*TRIGGER WARNING* There is queerphobia and general garbage humans
Yes, I know, it’s only the second day of the month, but Eric Abetz holds a special place in hell and he opened his mouth on something we’re both very passionate about and he lied, or if that’s not quite accurate, he misstated actual facts.
You see, the reason I know that Abetz is bending the truth, is because this particular story impacts directly on me, what The Australian claimed I said, and the fact that I am very very sure that Eric Abetz and the Australian Journalist Ean Higgins worked together to discredit me, James, and Bi-Alliance Victoria. This all happened in 2012, so for most people it’s the distant past, but I don’t forget being used by a queerphobic politician who was out to trash a Senate Committee looking into marriage equality (I have a LONG memory).
Let’s start at the beginning and move to what Abetz has done today in a mostly linear fashion.
I published on my blog my submission to the Senate Committee, I also submitted it online as was available at the time (though apparently it was never received by the committee). James (my husband) who was then president of Bi-Alliance Victoria, submitted a submission on behalf of Bi-Alliance Victoria (see submission 181). As you can see from both submissions, we called for the same marriage rights for same-sex relationships as people in opposite sex relationships.
Out of the blue, we received a call from Ean Higgins at The Australian, who wanted to talk about our submissions to the Senate. We didn’t expect Mr Higgins to stab us in the back, so we talked to him, he called back and asked some more questions, and then wrote a factually incorrect article titled, “Marriage for four put to Senate” for The Australian. I wrote to the Australian to request a retraction and an apology and only got one after I involved the Press Council (sadly not online).
Only after the event did I realise that Ean Higgins and Eric Abetz had probably colluded to discredit my submission, and the submission of Bi-Alliance Victoria, and went out of their way to suggest that by granting marriage equality to people in same-sex relationships, granting legal recognition to people in polyamorous relationships was just around the corner*.
In the dissenting opinion in the Marriage Equality Senate Committee, Abetz and Cash wrote (pdf):
1.27 Coalition senators are of the view that in considering Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill it is appropriate to consider the potential consequences of where the logic of ‘marriage equality’ may lead.
1.28 The majority report seeks to selectively highlight certain submissions received by the committee in support of the proposition that ‘Marriage Equality for same-sex couples is not a ‘slippery slope'”.
1.29 The majority report fails however to acknowledge submissions received by the Senate committee from Mr James and Mrs Rebecca Dominguez and, further, the evidence given by former High Court Justice Michael Kirby at the committee’s hearing in Sydney, which cogently demonstrate that the conclusion of the committee majority in this regard is factually incorrect.
1.31 Mr and Mrs Dominguez are practising polyamorists. Mrs Dominguez is the former President of PolyVic, an organisation representing Victoria’s polyamorous community.
1.32 Both Mr and Mrs Dominguez made submissions to the Senate Inquiry. Only Mr Dominguez’s submission (Submission 181 on behalf of the Bisexual Alliance Victoria) was published due to the number of submissions received by the inquiry. Mrs Dominguez’s submission was however posted on line at http://blogs.bluebec.com/submission-to-the-senate-on-marriage-equality/. While the submissions by Mr and Mrs Dominguez did not explicitly canvass polyamorous marriage, both made subsequent statements supporting this proposition at some time in the future.
1.33 In an article in The Australian newspaper on 23 May 2012, entitled ‘Marriage for four put to Senate’, Mrs Dominguez is quoted as saying: ‘Some time in the distant future we should look at the idea of plural marriage’. On a blogsite entitled Polyamory in the news, Mr Dominguez said:
I just want to re-stress that: despite the Oz misquoting yet again and saying The Greens are “against” poly marriage, they have actually said simply that it’s not part of their platform and they have no plans to pursue it. If there is ever a popular movement to legalise poly marriage in the future, The Greens will be the first to lend their support, I guarantee it. A few poly people are angry with them for not expressing support, but I think we need to be realistic.
1.34 A number of other polyamorists subsequently expressed the view that there should be greater recognition of polyamorist relationships, or disappointment with the Greens’ claim not to support polyamorous marriage.
I don’t think for an instant that any of these Senators are savvy enough to google us, I would expect that Higgins was still stalking us online, hence the comment regarding Polyamory in the News, which James commented on, he wasn’t quoted in the article.
Ok, so why am I dragging out all this dusty history from 2012?
