliage is mature the cattle needs to be driven out either using a truck to move them to the pasture or some sort of motorcycle or 4x4 or in the US sometimes even a helicopter. Then for milking the beasts need to be rounded up and brought in for daily milking.once the milk has been gathered it then has to be transported to the dairy where it is pasteurized bottled then back onto a truck to get to the shop.

As you can see there is a lot of work put into the basic things, most complex foods are made up of lots of basic things. If we reduce our intake we reduce our carbon foot-print the number of vehicles on the high-ways and thereby reduction in noise , smells and ugly development of roads.

Now if we look at public transport. If more people use it the people that are in charge of the infrastructure would be forced to focus upon more rail-way stations, bus stops and the most important thing the vehicles to service them on a proper and regular timetable. Obviously, for this to happen – it would cost a substantial amount of primary financial input. If this is spread over lots of people rather than the small number that it currently is we'd not notice the cost nearly as much as we do. In addition if more people used the transport systems they could be connected and giving a greater level of independence to all without access to a private vehicle.

So as you can see there is lots of benefits for everyone. Cleaner environment, healthier life-style and more money in our pockets. As I say this isn't to reverse the effects of global warming because I personally believe it is a natural cycle.

We have had two ice-ages and two thaws. The current increase in temperature is probably just another clime before a descent into freezing temperatures once more. I also believe our destruction of the world can't be helping the planet and the eco-systems in homes.

Audio Description

Audio Description, isn't just for blind and VI people. My other half loves AD and so does my dad neither of which are Blind or VI.

AD is good for sighted people for understanding the facial expressions of the actors also for keeping a full grasp on what's going on. Even sighted people miss visual things. In a most movies AD can also give another great diemention to a movie.

The sad thing is, AD isn't available on every movie that has been or is being made. Most movies being made today are subtitled for deaf people though. Surely if the movie studios are going to the effort of employing a subtitler the same individual could also do the AD?

Is the lack of AD when subtitles are available a breach of disability equality laws, I bet it is. If AD was more widely used it would become less expensive to roll-out on movies and TV shows.

It would also make it a option for everyone for every occasion so why not make it illegal for a new big movie DVD to be sold without AD when it has subtitles and multi languages.

I personally believe if companies are able to make the effort for one minority why not make that little extra effort and include sight impaired persons.

Gender, Gender Roles, Sexuality *& Same-sex Adoption.

In today's world, where males and females are both allowed (legally and socially) to go to combat zones and work in nurseries - are gender roles still a real thing never-mind important?

The argument against Gay/Lesbian adoption is that a child would not have a male/female role model. The truth however, is that a child would have two males/females in their life. If the two people love each other and the child then does it really matter?

I hear you ask what gay adoption has to do with gender roles. Well a male/female role-model is based on a child having a male/female to learn from.

In days gone by females more often than not were expected to stay at home, while the “man of the house” went out to work - so he could feed 'his' family. Meaning the female gender role was to: enjoy cooking; cleaning and day time gossip with the next door neighbour. The male role was – to be a provider and defender that enjoyed drinking beer, participating in sports and doing D.I.Y.

As previously mentioned the world these days has changed so much. Men can stay at home and do the traditional famine tasks, they can now even wear make-up (guy-liner) – there's brands made just for men. This is no longer a social taboo. Women can be brick-layers or fighter pilots. They can wear jeans and boots to the supermarket - this isn't unusual in society.

So what are the gender roles really worth?

A person that stays at home to look after a child is the primary care giver regardless of gender. The other individual that goes to work is the bread winner. Both parties together should be the defenders of the family and of the child.

The only difference that stands between males and females in todays world are their roles in procreation. However, not all couples want children and society sees it less of a must than in times past.

Males and females both know very well what this is by nature. So they need no role-model for that. A child needs no role-model based on gender to show them how to love another human being. That comes out with them. What parents teach is their own prejudices. You can love a white person as long as they don't have ginger hair, and they are of the opposite sex from you. For some that may be their natural preference but for others, they might want to be in love with a black person with pink hair and of the same sex.

If you were to use the stereotype that gay males are weak; into arts and drama etc – surely, this is better for a child than being in a family where the child is abused; a witness of familiar violence and lacks cultural experiences/activities. Causing them to become an abuser and philistine when they are older.

Look at the female gay stereotype, a female that acts like a man; who is strong and into outdoor activities etc. Surely, a child brought up in a home like this would be better off because; they would grow into strong willed independent adults that would be sure of what they wanted.

That is not to say that 100% of straight couples don't love their children or abuse them; it's also not to say that 100% of all same-sex couples love their children or don't abuse them. I'm working with stereotypes. But remember – a straight couple can conceive a same-sex couple has to organise before conceiving – (once again not true of all straight couples I know).

My parents are straight – I am a lesbian. So, working on the premiss that a straight couple can produce a gay child. Why would a child raised by a same-sex couple turn out “the same way” by default?

It's a fact of life, that for a species to continue males and females need to reproduce. But - if every single male and female reproduced, the world would be a much more busy place with a lot more deprivation and poverty.

Another fact of life is, that some people cannot have a child of their own no matter what they try. Some people just don't want children. Does this make them any less of a human? No, never the less they don't add to the world's population but they aren't victimised or taunted because of their infertility or choices.

Gender, gender roles and sexuality are all different things.

Sexuality is an on going thing. We are all born asexual. Some of us have a point of bisexuality (liking both sexes) – some may go no further an stay liking both sexes. Others will go on to liking one sex and some may stay liking both sexes and those of a sex variation. Genetically, there's three sexes, fact, (Male, Female and Intersex). With the exception of genetics, there's very few biological differences. Sexual characteristics are the most obvious, but with todays medical advances these can be altered completely in either direction. Breasts, can be made, enlarged or removed. Vaginas, can be tightened, made or converted into a penis. A penis, can be enlarged, removed or converted into a vagina. Gonads, can be where they are or removed. Someone can have their sex changed because it's not the same as their brain. They're called transsexuals, but they're not trans anything they are either a male or a female. They may have been the opposite – but they are what they are now. A barn made into a home that now looks like a home, is used as a home and is treated by the government for tax etc is a home not a barn.

Someone's gender, need not be the same as their sex. This variation in gender from sex is called by many things. The umbrella term is transgender. Some males may choose to dress and act feminine (transgender), or – genderless (androgynous). The first example, when inverted is true of females. But what does “dressing like a...” mean these days? A female can wear ANYTHING that she feels comfortable in. A guy can wear ANYTHING he likes, as long as it's not overtly feminine and not get ridiculed. But Why does that Line still exist? Why can't a 6 foot 9 inch rugger bugger stride into work wearing his heals and jeans? Why does society have a “acceptable” cut off for men but not women? In this world, males can identify as women or men - and females can identify as men or women – both can identify as neither.

As for gender roles – I covered that above.

I hope you've found this both interesting and useful.