An old codger's comments

It is great to see how much progress has been made in the proper recognition of women, although there is still a long way to go. All power to them in their campaign. But the welcome emancipation of the female gender is not what this blog is about. This is a male complaint: the attitude of some women towards men involved in what were once traditional female activities. From my experience it seems that it is acceptable by all women for them to occupy male roles, but for a small number, a complete role reversal is seen as wrong. I’m obviously not suggesting that it’s now OK for men to give birth, but questioning why, as women join the workforce in increasing numbers, there are a percentage that question, even sneer, at men doing what were previously ‘female’ jobs.

Why is it seen as odd, by some women, for me to make cakes? Why shouldn’t I clean the house? What is peculiar about my washing clothes, hanging them out, mending and ironing where necessary? Is it because, despite the ever-present need for equality of the sexes, I am seen to be taking over traditional female occupations? Or is it because there are some women who still believe in the importance of keeping the old gender roles? Men should keep doing male activities and women should retain their female functions.

Men and women are equally capable of a wide variety of household and family chores, and women are increasingly employed in what, for too long, were regarded as traditional male roles, such as in the armed forces, police, firefighting, aviation, politics, finance, agriculture and scientific research. For a minority of women there seems to be a reluctance to give up the old ways – when men were men and women knew their place, mostly in the home. Come on ladies, if you want gender fluidity to allow your involvement in all aspects of society, you have to allow me the pleasure of making cup cakes!

Some examples.

While I am on a roll, another whinge! The new technology is obsessed with numbers. Codes and pin numbers are necessary to carry out even the simplest of activities. I am constantly reminded that my pin number/password is too simple and easily reproduced and the advice is to change it for one that includes both upper and lower case letters, numbers and signs. The net result would be something non-memorable as far as I am concerned. So I would have to write it down somewhere handy and, when needed, remember where I had written it! Which would seem to destroy the whole purpose of having one!

It’s getting so we need passwords and pins to do anything. To get into a bank account, use one’s own computer, pay a bill by card, get cash out of machine, collect keys from a lockbox, and so on. The great temptation is to use one’s birthday numbers all the time in the different pins. Ah, but a potential thief would expect an old codger to do that, so that’s out. And how about one’s car rego? Also too obvious. Address and postcode? Too easy. The trouble is I am looking to create a password/pin composed of number/letters I can easily remember, but they are inevitably judged to be ‘low security’. OK, how about 13A9bec17#$02? But I’ll never remember that. so it will have to be tattooed on my arm. But what happens if I am unconscious and am picked up by an unscrupulous paramedic? I think my new pin is going to be something like Paranoia2021.

It’s time for a whinge! Have you noticed how much more complex technology is today? Perhaps it’s me, and one of the problems of getting old, but I find it overwhelming. Whereas a piece of equipment used to be simple and straightforward, now it does everything. I bought a camera expecting to take photos just by pushing a button, but what are all those other buttons and levers for? It is useful to be able to focus in or out, and to add flash on dark days, but why all the extras? Recently I pushed a knob by mistake and the picture in the viewfinder changed completely to shades of blue. Why do I need this?

I have to carry a mobile phone to keep in touch with friends and relatives as, apparently, a fixed home phone is no longer the way to communicate. But even the simplest mobile has so many extras that it takes months to work out. I don’t need a phone to also be a camera, a computer, calculator, travel planner, encyclopedia, message board, weather forecaster, music keyboard, etc etc. It’s a bit like wanting to buy a mouth organ and being presented with a concert organ with several keyboards and a myriad stops and pedals. To use any modern appliance one needs to attend a 10-week course as well as read and remember the instructions in the inevitable 50 page instruction booklet (?).

Interestingly, children appear to revel in using modern technology, and are keen to press all the knobs to see what will happen. Perhaps as retirees continue to increase in number in the overall population, manufacturers may see an opportunity in producing simple mechanical devices designed specifically for technically challenged old codgers.

If you choose to avoid vaccination you are relying on other circumstances to keep yourself healthy. Firstly, you should hope that 80% or more of the population accepts vaccination which considerably reduces the chance of you, the anti-vaxxer, coming into contact with someone capable of spreading the virus. The higher percentage of the population that is vaccinated, the less chance the virus can spread and replicate. By asserting your ‘rights’ not to be vaccinated you are assuming that most of us will, and that you can rely on others to keep you safe. Selfishly, your health and your rights are dependent on, and trusting, the rest of us complying with what is important for Public Health. It’s a good thing for us all, that we can trust the majority of the driving population to keep to the left on the roads (in Australia) and stop at red lights. A civil population depends on trust.