Today Abetz opened his mouth regarding the joint party (Liberal/Labor) Private Members Bill regarding Marriage Equality, as this is an issue that isn’t going away any time soon, and Ireland and the USA have now legalised same-sex marriage (which just looks weird as something to type out – because marriage shouldn’t be illegal, but I digress). Abetz is quoted in the Guardian as stating:
Senior Abbott government minister Eric Abetz has suggested legalising same-sex marriage could open a “Pandora’s box” of legalising other unions, including polyamory.
Abetz called on frontbench colleagues to take “the honourable course of action” and quit their leadership positions if they were unable to support the Liberal party’s “long-established policy” of upholding marriage between a man and a woman. And he suggested the change would trigger subsequent calls to allow marriages between three or more people.
“To try to change the definition now will open a Pandora’s box because if you undo the insitution [sic] of marriage by redefining it for the latest movement or the latest fad you will open a Pandora’s box for all sorts of other potential possibilities,” he told Sky News on Thursday.
Asked to be specific, Abetz said: “Polyamory, clearly – well, polyamory is one of those. That has now been promoted not only to Australian Senate committees but it has been commented on and pursued in Holland, in Scandinavia, in the United States, so let’s not be under any illusion that once you start unpicking the definition of marriage there will be other consequences.”
The interviewer, Kieran Gilbert, said: “So you’re suggesting that it would be legalising multiple spouses, is that what you’re suggesting, that that’s a prospect?”
Abetz replied: “No, no, no, no; look, don’t try and verbal me. What I said was that if you undo the definition you then open up a Pandora’s box and if you say that it is no longer an instiution [sic] between one man and one woman you then do open up a Pandora’s box.
“Indeed, dissenting judges in the United States and elsewhere have referred to that possibility, so what I am saying is not something new. It is something that many people around the world have said and we have in fact witnessed it.”
He also suggested it was the “Asian century”, yet Asian countries had not embraced same-sex marriage.
When Gilbert questioned the comparison, given Australia also differed from many Asian countries on the issue of capital punishment, Abetz accused the media of championing the cause of same-sex marriage rather than allowing “a proper, appropriate debate”.
Abetz added: “I detect that the Australian people are getting a bit sick and tired of the one-way traffic that is being promoted by Australia’s media.”
So much fail, in so little airtime.
A) Poly people did not insert themselves into the 2012 Senate Committee on Marriage Equality, Abetz, Cash and the other dude went and found polyamory and shoved it in there on their own. The Australian’s coverage of poly news at that time (see the Poly In The News link above) was solely to get Polyamory into the political consciousness so that they had a good reason to dissent against marriage equality at the time other than writing “we’re queerphobic bigots” 100 times.
B) Poly people aren’t clamouring for marriage recognition, and are unlikely to do so any time soon. Even if they did, I don’t understand why this would be a good reason to deny people in monogamous committed same-sex relationships to marry now. You could always put in a thing about monogamy if that really concerns you.
C) Abetz really is a complete cock weasel. Actually that might not be fair, a cock weasel actually sounds like a cool idea. Abetz is a complete and utter arsehat.
* An aside – the Family Law Act of something something, actually recognises multiple relationships in the event of a divorce or separation – so that those couples that have separated but cannot divorce (ie one is missing, offshore and can’t be contacted, etc), any future relationship that they are in can still be recognised for the purposes of separation of that subsequent relationship. So the fact that I am legally married AND living with another partner, means that the Family Law Act probably already recognises my two relationships… isn’t that nice.
Hello and welcome to the Down Under Feminist Carnival – a carnival celebrating feminist writers of Australia and New Zealand, and their posts written in March 2015. I hope you enjoy this carnival as much as I enjoyed putting it together. Thanks to Chally, Mary, Scarlett, Cat, Ju, Ana and Sanch for making submissions to the carnival.
I’ve grouped the posts that have been submitted to me and that I have found into categories for ease of reference (and ease of putting this all together for me). If I have miscategorised something, or if you notice any errors, please let me know.
You should also consider volunteering to host a carnival yourself if you’re a feminist in Australia or New Zealand. It’s not too difficult, and I will help you by sending you posts of interest. You can volunteer here.
International Women’s Day & Women’s History Month
So March sees International Women’s Day, and Scarlett at The Scarlett Woman writes, “International Women’s Day: Why I’m a Bad Feminist, or Women Can Be Misogynists, Too.”
I could be accused of being a “bad feminist” for the assertion I’m about to make. After all, feminists are supposed to support all women, right? Even women doing unfeminist things, like Sarah Palin, or women in traditionally male dominated industries, like Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer, and who throw feminism under the bus.
But in my experience women can be misogynists, too. And as I write this I’m thinking of one woman in particular.
