Pages

Stand by your man cave

The man cave. You've all heard of it, many of you will have one. Sometimes it's just a garage with a workbench, sometimes it's a lot more elaborate.

Mine is quite good, a lot of work went into it and I'm quite proud of it. I don't spend every night up there, I may use it properly, a couple of times a month. It's got things in it I don't use often and aren't practical to have in other rooms of the house, such as my drumkit and my old Spectrum and games. It also has all my action figures in it, much to Mrs Buckos pleasure. She was getting quite tired of a growing collection on the wall of the spare room

Mine is in the attic. We don't have any kids, but I couldn't put it in the spare room as that's been kitted out as a place for both of us, with bookshelves, a telly and a computer, along with some fitness equipment. I couldn't use the garage either, as Mrs Bucko uses it for quite an unusual purpose - keeping her car in

Most terraced houses like ours have an attic and most of them are small and covered in a hundred years of grime. Mine was no different. Some people put a few boards down for storage, but that's usually about it. A conversion is impractical as the roof is too low and there is no space for a staircase, so it couldn't be done within building regulations

A proper conversion would be impractical without extending out through the roof and building a full staircase; a project that would be beyond our financial means, even if we did want to pay for it

So for us it was dead space and I decided to start a man cave project. I properly reinforced the floor with flooring grade beams and I insulated the floor and eaves. The rest was boarding up the floor and roof, plastering the end walls and decorating with a lot of memorabilia and stuff




Anyhoo. Apparently my man cave is sexist

‘Man grenade’ alternatives to bath bombs, ‘brose’ wine, and 'man size' tissues. There are plenty of things that prove masculinity is oh so fragile. But teetering at the top of this pile of useless, gendered nonsense is the man cave.

To have a man cave is to truly live in the 1950s, when women ruled the roost, and men were Neanderthals who needed to hide their belongings away in a room where they can cast aside the burden of being civilised. They are painted as havens where men can fart, and drink beer really fast, and swear and do whatever else it is that men stereotypically do. Sure, men and women don’t have to, and almost certainly shouldn't, hang out all the time. But isn't an entire 'cave' in which to assert your masculinity a little much? Even men's magazines like GQ have rejected the archaic idea.

Well I've never read GQ and I doubt I ever will. Kashmira Gander says masculinity is fragile, yet it's these alt-feminist nutjobs who feel a need to keep picking away at masculinity and complaining about every facet of it. It isn't masculinity that is fragile. Masculinity is defined. An alpha male is comfortable with his masculinity in every way. He has a definition, a purpose, he knows who he is. Strong females are the same. It's the alt-feminist that is fragile. They are so out of touch with who they are, they need to attack everyone else who has a sense of identity

Besides, what exactly is a man cave anyway? “Man caves have no ‘real’ definition as they have sort of come to life in popular media and popular imagination,” says Tristan Bridges, assistant professor department of sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, who has studied and visted numerous man caves.

“I think most people think of man caves as sports dens, rooms with leather sofas, billiard tables, and in-home bars. But, I've found the term is used much more widely to talk about home spaces that are culturally masculinised in one way or another.

Why does a man cave need a set of rules? I'm sure most people don't play billiards anymore, but if there is space in the cave for a table and you want one, fair dos. A man cave does not come with a contents list, it is a personal space, so you fill it with what ever personl things you want to. Maybe it's the lack of a rule book that annoys this nutter? It's something beyond her control, something she can't define, so she fears it and needs to attack it

Tristan agrees that man caves support gender inequality in the home. “These spaces often play on the cultural notion that men can't really be themselves when women are around.”

“The idea that men need their own space, separate and away from everyone else, is a privileged position. And, even when couples I've interviewed use the term tongue in cheek, I still think the spaces support inequitable relationships between women and men.”

Bollocks

I can be myself just fine, when women are around. A man cave acknowledges that men and women are different. A notion that these new wave feminists with their ideas of equality at all costs, will never admit to. We have different interests and different ways of passing idle time. When my wife sits on the couch and knits for hours, I get boared. I can go in the attic and do something up there that she would find very annoying and destracting if I did it with her in the living room. It gives us separate space which we need from time to time

That's not a bad thing and it is no bad reflection on a relationship. Men and women need different things and not just in the house. Mrs Bucko plays for a pool team and I go clay pigeon shooting. Both outdoor activities that we do with our friends, not together, because we don't both share those interests

Author of The Man Cave Book Mike Yost sees these hideaways as a force for good.
Asked whether they are sexist, he says he’s heard this accusation “a lot” but says it’s a “misconception”.
“Every spouse I've talked to is fully on board with the concept. As you know, if the spouse doesn't approve of a man cave it just doesn't happen.
“It allows a bit of privacy that you can't get when going to a public place. Depending on the theme, it provides a place for a guy to showcase items he has cherished over the years or his favourite sports teams. Like with everything, using the man cave sparingly can be healthy and beneficial. Nobody runs into the man cave to hide from the family. Just the opposite, the man cave brings families together. They are used by the whole family and is a great place to entertain. It's a healthy hobby that is never completed. The man cave is always going through some type of change which is what makes it fun.”

