Thursday 28 August 2014

I hate growing up

I can sum up why I hate growing up in one story.

I have a friend I grew up with. When we were kids, she always used to put obscene amounts of ketchup on her chips. She wouldn't dip them in the ketchup, she'd just coat her plate of chips almost entirely with ketchup. I always used to laugh about that and we'd joke about how she was going to make the tomato plant an extinct species. 

Now my friend was sat on my bed 10 years later, crying after an argument with her mum about how they were going to afford the cost of travel to and from school. 

She had some chips. She opened some ketchup and coated the same obscene amount over them like when we were kids. 

That's when I realised nothing had really changed. Things had just gotten harder from there to now. 

And that's why I hate growing up. 

Monday 4 August 2014

Arguments against homosexuality are unjustified

Silly excuses against gay marriage/gay rights/gay equality/gay anything make me so mad. I've heard so many of them, and so here I've chosen to put some of the ones I hear quite regularly. 


1. “It’s in the bible!”

No. I thought we’d had enough of religious laws. Religious laws are unjust. Not everybody follows your religion, the bible should not be the be all and end all of laws. When you start following religious laws, you start implementing drastic things such as:

 - Leviticus 3:17 “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood”
Ban bacon immediately, folks.
 - Leviticus 19:28 “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.”
Sorry, tattoos are now forbidden.
 - Mark 10:11-12 "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
Henry VIII was familiar with this one.

There should be a clear distinction between religion and law. Under no circumstances should “but the bible says so!” be a legitimate reason for something to be against the law.


2. “Homosexuality produces no offspring”

We really don’t need any more offspring. Everyday 5,760 more children become orphans[1]. We don’t need more offspring. There are already too many kids without homes or families. Same-sex couples can help with this issue. They can give these kids love and a home they would otherwise not have. The fact being gay leads to no offspring is a good thing for the world as a whole.
Also, if you won’t allow partnerships that don’t produce offspring, should a sterile man be allowed to marry a sterile woman? They won’t be able to produce any offspring. The argument is invalid.


3. “Kids raised by a same-sex couple don’t turn out right”

Generally the argument here is that a child needs one of both genders in order to shape them. The Archbishop of Singapore argues that children will not find their identity without two oppositely gendered parents. This just seems ridiculous. How many single parent families exist? Last time I checked my dad raised us on his own and my brother and my brother and I turned out fine. Neither of us is struggling to find our identities as a woman or man.


4. “Being gay is unnatural”

So are shoes, but you wear them. 
Also, “Over 1000 species have been shown to engage in same-sex mating and pair-bonding.”[2]. That's so unnatural.


5. “Kids shouldn't be shown homosexuality, they won’t understand it”

Hold up. Did your parents ever have to explain to you what being straight is? Of course not. Exposing kids to these kinds of things from a young age decreases the chance that they will be homophobic when they’re older, it may seem weird to kids that have been sheltered from the real world, and that is the fault of the parents. Don't alienate those growing up questioning their sexuality. Kids are some of the most accepting and open-minded people. Show them homosexuality, and they won’t need to understand it, just like kids won’t understand what being straight is about. They’ll accept it.


6. “Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman only. Gays already have civil partnerships”

Firstly, marriages are hardly holy anymore. How long was Kim Kardashian married for? 72 days? How holy. 50% of first marriages in the US end in divorce[3]. Also very holy, isn’t it?
Why should it be between a man and a woman? Everything seems to always come back to the fact it’s religion that’s preventing gay marriage. Christianity says marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I thought we’d separated state and church? At the end of the day, to the government, marriage is just telling the state you are a couple. Applying religion to marriage is out of date.


7. “Being gay is a choice”

If sexuality is a choice, fall in love with someone of the same sex.
This source phrases the idea that there needs to be a gene for something to be acceptable perfectly: “Autism is also not associated with a single gene, but we’d hardly claim that it is not biological, or that children choose to be autistic.”[4]


Honestly, I’m all for religious choice. Hold whatever faith you want, but it’s honestly infuriating when religion gets in the way of people’s rights. Of course it’s not all religious people, of course it’s not only religious people, but it seems like many of the arguments against it stem from religion.