One of the many excuses I have heard from those who are refusing vaccination is that they believe they have a ‘good immune system’ that will respond effectively to an infection with Covid-19. This attitude is common among the ‘wellness’ community. By taking a variety of vitamins, minerals and plant extracts, they claim a superior immunity to infection, and are in no need of vaccination. Sorry, but the immune system, no matter how ‘strong’, cannot prevent illness caused by bacteria and viruses if it has not previously come into contact with these pathogens. The immune system has to be primed to protect us, either through contracting the disease or by injecting the appropriate vaccine. In the case of Covid-19, you may be lucky to survive the infection and then become immune, but in too many cases, the disease causes serious illness, perhaps death, before the immune response kicks in. Asking for the vaccine when on your deathbed is too late.

Many people are unaware and unappreciative of the extent and benefits of an effective Public Health system, such as exists in Australia. They turn on a tap and expect to be able to drink the water safely without having to boil it first. They flush a toilet and expect the contents of the bowl to be instantaneously and safely removed and disposed of. If they are ill there are fully qualified doctors and nurses to look after them; if there is an emergency, an ambulance arrives within a short time and they are whisked off to hospital where they will be treated with modern medicine and surgery. The high quality of the food they buy is protected by regulation; the milk they pour onto their cereals at breakfast is tuberculosis-free, thanks to the control of TB in cattle and heat treatment to kill off any pathogens. And as mentioned in the previous blog, children are protected by vaccination from potentially deadly diseases and there are a range of vaccines available for adults to prevent serious illness from flu, shingles and pneumonia. There are also extensive regulations regarding building construction, the supply of electricity and gas, public transport, beaches, parks, swimming pools and public buildings with the aim of keeping the public safe. Public Health has many aspects but most of the population accept the benefits without thinking.

Separating out and avoiding a particular vaccination from the total Public Health package is irrational. As an analogy, think of the system of safety measures employed to prevent accidents and injury on the roads. You may object to having to stop at a red light or give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, but it would be nonsensical and dangerous to claim your right to do so. As before, I suggest anti-vaxxing is an indulgence, and in the same vein as those who demand gluten-free bread and cakes when they are not gluten-intolerant.

It’s a pity we cannot transport those who demand their right to refuse vaccination back to the nineteenth century, or even to a slum district in a less safe modern country, and then see how strongly they would argue their case.

This old codger gets very angry when he hears about the large number of people in Australia and elsewhere who claim the ‘right’ to refuse Covid-19 vaccination. The argument circles around the belief that ‘I have the right to refuse to have foreign material put into my body’. Of course there are others who subscribe to various conspiracy theories such as ‘They are putting a microchip in with the vaccine’ and ”The coronavirus epidemic is a fraud engineered by Big Pharma to make more profits’ and ‘More people die from the vaccination than from the disease’

Ignoring the patent nonsense of the conspiracy theories, let’s talk about the right to refuse vaccination. There are several responses to this attitude. Firstly, it is very likely that the anti-vaxxers are here to make their protests, and healthy, because they received all their childhood vaccinations: measles, chickenpox, scarlet fever, polio etc. Not that long ago, one in five children died early in life because they were unprotected against disease. I can recall pictures of wards full of children in ‘iron lungs’ because they were unable to breath because of Polio, and there are adults now who were crippled by the disease as children before the Polio vaccine became available. Science has come along way in a century in devising protection against bacterial and viral diseases; the Covid vaccines are just a step in that progress.

I wonder if the anti-vaxxers would be demanding their rights if they lived in Africa and were threatened with the possibility of contracting the deadly Ebola disease? The ‘right’ of healthy adults to refuse vaccination seems to be an indulgence. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there are two sides to the coin – with rights go responsibilities. In this case there is a responsibility to protect others: a fully vaccinated population prevents the spread of the virus. And there is more one can say to refute their attitude – see next post: Anti-vaxxers 2

Following on from the previous blog, another piece of (non-religious) advice! It pays to avoid actions based on beliefs which are based on further beliefs. We are all liable to make this mistake. A simple example is trusting the advice of someone whom we believe, without evidence, is honest. A false belief based on false belief. Do not, uncritically, accept the advice of a real estate agent or used car salesman no matter how trustworthy you believe they are – they do not have the same goals as you.