Quite.

That sounds great. But what Yost is describing sounds suspiciously like a living room.

To a batshit feminist maybe, but not to the rest of us. If I tried to put my drums, games consoles and action figures in the living room, that idea would die a quick death and so should it

It also stands in contrast with Bridge’s findings, in that most man caves are incomplete and go largely unused.

Mine is complete but it does largely go unused, as I've stated. That follows the idea that the man cave is not a place where you go to avoid the family. It's a hobby room; a place for the occasional getaway when you want to do things that are your own. It's not supposed to be used every night, just occasionally

But when the pressures of masculinity is literally killing men - suicide takes the lives of more men aged between 20 and 49 than road accidents or heart disease in the UK - perhaps it’s wrong to dismiss the idea that they need unique ways to express themselves and share their emotions. It seems that what men need is the opposite of a man cave.

But you see, men are not women and it's wrong to expect men to express their feelings and emotions in a way defined by the feminist. I'll say it again, men and women are different. The pressures of masculinity are not killing men because they spend some time away from women. If a man with a man cave is depressed, take away his man cave and I'm sure he might become suicidal. Men deal with emotional pressures in different ways to women, because, you know, men and women are different

Enter the Men’s Sheds movement. (Notice the removal of the degrading term ‘cave’). Started in Australia, these are spaces where men come together to take part in traditionally masculine activities, including woodwork, metalwork, repairing and restoring. Women who like these things can come along, too. They are growing at a rate of eight per month in the UK.

The term 'cave' is not degrading, just because you choose to use that term. Mans sheds, as described in this awful article, are a different thing to a man cave. They're a social phenomenon, not a solitary one. If that's your thing, fair enough, but just because an alt-feminist approves of them over the traditional man cave, doesn't mean we have to give up our man caves to go into a shed somewhere and express our feeling while singing Kum By Yah around a workbench

So, men, don't hide away in your man caves. Stop being afraid to express yourselves in plain view of everyone else - it might just do you some good

I have no problem expressing myself and my man cave is staying

Friday Tunes - The Uncoverables 2

So I'm in the Smokey Drinkey Bar having a chat with some of the regulars, and I realise I've not done a Friday Tunes post yet. And it's Friday
It's been a hellish week at work though, so I'm a bit distracted. Some people say it's better to be busy because your job's safe. Some people haven't had the week I have. The lucky buggers

Anyhoo, less about my woes and more music

I've done this before in the distant past, but there are some songs that should never be covered. If a band is going to cover a record, they have to do it at least as good as the original, if not, better

Here's a selection of songs that I think should never be covered (even if they may have been), because they could never be done as good as the original

I hope you like them. Let me know if you think of any more

















Picking these tunes started off a good old conversation round the bar in the Smokey Drinkey, but thanks to Frank Davis for the last two
Rejected offerings were from The Ronnettes, Bruce Stringbean and some owd buggers who most of us hadn't heard of.
Enjoy Friday night, for it soon be Monday

Inquiry by Mob

Justice for Hillsborough took 28 years. The Grenfell families can't wait that long

I would question the the Hillsborough inquiry that took place 28 years after the incident was justice, but that's a whole other story. A story that probably has no bearing whatsoever on the events at Grenfell tower or the coming inquiry into that disaster. Never let an emotional headline go to waste if you write for the Guardian, though

Three months after the horrific fire, the Grenfell inquiry begins. But even at the outset, there are significant concerns that justice will not be served. There is a fear that those most affected will not get a seat at the table. This is crucial. Without building trust in the inquiry process, and placing victims, survivors and their families at the heart of the process, it will be doomed to failure.

