Week three and steam is running out, enthusiasm is waning and general jadedness sets in. Four days of Fringe avoidance, real life - oh, and work which funds all this, took priority. Then I stepped out again for a couple of events linked only by their proximity in the old town.
The Caves under North Bridge is my least favourite venue. Edinburgh, for the past few years has hosted fringe shows in too many damp, dungeon-like (in an entirely non-kinky way), dark and every other D you can come up with spaces, that must cause staff the most ghastly health problems. Every time I go, I come out feeling ill and I'm only in there for an hour. It would be so much better to spread the venues out again and have more wee church halls in far-flung bits of the city taking the strain instead of it all being, admittedly conveniently, squeezed into the city centre.
Anyway, I went to only my second show this year in the Caves having deliberately avoided even those shows I quite fancied. But I returned to see Caroline Mabey Eat Your Friends. It seemed to have positive reviews, so, in order to boost the number of female comics I've seen this year, I went.
The audience was on the sparse side, but were supportive of her act. I'd put up with numerous comments from the stage this year at different shows, because I kept forgetting my glasses meaning I had to sit at the front thus rendering myself a vulnerable target, but I'd never, until now, had to get up on the stage.
I have no spontaneity, I am not an entertainer, I am a bit deaf and really rather slow to catch on and have a life-long inability to understand or follow instructions. I am not a good choice to shove on stage. But I already knew that. However, I'm not unduly shy and so I agreed, since there were only another 8 or so folk watching. I managed not to do anything right, but I repeat, there were only another 8 or so folk there to witness it. So, next year, no front seats, no making eye contact with the act and no getting up on stage - ever.
Good, that's that out of my system.
I had a few minutes to walk the few yards up the next cobbled lane to yet another awful venue. Banshee Labyrinth was hosting the Skeptics on the Fringe shows. I'd wanted to go to several of those, but they all clashed with me having to be somewhere else. Finally I made it to Dr Caroline Watt's talk on the Parapsychology unit at Edinburgh University.
Wonderfully interesting and far too short, except from the point of view that this was such an uncomfortable seat my relief at standing up possibly won over the feeling that I wanted to hear much much more from this speaker.
Before the talk I'd completely forgotten that long ago I'd taken a psychology module. Dormant knowledge was helpfully activated and retrieved and I followed most of the talk. I was also reminded why I didn't go on to take more psychology studies, far preferring psychodynamic theory to psych-experiments in the name of an ology. All long before we apparently all became hardwired evol psych bots with no free-will.
Um, was that a bit hard on the evol psychs? Nah!
Showing posts with label evol psych. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evol psych. Show all posts
Approaching festival time
Edinburgh prides itself on being the Festival City and indeed we are about to enter into another series of festivals from Easter to autumn. First up is the Science Festival. Daughter served as a useful reason for me to go to the interesting kids things when she was young enough to be enticed along to hands-on fun experiments. That period in our lives was all too short and as soon as she could protest sufficiently loudly it was over. But this year as most years there are a few things aimed at adults that I'd like to attend.
The Science Festival this year has an astronomical theme and takes more than a passing look at Darwin. However, there is a smattering of evol psyche/biology which I will naturally shun if only for the preservation of my highly evolved and sensitive BS detector.
Yesterday I picked up the programme for the International Festival. It's theme is the Enlightenment. Too much choice for a limited financial and time budget. I'll definitely aim for the exhibitions at Dean Gallery and some of the talks at the Hub. Perhaps I'll try to go to the Fireworks having missed them for some years. Usually the Fringe or the Book Festival claim my attention more than the EIF, so maybe it is fortunate I have got my hands on the programme so early and can seek out other interested folks and choose some options to buy tickets far in advance.
The Film Festival is also on the horizon but I've not looked into that yet. I'll post it when I get hold of the programme.
The image at the top is of the Last Witch By Rona Munro from the EIF programme.
Time on my hands
I had a spare few moments this morning and decided to spend them browsing info relevant to wymmynofacertainage.
I’ve had to retype this more than once while I edited out the less circumspect comments, but really, there is only so far I can go towards gaining a measured post on this. This is the “calm down dear” version.
Oh my good goddess!!!!!! What a colossal amount of virtual and virtually useless drivel! Wymmynofacertainage blogs/websites appear to divide into the following categories:
The “check out my blog with its real-life experiences while I flog you ‘natural herbal remedies’ ". It’s not that I don’t admire women making books out of their own experiences or providing a place for others to comment and share stories, but really, I do not want endless (or so it seemed) white middle-class muddle-educated Ladees telling me ‘how it really is’.
Then there are the idiot male doctors telling partiarchally mind-controlled credulous Ladees about their own bodies when wymmynofacertainage should not be dealt with using such blatantly patronising language. Boys, hands off our systems! It is 2009, if I want medical info on women’s matters I want it from a woman, not a pseudo-empathetic patronising lecture from a non-bleeder.