History is full of examples of beliefs which led to other beliefs and dreadful actions. A recent classic example is Nazism. Hitler promoted the belief in the superiority of the German ‘race’ which led to the further belief that other peoples were inferior, sub-human, including those who were disabled, and therefore could be destroyed. Racism is based on the false belief that some people – usually white northern Europeans and their descendants, are superior to those with black, brown and yellow skins, and this leads to the belief that non-whites are inferior and can be treated in an inferior way. A similar false thinking is at the basis of sexism and the abuse of women by men.

And this leads me back to religion and other strongly held beliefs. It is the right of everyone to hold certain religious or political beliefs if they provide guidelines for surviving the rigours of living, no matter if they contradict the beliefs of others. However problems arise when a strongly held personal belief leads to the further belief that it is then OK to attack those who do not agree with oneself. In the past, too many people and populations were persecuted and died because their beliefs were not in agreement with those of the majority. Our modern world provides many other current examples.

Actions need to be based on facts, not on beliefs supported by other beliefs. A tent is not a reliable shelter in a gale when it is pitched on sand.

Recently I was in conversation with a person who made the claim that without the guidance of God, society would descend into chaos. According to him, only religion can provide the basis for morals and good behaviour. He didn’t say which religion was the most useful in this regard but, as I learned later, he is a Catholic, so I presume his faith is the one he was promoting!

So, according to his belief, if we were without religion to show us the way, there would be no reason to look after others, to be honest or caring, to avoid conflict with neighbours, or not to cheat or steal, or even murder.

If you read another of my blogs (avetsview.com) you will see why this is nonsense. As we are all members of the same species, we should automatically ‘look after our own’. Horses don’t kill and eat other horses, or cows eat cows. Add to this the fact that we are rational animals and can therefore anticipate the outcomes of any of actions which involve other people.

If you want a guide to good behaviour, Do as you would be done by, is a good start. And given the present state of the world, perhaps Think twice before following any leader would also be useful.

The wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus could also be included in the behaviour termed ‘social distancing’. Pre-covid, when meeting a stranger for the first time, it was commonplace to smile, thereby reassuring the other of one’s good intentions. This is not possible when wearing a mask. As I am a friendly fellow I continue to smile at shop assistants and others when meeting them, but fail to remember that they cannot see my mouth. One young woman when asked about this, said Yes but I can see their eyes!

We certainly narrow our eyes when smiling, but we also do so when angry. Try looking angry in a mirror by turning down the sides of the mouth, you are likely to also narrow your eyes. So we are left with no guaranteed means of showing friendliness. We need to invent a new affirmative gesture.

I could try winking, but that seems to have the wrong connotation and, at my age and when meeting women, might result in unanticipated consequences! So what gesture, in these times of masking, could give reassurance to a stranger? How about extending one or both open hands? But an open hand is an invitation to a hand shake, which is also not acceptable in these fraught times. I am at a loss to suggest how to signal friendliness when wearing a mask.

Perhaps it is the time to introduce the Eastern custom of ‘namaste’. Placing the palms of the hands together over the heart and bowing slightly, is a sign of non-aggression and deference to another. It will be interesting to see the response when I next visit a supermarket. It might even persuade someone that I do yoga!

The English language has acquired a new word, but its meaning is vague and any benefits are doubtful. One might say that ‘wellness’ is the same thing as good health, in which case there would be no need for a new word. But the difference seems to be that good health is defined by and dependent on medical science, whereas wellness is loosely decided by its practitioners and varies according to their beliefs. Maintaining good health includes looking after both one’s physical and mental condition, whereas wellness appears to be more about what one should avoid.

A recent new acquaintance, who claims to write about wellness, has shone a little light on this new phenomenon. She cannot sleep in a room with pictures on the wall, abhors indoor plants, cannot survive without her room being flooded with sunshine and refuses to use a microwave oven. And yet has a mobile phone! Another acquaintance has had all the amalgam fillings in her teeth removed as she was convinced she was suffering from mercury poisoning. And then there are those who live entirely on uncooked vegetables, or starve themselves regularly, or take ice-cold baths.

Wellness seems to be a conglomeration of beliefs and attitudes, mostly without any scientific basis. A wellness advocate can accept any or all of the beliefs and practice some or all of the habits. A wellness lifestyle appears to be based on a limited and distorted understanding of the immune system, so that daily dosing with vitamin pills, eating special herbs and certain avoidance behaviours will protect one from all illnesses.

However, this way of life has its drawbacks in not being being able to use a microwave oven and opposition to the rollout of the 5G network because it spreads the coronavirus, failure to protect oneself from infection with Covid-19 by wearing a mask, refusal of vaccination and, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the irrationality and danger of having a colonic irrigation to clean out any ‘residual toxins’.