Marriage is not the arena of the state

Married parents are simply better than unmarried parents, or so David Cameron believes. It’s true that the number of married parents has dropped in the last decade from 68% to 62% and the rhetoric about saving the institution is particularly easy to churn out: few of us would say we didn’t “value commitment.” It’s also possible to find statistics that suggest children of co-habiting parents are more likely to end up in undesirable situations such as single-parent families, but we mustn’t be lead into the old trap of mistaking correlation for causation. Commitment and love are vital ingredients in a lasting family dynamic, and faithful couples often marry. Some co-habiting couples may remain unmarried because they lack this commitment, but this skews such statistics against the co-habiting couples that are dedicated and loving. A co-habiting couple may well be even more committed than married parents; they’ve simply chosen not to express it in the traditional manner.

We are all fully and painfully aware that a marriage bond is far from being a certain method of ensuring familial harmony. The state imposing this traditional model on co-habiting parents that have proven to have created a successful family dynamic (and may not agree with the contract or its host of connotations) would be at best pointless, and at worst potentially damaging. In short, if it ain’t broken Britain, don’t fix it. If, on the other hand, a co-habiting parent family is dysfunctional, it seems that cementing unsuitable partners in a more permanent fashion could simply exacerbate problems.

Marriage confers legal rights on property and childcare provisions, and in some cases these may safeguard vulnerable family members in the sad case of a divorce. In others, however, it could impede a couple’s ability to live on their own terms. Nick Clegg is a dangerously unpopular figure to invoke in an argument, but he hit the nail on the head when he argued that the government had no right to “encourage a particular family form.”

The decision to enter into a marriage bond should be made because of mutual love and respect. Cameron’s proposal to introduce a financial incentive is a moral corruption that lowers the institution he is endorsing to mercenary motives. His standpoint comes from the conservative idea that Britain’s social problems have arisen from degradation of the value of marriage – what could be more degrading than adding money to the equation? The Telegraph, too, aims to support the tax breaks by claiming rising divorce rates cost the UK £1bn each year, but this makes the idea to encourage more couples to rush prematurely into marriage seem rather self-defeating.

Loathe as I am to add an argument of cold, hard pragmatism to the debate, to extend these tax breaks to all married couples could cost the government an unaffordable £3.2 billion per year. Giving this money back to one sector of society is particularly unfair when others, such as the single parent families that would of course be exempt from the proposed breaks, are struggling to cope with cuts to tax credits and childcare support.

The right to get married is already an issue entangled in discrimination, and choosing to bestow benefits according to marital status simply exacerbates this inequity. Someone who subscribes to a religion that prohibits them from marrying or re-marrying would be barred from these tax breaks, and while these restrictions are not legally binding, the state-imposed ban on same-sex marriages is. Refusing a co-habiting homosexual couple’s right to marry, and then giving money to equally committed heterosexual couples is simple, outrageous, discrimination.

It is the strength of the relationships in any family that create a positive environment for nurturing a child, and these relationships can be loving and lasting regardless of whether a couple is married or co-habiting. One standard formula will not work for all families, and so demonising or rejecting other dynamics whilst corrupting the marriage bond with mercenary incentives is far beyond the government’s rights and fundamentally unfair.

Jethro Thompson

Being rude is not ok. Why do some feel this does not apply to them online?

I don't know if many people find the need to scroll through the public comments after having read an online newspaper article or blog? Well sometimes I do, albeit briefly, and it's reasonable to argue that I could spend my time doing better & more productive things. 
However, anyone who has joined me in this activity of expanding the mind & intellect will hopefully have noticed the strange contrast between the discussions taking place in cyberspace & those made via vibrating our vocal chords & eardrums. Generally speaking, (get it?!) when we walk past someone we know in the street we tend to, at the very very least, look at them in a relatively inoffensive way, often achieved by attempting to smile or nod. Otherwise we may use our communicative sensory apparatus to call out words such as 'hello', 'hi', or my personal favourite, 'heiaghff...' (a sort of neutral grunt offered when you are unsure if the other person is planning on responding)
I'm sure I don't have to go into the art of conversation, which can differer in competence from person to person, but generally this is a pleasant & friendly activity. Only very occasionally is this practise engaged to hurl abuse & insults between people, as most of us prefer to enjoy human company rather than spoil it by calling your next door neighbour a '(...........)'.
But the conventions of human conversation do not seem to be followed so avidly when happening online. In fact, a great proportion of them seem to function (or disfunction) in ways entirely contrary to this standard. After reading an article by Laurie Penny about how we should be careful about attitudes to rape I scanned through some of the comments made to see what the online Newstatesman readers were feeling about this issue. Unfortunately the level of conversation was a bit weird. Here are just a few extracts from the public comments:



'I'm afraid this entire piece is nothing but sixth-form drivel'

'utter tosh'
(This one was so horrific it verges on being hilarious) 'As a male who has never felt the urge to force my attentions on a woman, I would however ask the ladies here, "Is it sensible to dress like the cast of a porno movie for a night out?"'

