Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Feminism vs Humanism

I don't understand feminism.

I simply don't.

I learned yesterday that History is a mostly male dominated thing. Written by men, about men, for men! Chauvenistic pigs. How dare they have a primitive culture to us!

But feminists seem to applaud anything to do with female and femininity, anything vaguely woman related, we should push for. Which always comes across to me as positive discrimination.

To me it's a huge turn off. So when we use the criteria of gender and power to determine whether we should watch a film, or read a book, I do question whether "feminism" is the model of equality or equity with which we laud it.

I've been trying to brush up on what exactly feminism is. They say it is about equality first off, as a loose sort of definition. But why call it feminism? Why not humanism? "Fem" = Female = Woman. So already it sets a distinction and puts women apart. Men can be feminists we're told, feminism is all encompassing, but feminism appears to exist solely for the glorification, promotion and appeasement of women.

Another site suggests that feminism is actually quite distinct to equality. It talks about our patriarchal culture and that women have to live up to male ideals to be equal in the world. One feminist writes men live and work in a brutal world surrounded by sexism and ritual practices. Well that's sexist for a start. And it also assumes that's what men wants. It sums up with this lovely phrase:

The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms – not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist.

I get this. I really do. It actually works out that we are different, men and women are different, and women shouldn't compete with men. Quite why I need to promote women specifically Im not sure.

But why are feminists drawing the line there? For some men, the male dominated patriarchal world is absurd. So why should men have to compete with women in a female dominated world?

"Im a feminist and believe in gender equality". Well, why not call yourself a gender neutralist instead?

Sarah Jessica Parker has said she's a humanist because she supports the LGBT people to be able to carve out their niches in this world. But why is it all these groups vs men? Have they got a problem with men? What about the men who are actually more sensitive than you possibly give them credit for?

Whoever we are, woman, man, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever race, religion, why do we need one advocate, one expression of thought - in this case feminism, to promote one subset of society? I think we've got the whole thing ass backwards.

Another site says

"The reason why it’s called feminism while advocating for gender equality is because females are the gender that are the underprivileged, underserved gender," Shives says in his video response. "You attain gender equality by advocating for the rights of the underprivileged gender."

So our focus is on the underprivileged gender. But what about those underpriveleged people in the privileged gender? Do you just forget about them, because in feminism, we are creating a class distinction?

So I will not identify as a feminist, until one of them identifies as a simonist, someone who works for the promotion and liberation of all and the exclusion of none.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

We're Busy Too

One of my pet hates, is when someone says "Im Busy" when trying to organise something.

I don't discredit the fact that someone is genuinely doing something, but it doesn't seem that difficult to look through your calendar and find a mutual date and time that works for both. Yes I realise that it can happen that you may actually have a full calendar, but saying "Im busy" to me, is just saying "You're such a low priority in my life, Im not going to even look at my calendar".

I do get the impression though from time to time that some other people, mainly those with children, families, partners - seem to think that us single people, have a load of expendable time.

Just because we don't have a family to spend time on, doesn't mean we're not busy ourselves. Some of us may work two jobs, volunteer, they might have to work longer hours, train for their job. We have no one to share the burden with, we have no one to do our cooking, shopping, washing and cleaning. We have to organise all our own appointments. We may be the ones caring, looking out for others, we may have other commitments you don't realise. Though we're isolated, sometimes it's not by choice. Sometimes we wouldn't mind sharing a nice home cooked meal. Perhaps there's something we can do for you? Let me just look through my calendar? Im busy for the next two weeks. But how about three weeks on Friday?

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Fedora vs Windows 10

Well I've been running Fedora on my works laptop for a few years. I actually found it quicker to install Linux and install Windows 7 inside a KVM/QEMU (Virtual) system than to install Windows 7 and install VirtualBox and Fedora under that!

Linux has been stable, reliable, it's allowed me to be king of domains and DNS lookups with the dig command. It's been fantastic.

But, and here is where I must point out my current wishlist. Even at Fedora 22, it creaks in the following areas which has now made it unsuitable for work.

1) QXLDOD - the WDDM Video Driver needed for Windows 8 and above. Windows 8 changed the driver technology, and there was no stable driver for Windows 8 unless you wanted a fixed size VGA screen. Finally QXLDOD is available which provides some functionality, but it's still nowhere near being as good as the QXL driver that was available for Windows 7. The old QXL driver would resize the Virtual Guest Screen in accordance with the Virtual Guest Windows. Brilliant! QXLDOD, we're still waiting. This actually isn't good enough for business. I know Fedora isn't aimed at Business, but sort that, and you have me stay!
2) Multi Touch Screen Support - Im not going into all the details, but essentially touch screens don't work properly even in Fedora 22. Fedora totals up all the screen sizes, so if you have three screens side by side all of say 1920 pixel width, that's 5760 total screen area width. What you then have to do is use xrandr and xinput commands and run through a few calculations eg 5760/1920 = touch screen width, and other similar calculations to work out the offset. That this is not supported out of the box is frankly laughable. Ubuntu can do it, but not Fedora.
3) Multi Head Virtualisation - So now I have my multiple screens, I can't however have two video heads for a guest output. Come on! This should be basic!
4) Bridge Network - Finally, despite following all the guides out there, I still can't get bridged networking working properly. I add a Bridge in NetworkManager, it just does not pick up a DHCP address. I need Bridge Network for my guest OS's in KVM/QEMU. Im still not inclined to switch off NetworkManager now, otherwise I lose my wireless.

So sadly, rather than muddle around and fudge things, Im off to Windows 10.

Hopefully one day I shall return to Fedora.