Victims, survivours and their families are NOT at the heart of the inquiry. The only people who should be 'at the heart' of this inquiry are experts in the fields of fire safety, fire fighting, architecture and building design, with a few others

If affected tennents do get a seat at the table, it should only be to keep quiet and observe the proceedings, not to contribute

Survivors hoping to witness Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s opening statement at the Grenfell Tower inquiry will need to get to the Connaught Rooms early on Thursday morning. The venue has a capacity of 200: there were 900 homes on the Lancaster West estate alone. Seats will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.

Then get there early. You're only observers. If you don't get a seat, read the report when it's completed or watch the reports on the news. If you want to attend so you can vocalise your feelings and demand some sort of social justice or disrupt proceedings, you should stay at home

Although arrangements have been made for screenings elsewhere, justice will not be served if those who should be at the heart of the process do not attend because they are unsure they will get in.

Those 'at the heart', the experts needed to hold an official inquiry, will have no problem getting in. The public, those who are there to observe only, may do so, but as stated, other arrangements have been made

Trust. It is so difficult to build, and so easy to undermine. For the survivors and victims’ families, there is no aspect of life that has been untouched by the morning of 14 June 2017. Nothing is, or ever will be, the same.

Of course not. It was a huge thing. But that isn't part of the inquiry

Conversations with survivors, evacuees and volunteers are full of examples of broken promises, survivors being placed in situations that are undignified, in which they are forced to beg for their rights. I have heard stories of survivors being left without money to meet weekly expenses, of being moved from hotel to hotel without notice, of being continually sent to the wrong offices. There is no trust.

I'm assuming then, that none of these survivors had insurance with a decent company? When you rely on the state, you rely on the efficiency (or not) of the state

Each day brings fresh reports of traumatised survivors forced to return to the area near the tower to access key services, of suicide attempts, families living on top of each other in small rooms. Against the ongoing daily indignities, major concerns about justice continue to erode trust in the authorities.

I've also heard stories about illegals living in overcrowded conditions, but I can't say if they're true or not, they're just stories
This is a terrible situation for those involved, but turning a public inquiry into a sob story, does nothing to help expidite the goal of the inquiry; to find out how this happened and what should be done to prevent it happening somewhere else in the future

This week, news broke of a police investigation into allegations of theft from a property in Grenfell Walk. These allegations raise significant questions around the management of the crime scene in the weeks after the fire.

No it doesn't. The only question it raises, is the morals of people who think it's ok to steal from others

On Monday, lawyers for the family of Hesham Rahman, who died in the fire, wrote to Theresa May warning that the inquiry risked breaching the public sector equality duty of the Equality Act 2010. There are concerns about a failure to give due regard to these obligations, about the lack of diversity in the inquiry team, and of the chair’s failure to appoint a multi-ethnic panel.

Oh give me strength! Diversity and having a selection of various hues of brown on the panel are completly irrelevant. The panel should be made of of people with the necessary expertise and nobody else

On Tuesday, lawyers from campaign group BME Lawyers 4 Grenfell, sought a judicial review that was rejected by the government “before the ink was even dry”, according to Peter Herbert of the campaign.

Good. Any group with a name like BME Lawyers, cannot possibly be objective

The process has been laborious, if not downright insulting: survivors have told me they have been offered flats in blocks about to face further refurbishment, or offered temporary accommodation in buildings earmarked for demolition.

They've been offered accommodation. Would you prefer the Government to simply tell them there's nothing they can do and they should all get in touch with their insurance companies instead?

It seems that justice is no longer supposed to mean justice, for some people; it's supposed to mean whatever the next BME campaign group and their Guardian lapdogs interpret it to mean

Feathering your own nest with Government help

Warning over part-worn tyres danger

MOTORISTS in the North West are being warned to avoid buying part-worn tyres at all costs, or risk causing death on the roads.

Erm. Been using part work tyres for twenty two years without a problem. Millions of them are fitted every day. This sounds like one of those, 'Something must be done', moments. Maybe one part worn tyre has been possibly responsible for an injury and now there is a campaign by the hard of thinking to have them banned?

The National Tyre Distributors Association is calling for a complete ban on the sale of part-worn tyres.

Oh, my mistake, it's the other one; a business interest who want the government to ban the competition

This comes after its new independent research showed almost two-thirds of motorists in the North West who admit to buying part-worn tyres do so because they are the cheapest option.

No shit, Sherlock. Of course they do. I bet they also 'admit' to buying Tesco Basics sausage rolls because they are cheaper than Greggs. Being cheaper does not make them bad. Part worn tyres are second hand and like any second hand item, it's cheaper (sometimes considerably) than a brand new equivalent

Association research also found in 2015 illegal, defective or under-inflated tyres were responsible for more than 40 per cent of all vehicle defect-related deaths in the UK.