In comparison, and although no one has much respect for the drug companies, at least their online presence seeks to inform and usually avoids unhelpful images. They are upfront in their attempts to push HRT or whatever is the latest chemical ‘cure’ at women.
As is the way of things, there is an infestation of the evol biologists propagating their credo. Listen, you numbskulls, I do not like what you say as it is by and large insulting to wymmyn. Also, as the only evol biologist site not to offend me this morning talked about menopausal great apes, this was not useful - I am neither zookeeper not animal experimenter. In fairness (dunno why I should be fair to those unspeakable nitwits) but ... actually, I forgot what I was going to say, the effort of trying to find a reason to be fair drained my brain for a moment.
Where you get the evol biologists, their co-henchpersons the evol psyches will also manifest in the end-of-usefulness-to-patriarchy business. One site wittered unconvincingly about the age-related changes in the female brain precipitating divorce. I didn't, but maybe you all knew that our brains have a ‘mummy part’ which changes in wymmynofacertainage?
Looks like I am gravitating towards the relative calm, uncommercialised sanity of the new-age-goddess-wisdom-crone corner of the interwebby for a breather. But that’s not my natural home really.
I’ve had to retype this more than once while I edited out the less circumspect comments, but really, there is only so far I can go towards gaining a measured post on this. This is the “calm down dear” version.
Oh my good goddess!!!!!! What a colossal amount of virtual and virtually useless drivel! Wymmynofacertainage blogs/websites appear to divide into the following categories:
The “check out my blog with its real-life experiences while I flog you ‘natural herbal remedies’ ". It’s not that I don’t admire women making books out of their own experiences or providing a place for others to comment and share stories, but really, I do not want endless (or so it seemed) white middle-class muddle-educated Ladees telling me ‘how it really is’.
Then there are the idiot male doctors telling partiarchally mind-controlled credulous Ladees about their own bodies when wymmynofacertainage should not be dealt with using such blatantly patronising language. Boys, hands off our systems! It is 2009, if I want medical info on women’s matters I want it from a woman, not a pseudo-empathetic patronising lecture from a non-bleeder.
In comparison, and although no one has much respect for the drug companies, at least their online presence seeks to inform and usually avoids unhelpful images. They are upfront in their attempts to push HRT or whatever is the latest chemical ‘cure’ at women.
As is the way of things, there is an infestation of the evol biologists propagating their credo. Listen, you numbskulls, I do not like what you say as it is by and large insulting to wymmyn. Also, as the only evol biologist site not to offend me this morning talked about menopausal great apes, this was not useful - I am neither zookeeper not animal experimenter. In fairness (dunno why I should be fair to those unspeakable nitwits) but ... actually, I forgot what I was going to say, the effort of trying to find a reason to be fair drained my brain for a moment.
Where you get the evol biologists, their co-henchpersons the evol psyches will also manifest in the end-of-usefulness-to-patriarchy business. One site wittered unconvincingly about the age-related changes in the female brain precipitating divorce. I didn't, but maybe you all knew that our brains have a ‘mummy part’ which changes in wymmynofacertainage?
Looks like I am gravitating towards the relative calm, uncommercialised sanity of the new-age-goddess-wisdom-crone corner of the interwebby for a breather. But that’s not my natural home really.
So, what do I want? Well, straightforward, woman-centred feminist info would be a start. Oh! Of course! Why didn’t I think of this in the first place?
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/chapter.asp?id=26
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/chapter.asp?id=26
Sensibly, the Boston Women's Health Collective has always maintained that "pathology/disease approach to normal life events (birthing, menopause, aging, death) is not an effective way in which to consider health or structure a health system."
The image at the top is from Wikipedia and is of the triple goddess.
Women’s Evolution
It’s the birthday of one of the blokes who did some thinking on evolution. As is normal in major leaps forward in human thinking, Darwin was just the first or at least the best able to get his name attached to the idea that the earth was old and organisms evolved. Many others were heading towards that conclusion. None of the names I’ve seen mentioned were of women - can’t imagine why.
Avoiding any controversy about creationism and evolution for the moment, I’d rather mention the work of Elaine Morgan and her Aquatic Ape theory which has bubbled around for some time.
She is an interesting person and this link contains an interview with her in 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/may/01/academicexperts.highereducation
This link provides more info: http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
Less well known is the work of Evelyn Reed who in her book Woman’s Evolution takes on the drivel of male anthropologists in their theories of primitive people, which tend to be male-centric and unquestioning of patriarchal norms.
http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/feminism/challenge_of_the_matriarchy.htm
http://www.word-power.co.uk/books/womans-evolution-I9780873484220/
I am too busy right now to give this the biting rantolicious treatment it deserves so leave it up to anyone interested to look into why evolution is a flawed but inherently scientific theory and the damage leaving it to patriarchal scientists to develop has done to women’s position in society – evolutionary biologists/psychologists and the inexcusable biological determinists anyone??
OK, to return to the creationists in the name of shared airtime or some such pseudo equality nonsense ...