[1] Source: http://www.orphanhopeintl.org/facts-statistics/
[2] Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/04/top-7-claims-for-same-sex-relationships-being-unnatural/
[3] Source: http://www.divorcepad.com/rate/
[4] Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2014/04/top-7-claims-for-same-sex-relationships-being-unnatural/

Friday 1 August 2014

David Lynch's 'Rabbits' and some theories behind it

As a piece of coursework for the IB film course, we had to research different genres and create a 7 minute film in one or a combination of them. From previous experience of surrealist films, I decided I wanted to look a little more into the genre and some of its most influential films. I watched a few of David Lynch’s films, but the one that really stuck in my mind was ‘Rabbits’.

Rabbits is a series of 8 episodes about 3 rabbits within one room, in short. They have human bodies, with a rabbit head on top. The camera is static, giving a view of the room as if they are on a stage. Occasionally one of them may leave the room through a door on the left and return later, but never ending rain can be heard and a studio laugh track makes appearances when there is nothing really to laugh at. The rabbits don’t talk much, when they do, it makes no sense.

Surrealist films often have a lot of deeper meaning behind them; they may use metaphor in order to establish a message. Rabbits is no different, there’s many different possible interpretations of Lynch's intentions for the film.

For me, my first impression of the film was that the message is existentialist. The film could possibly embody the idea of a meaningless existence. The rabbits just seem to exist, moving around the room and occasionally saying things which mean nothing at all. From the start of the film to the end, there is very little progress. Nothing ‘gets done’ essentially. The view we first see as the film opens, the rabbit in the pink dress ironing, is repeated again and again on the same shirt. They just spend their time moving around the room, being laughed at, and saying their eerie lines. Without any deeper thinking, the film, particularly the laugh track, appears random and unexplainable. It’s disturbing and creepy, perhaps because the occasional lines serve only to remind us of death, how meaningless our lives are as they we progress until death.

I also did some research on the internet to find some other interpretations of the film.

One of these interpretations is that the film is a critique on modern society. The viewers are “watching characters who are in fact role playing the normalcy of everyday domestic situations.”[1] They appear to be sitting as if a television should be where the camera sits. Lynch appears to try to convey the idea of the rabbits sitting around, with very little communication between them and repeating the same remedial actions. The film’s laughter track does further enforce the entire of television dependency. The laugh track is similar to that within sitcoms, laughing at things that appear meaningless, such as one of the rabbits returning to the room after being outside for a short while. The film “deliberately violates everything we have come to expect in a narrative”[2], actions such as ironing the same shirt, sitting on the sofa only to get up, walk around and return again are repeated by each of the rabbits. This mirrors the nature of sitcoms, they are essentially the same characters repeating the same actions in each episode, with a laugh track to complement each ‘funny’ repeated action. This interpretation suggests that Lynch created the film to mock how pointless and mundane these sitcoms we enjoy really are.

Another message some got from this film was that it is set in purgatory. This theory may further go on to suggest that the three souls are waiting to be reincarnated into rabbits. Their lines sometimes mention murder, sharp teeth and dogs barking, suggesting they were hunters[3]. However, the general theory is that the souls are stuck within purgatory, explained by the boss they frequently make reference to and eventually visits them. He would be the thing that has trapped them there. The laugh track could be explained to be souls within hell, laughing at their actions or potentially waiting for them. In addition, the rabbits could have been killed within a fire. There are mentions of burning, an alarm sounding through the open door at one point too. However, this theory has flaws. For example, what is the purpose of the door leading outside? The male rabbit frequently enters and exits through it, something which he should not be allowed to do if he were trapped within purgatory.  

To me, the theory that the film could be a mockery of sitcoms and a reflection of our modern day lives appears the most credible and supported with the most evidence. Although I loved this film, it really did scare me. It was eerie and uncomfortable but I’m very glad I looked into it.




[1]http://www.academyofmusicelearning.co.uk/moodle233/pluginfile.php/17687/mod_resource/content/1/Rabbits_Analysis.pdf
[2] The Brain In Your Kitchen: A Collection of Essays – David DiSalvo
[3] http://whohonestlygivesashit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/david-lynch-rabbits-quick-analysis.html