Your point? Defective or under inflated tyres can be dangerous, yes, but it's up to the driver to make sure their tyres are in good condition. A tyre isn't automatically defective or under inflated, just because it's previously been on another vehicle. A vehicle that will have donated far more second hand parts than just the tyres

Stefan Hay, chief executive of the association, said: “It’s incredibly alarming that so many motorists are choosing to purchase part-worn tyres because they are cheap, despite the distinct possibility that these could be illegal, putting themselves and other road users’ lives in grave danger.

My emphasis on the 'distinct possibility', that this chap wants to turn into a countrywide ban that will cost motorists hundreds of extra pounds that will go into the pockets of his cronies

That statement is such a leap, it's unbelievable. He's saying that because there is a possibility that a business will sell something that isn't up to standard, that item should be banned outright. There are laws against selling defective tyres and there are laws against letting good tyres become defective through over use. That's enough. No more is needed

"The current regulations are not working and we are seeing more and more illegal tyres being fitted to cars as drivers are swayed by cost alone."

Now it's just become a lie. The current regulations are fine and there is no evidence that illegal tyres are being intentionally fitted on vehicles to reduce cost

There can only be one reason this cretin wants to ban part worns: They deprive him of income. What a w%$£er

I did a quick Google while writing this, just to see how many people are actually killed by defective tyres and there are quite a few. This article from 2014 gives the same statistic as quoted above; 40% of vehicle defect related deaths in 2013 were down to tyres. Either the percentage has not changed in the last three years or outdated stats are being used for the new campaign

The 2013 article though, does not mention part worn tyres once. The reasons quoted for defective tyres are motorists not taking proper care of them and making the proper checks

One thing it does mention though, is that October is tyre safety month. I did not know that (why would I?), but I bet our chap from the Tyre Distributors Association is using this little known fact to launch his crusade against motorists purchasing affordable tyres

The first the last Eternity

'Public Health' have an obsession. They're not obsessed with making people healthier, as you'd be excused for thinking, given the title. They're obsessed with making people live longer

Longer than what, we're not told. Just longer. Longer than you would have done, if you hadn't done as 'Public Health' told you

It doesn't matter what that extra life entails; it doesn't matter if you spend your extra years sat in a puddle of your own piss without even the ability to remember your own childrens names. Under the 'Public Health' doctrine, you have a duty to live as long as possible. All other life concerns, such as happiness and quality, are not important

Even if your final years are lived in a great deal of misery and physical pain, you still have a duty to do as you're told and live them

Lung cancer survivors who quit smoking within a year of diagnosis will live for longer than those who continue to smoke, according to new research led by the Universities of Birmingham and Oxford.

While just over a third of lung cancer patients were smoking at diagnosis, those who stopped smoking and survived their treatment lived on average for 1.97 years, compared with 1.08 years for those who did not quit smoking after diagnosis, finds the study published in British Journal of Cancer.

'Lung cancer survivors in this badly worded paragraph, does not mean people who had lung cancer and now don't, it means people who have survived the treatment and will probably live for another year if their cancer was diagnosed early. It's also presumably referring to the 20% of lung cancer sufferers who are smokers, not the 80% who aren't. Giving up smoking would make no difference to them. But that's by the by...

Look at those averages again: "those who stopped smoking [...] lived on average for 1.97 years, compared with 1.08 years for those who did not quit smoking"

So you have lung cancer. You might have a year to live. If you do as you're told by public health, you might just get another .89 of a year to live. With lung cancer. While also giving up smoking. Dying in pain and without the one thing that might help you a small way towards coping with it

But you must have that extra .89 of a year

Dr Amanda Farley, lead author and lecturer at the University of Birmingham, said "This research indicates that it is never too late to quit smoking. Although many people think that the damage is done, our research shows that even after a diagnosis of lung cancer, people can still benefit from quitting."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was supposed to take years of smoking before it manifested itself into lung cancer? Yet quitting when you already have it can help in some way? Ok then

And in other news:

GPs 'don't bother persuading cancer patients to give up smoking'

Maybe GP's aren't such big shits as 'Public Health'?