(This person was actively scary) 'Women are at least partly to blame if they intentionally dress provocatively...' (According to them) 'That's just a common sense FACT!'


Not only did some of the comments posted disregard the social manners & morays, that essentially exist so that we don't all become chronically depressed, but some of them are quite clearly openly sexist & misogynistic. Even if you find some elements of Laurie's article slightly contentious it is difficult to see how calling her 'some silly little student girl' is acceptable. Indeed this is clearly an attempt to both make Laurie Penny feel bad about herself & perpetrating an obvious sexist stereotype. I am a student, and those fellow students around me I would categorise as being 'silly' in a pejorative sense, not only make up a very small number but seem obviously equal between sexes. Even if I felt that the majority of the silly people I had met were women, I seriously doubt this is due to their sex, and far more likely to be due to aspects of character I find silly.

Indeed, say the person who left this comment does normally engage in polite conversation; however, in a particular instance they had lost their rag because they had become exasperated with the other person's point of view it may be more understandable, because they are human, for them to insult the other person by calling them 'silly', or words to that effect. Although this is not very nice, it is non specific & clearly separate to saying 'some silly little student girl'. This is an attack on specific elements of the other persons character which are both uncontrollable & inoffensive when separated from the rest of the sentence. It is making a statement that there are 'some' people out there who are silly just for the reasons of being a student or being a girl. That is why this comment is so nasty, even though 'silly' is not a particularly effective insult anymore. Especially when you have this to contend with.

But why this level online, & why do people become so vocally abusive over polite, inoffensive, but critical opinion pieces they have decided to read? I say this with concern because there has recently been an increase in misogynistic & hateful attacks to public figures such as Laurie Penny & other prominent women. (ARTICLE)

It is possibly because people feel anonymous when typing something from the other end of an internet connection. They are for some reason less inclined to experience the other person's reaction to their streams of abuse. Obviously this is because they are not physically with them to notice it, but also & I would argue more importantly, because they do not put themselves in the shoes of the recipient. So it is really brought about by a lack of empathy which is brought to the surface by not witnessing the consequences of what you choose to say. So it would be wrong to criticise the medium of online debate. It is restrictive & oppressive to ban the comment sections. It is also better not to be fearful of reactions to being honest about what you think. 

What is needed is empathy: Imagine what it means to the other person if a significant group of others ruthlessly & rudely insult them. That is essentially bullying.

So remember your manners!

The First Syllables & a new band worthy of praise

I have now entered the world of online comment.
It's been a pretty difficult ride, full of nightmares & personal demons but with the added bonus of being able to select my own font. The delights of the internet...

I'm going to stay relatively neutral for now & release some spiel on the world of music! Although no doubt contention will arise within the seething millions that are you, the readers.

In the modern jungle of websites & domains where people can publish music online its probably safe to say that there has never before been so much music available to the average person with internet access.
Although this might initially seem a fantastic benefit to composers, singers, artists & such folk it drags with it its own problems of anonymity within cyberspace. With so much music being published online by both professionals & amateurs it is now the case that the seemingly helpful promotional blessing of having your music so exposed is really something of a catch-22. Artists who could be the potential musical magnates of the future now find themselves caught up behind the endless queues of those who are, shall we say, not ideal for the future of music. So has the democratisation of musical promotion into the online DIY system has caused a massive depreciation in the value of music? Do websites such as Sound-Cloud & Myspace help or hinder the musically creative populous?

That aside, there are notable, & in my opinion very cleverly packaged & talented, exceptions to this trend. The group, CLEAN BANDIT, who I have recently discovered, have demonstrated themselves to be a highly able, competent & attractive band, basing their aesthetic largely around an online idiom. Seemingly well versed in the technological, theoretical, & presentational facets of music, this 6 piece (I think) group are 'originally built around a string quartet and they mix classical, hip-hop and electronica in a way that isn't overly self-conscious' according to the Guardian. With a seductively concise musical aesthetic, the band allows separate musical ideas to jump in and out again without getting old or dull, whilst simultaneously giving the listener enough to find catchy, and wanting more. Given the structure of the ensemble, a creative blend of electronic & acoustic timbres, it is comforting that the group hasn't produced something self indulgent or gimmicky. Instead they have found a playfully accessible & integral sound, whilst also being very funny, something difficult to achieve in modern music. It is hard to fault the videos, both the audio & visual elements complimenting each other very well to create a very pleasing end product.

So, have a listen & a watch & enjoy! 

http://cleanbandit.com/main.php