I had a chemistry lecturer who was a creationist long before it became fashionable to spout young earth theory/beliefs/delusions. I'm very annoyed with my non-hoarding tendencies because only a few years ago I threw out copies of his publicity on this subject. From memory, these were information sheets explaining how oil was made in a young earth/creationist scientific way. I think it involved huge amounts of pressure on vegetable matter in a short space of time in comparison to the billions of years of leetle teeny beasties being squashed under layers of rock. I suspect coal got the same treatment, but with pressure on trees in a speeded up timeframe.
My chemistry lecturer was a really nice chap, but a tad earnest in his scientific/creationist views, although he was meticulous in not mentioning these in lectures and chose instead to set out his stall in the foyer at lunch times and spoke only to those who approached him on the subject. That I can respect as he did not force the educational establishment to include his version of science and faithfully taught chemistry as it was intended.
There are some who reject the usual scientific theory of oil creation and the creationists and have found their own ideas. I'm tempted to give them a cheer for their 'plague on all your houses' attitude. Theirs is the abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
And what do I believe? I'm certainly not a creationist, so I suppose I go along with the broad outline of evolution as far as my understanding takes me. However, I was exposed at a sensitive age to yet another concept and some of that has remained lodged in the wishful thinking section of my consciousness. Yes, we were seeded on earth by aliens! Well, probably not, but having read my way through early Von Daniken books and far too much science fiction for my own good, I have a wistful hankering for the presence of alien DNA in my mitochondria.
Forty five years of proselytising and only 10,000 acolytes. What's he doing wrong?
http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html
Avoiding any controversy about creationism and evolution for the moment, I’d rather mention the work of Elaine Morgan and her Aquatic Ape theory which has bubbled around for some time.
She is an interesting person and this link contains an interview with her in 2003.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/may/01/academicexperts.highereducation
This link provides more info: http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
Less well known is the work of Evelyn Reed who in her book Woman’s Evolution takes on the drivel of male anthropologists in their theories of primitive people, which tend to be male-centric and unquestioning of patriarchal norms.
http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/feminism/challenge_of_the_matriarchy.htm
http://www.word-power.co.uk/books/womans-evolution-I9780873484220/
I am too busy right now to give this the biting rantolicious treatment it deserves so leave it up to anyone interested to look into why evolution is a flawed but inherently scientific theory and the damage leaving it to patriarchal scientists to develop has done to women’s position in society – evolutionary biologists/psychologists and the inexcusable biological determinists anyone??
OK, to return to the creationists in the name of shared airtime or some such pseudo equality nonsense ...
I had a chemistry lecturer who was a creationist long before it became fashionable to spout young earth theory/beliefs/delusions. I'm very annoyed with my non-hoarding tendencies because only a few years ago I threw out copies of his publicity on this subject. From memory, these were information sheets explaining how oil was made in a young earth/creationist scientific way. I think it involved huge amounts of pressure on vegetable matter in a short space of time in comparison to the billions of years of leetle teeny beasties being squashed under layers of rock. I suspect coal got the same treatment, but with pressure on trees in a speeded up timeframe.
My chemistry lecturer was a really nice chap, but a tad earnest in his scientific/creationist views, although he was meticulous in not mentioning these in lectures and chose instead to set out his stall in the foyer at lunch times and spoke only to those who approached him on the subject. That I can respect as he did not force the educational establishment to include his version of science and faithfully taught chemistry as it was intended.
There are some who reject the usual scientific theory of oil creation and the creationists and have found their own ideas. I'm tempted to give them a cheer for their 'plague on all your houses' attitude. Theirs is the abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
And what do I believe? I'm certainly not a creationist, so I suppose I go along with the broad outline of evolution as far as my understanding takes me. However, I was exposed at a sensitive age to yet another concept and some of that has remained lodged in the wishful thinking section of my consciousness. Yes, we were seeded on earth by aliens! Well, probably not, but having read my way through early Von Daniken books and far too much science fiction for my own good, I have a wistful hankering for the presence of alien DNA in my mitochondria.
Forty five years of proselytising and only 10,000 acolytes. What's he doing wrong?
http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html
Great Minds Think Alike
The unmistakeable Jacky Fleming. Follow this link to see her work and be cheered up!Do great minds think alike, across the centuries, or more aptly, do some things never change? Although few would now assert as baldly as the Bard, that it is Nature's law, they are more likely to preface the same excuses with psuedo science about 'hard-wiring' and evolutionary psychology. But it all comes to the same ancient double standard.
Let Not Woman E’er Complain
Let not woman e’er complain
Of inconstancy in love;
Let not women e’er complain
Fickle man is apt to rove.
Look abroad through Nature’s range, -
Nature’s mighty law is change:
Ladies, would it not be strange
Man should a monster prove?
Mark the winds, and mark the skies
Ocean’s ebb, and ocean’s flow:
Sun and moon but set to rise,
Round and round the seasons go.
Why, then, ask of silly man
To oppose great Nature’s plan?
We’ll be constant while we can, -
You can be no more, you know.
Burns
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)