GPs are not bothering to persuade cancer patients to give up smoking despite quitters enjoying double the life expectancy, new research reveals

Double the life expectancy. We've seen what that means and 'enjoying' is not the word I would have used
Maybe it's me. I'm not facing death in the eye and maybe if I was, I would want that extra .89 of a year. I don't imagine I would though, at that price

A study by Oxford University found family doctors were almost twice as likely to offer cessation advice to people diagnosed with coronary heart disease as they were to lung cancer patients, both smoking-related conditions.
Yes, but you have a much longer life expectancy with heart disease than you do lung cancer. If smoking is affecting your heart disease, it's probably a very good idea to quit, as the cost / benefit would actually be worthwhile

It's the job of a GP to treat patients and to offer sound medical advice, not to push the 'Public Health' mantra of extra years, no matter the cost

If a cancer sufferer wants help to quit smoking, no GP will refuse if asked. They don't need to be 'persuaded'.

When I say rhythm is a dancer...

Seriously, what is it about cancer?

Women who regularly eat junk food increase their risk of cancer by ten per cent - even if they are SLIM

Screeches the Mirror

Women who eat junk food but are not overweight are still increasing their risk of cancer, a study has found.
Previous research suggested the risk of cancer increased because processed foods such as burgers and pizza made people overweight.
But this latest study found that such high energy-low nutrient foods contributed to a 10% higher risk of developing cancer in women even if they were of normal weight.

'Public Health' isn't about health, it's about lifestyle control. And it's about making a whole heap of money off the back of the taxpayer. In order to keep us controlled and keep the cash rolling in, the best approach is to scare us. Frightened people tend to listen to the sages and the doomsayers a lot more than those who don't really give a crap

And cancer is a good old scary thing. I've seen people die of it, as I'm sure most of us have. It's a very nasty way to go

Which makes it the perfect tool for 'Public Health' manipulation. Tell people they are going to get cancer and they will be scared. Offer them a way out and they'll beg you to tell them what to do. So you tell fat people they are going to die from cancer and they might just start to follow the 'Public Health' doctrine, allowing you to prove those Government grants are being put to good use

But what happens when people who aren't fat, still purchase food you don't approve of, from businesses you despise? Tell them they're also going to get cancer. Folk will believe owt these days

Just make sure you word the message in the correct way. A ten percent higher risk. Most people would read that as being a ten percent risk of getting cancer and a ninety percent risk of not doing. That's bunkum

It's actually an increase of ten percent on the risk you have without the fatty foods. It might for example, be an increase of 10% on an existing risk of 2%. So your risk is now 2.2%. I can't be bothered working out the exact figures, but that's the general idea. When 'Public Health' talk about risks in percentages, it's generally a percentage increase that is so small, it can safely be ignored

But as long as they keep pushing it, more people will believe it

How that nightly tipple could lead to skin cancer: Just one alcoholic drink a day can raise risk of one type by 11%

This time the Daily Mail

Drinking just one glass of beer or wine a day could give you skin cancer, scientists have warned - and it isn’t to do with spending time in pub beer gardens or lying in the sun.

Drinkers too. You are so unapproved of. You will get cancer too. A 11% increased risk of skin cancer from having one beer a day. I don't know off the top of my head what the risk of skin cancer is to a non-drinker, but it's small. Small enough that an 11% risk can be ignored, as it's probably just down to inconsistencies in the study or cherry picking

It's been proved time and time again that moderate drinking is good for you, but that doesn't fit the narrative. Someone somewhere has to 'prove' that moderate drinking is going to give you a horrible death from cancer. Keep it scary, keep the taxpayer cash rolling in

Many people though, are well aware that 'Public Health' can be safely ignored and choose to do so. So what happens when your target audience just aren't scared of you and your cancer anymore and choose to buy and eat what they want? You target the places they buy from and make it harder to buy the things you disapprove of

Cancer charity calls for action on junk food multi-buys

Squeals the BBC

Cancer Research UK said stores frequently promoted items high in sugar, salt or fat, and said obesity was linked to 13 different cancers
.

Not just one, but 13 cancers. THIRTEEN! Oh the humanity.

Polling for the charity suggested 71% of parents believe too much junk food is on promotion in supermarkets, with 89% of parents believing that promotions influence what they buy.

And whose fucking fault is that? So just because a few people have zero self control and thirteen cancers, the rest of us should be forced to pay more for our food?

It said action on unhealthy food could make it easier for people to make healthier choices.

And there's another way they lovingly manipulate the English language. If you take away the things you disapprove of and only leave the things you think are ok, you're not helping people make choices, you're taking choice away; you're dictating what people are allowed to buy and eat

And people will happily cheer you along as you take away their freedom to choose how they live their lives. Just as long as you keep scaring them with the big C, they'll let you get away with anything. And they'll pay you to do it out of their own taxes

And ours...