Jennifer Wilson writes, “I don’t effing care if you call yourself a feminist or not.“:
I have a dream. In my dream every woman with a public voice just for once refuses these speaking and writing engagements and instead throws her weight behind a National Day of Mourning on March 8, for the women world-wide, and particularly in Australia because this is our homeland where we can best have influence, who are murdered and abused by intimate partners, as well as the children who witness and suffer.
I have a dream that if women with a public voice do accept speaking and writing engagements on this, our one fucking day of the entire fucking year, they will agree to speak out all day long about domestic violence, government responsibilities, and the safety and protection of women and children, and nothing else.
Commonwealth Writers hosted feminists from Commonwealth Nations for March. Anne Else who also writes for The Hand Mirror and Elsewoman wrote, “Why are we still here?”, and Ella Henry, a Maori academic wrote, “What have we really achieved?”.
gillpolak wrote and hosted an entire series of posts in March for Women’s History Month, and as I can’t just pick two, I’m going to link to her LiveJournal and you can read them at your leisure.
Media and women
Scarlett Harris writes at Junkee, “Forget The ‘Angry Black Woman’ Problem; Does Shonda Rhimes Have a Mistress Problem?“:
Scandal and HTGAWM avoid the “lazy black woman” trope, as Phoebe Robinson writes in a recent issue of Bitch magazine, by ensuring her black female characters have stable careers — but something’s gotta give, and that would be their love lives. Vulture’s TV critic Margaret Lyons echoed this sentiment on their debut TV podcast: “There’s nothing exciting about having your shit together.”
Scy-Fy interviews Alisa Krasnostein, Alexandra Pierce, and Tansy Rayner Roberts about their podcast Galactic Suburbia.
Carly Findlay writes, “Encountering plagiarism of my own work“:
I googled an article I’d written (to reference it for something else) and found my work plagiarised.
A disability organisation plagiarised my article. This is the second disability organisation in two weeks to steal that article (it was the article about disability and fashion) – and the third time a disability organisation has taken my work. (And it’s happened to my friends too.) While there was a link to Daily Life below the text, there was no link to my blog and the format of the article made it look like I had written for that organisation.
Generally my editor takes care of plagiarism but this time I called the organisation. The organisation was surprised to hear from me and the woman on the phone didn’t know what to say.
A.C. Buchanan writes, “Notes on Reconnaissance and the need for harassment policies at SF Conventions“:
This is one of those posts I’d rather not have to write. It’s about requesting a harassment policy to be put in place for Reconnaissance (The 36th New Zealand National Science Fiction Convention) and what followed. I’m writing it partly to provide a record for others, partly because some people know part of but not the whole story, and because I really don’t want to see anything like this happen again, and so want future convention organisers – and attendees – to be really mindful of it.
Terry Pratchett died and Mary at Hoyden About Town wrote, “In memoriam: Terry Pratchett, and a Discworld reading history“:
I then read many of the Discworld books in whatever order I came across them in my friends’ libraries (the ebook era would win here!), so I met the witches about halfway through in Lords and Ladies and was perpetually disappointed that it turned out to be about halfway through. I always wanted to know the end of Magrat’s story, when she finally, inevitably (in my opinion!) outgrows Granny and they both know it. (Apparently I always trust the designated irritating woman to grow up to win.) And what will Esmerelda the Younger become?
Celeste Liddle at Rantings of an Aboriginal Feminist wrote, “Impostor syndrome and its manifestations“:
It was when someone said to me that I had “impostor syndrome” that I gained a bit of awareness into what was going on in my head. The idea that someone can believe they are worthy of less space due to their position in society is something women come across all the time. And it is socially reinforced. I mean, the fact that it’s a big deal that QandA actually had an all-women panel FINALLY because they have shown time and time again that women’s voices are not as necessary (think re: their domestic violence panel) is just crazy. The fact that Catherine Deveny could have been criticised for dominating the space and interupting when she actually didn’t is even more crazy. Women are not entitled to take up space in the same way that men are according to society, and we see this played out over and over again. Whether it’s women talking in a board meeting or walking home alone, it’s the same thing. It needs to stop. Men need to create the space and not judge the comments of women as being less worthy, as being biased, as being non-neutral.
Cranky Ladies of History wrote a post on International Women’s Day about their book and particular cranky ladies, “CRANKY LADIES OF HISTORY: A story about the story you won’t see (and why that’s okay)“:
In December 2013 I saw that Fablecroft had sent out a call for proposals for their Cranky Ladies Anthology. I’d been stuck in a creative quagmire and depressed and one thing I had learned was that if you feel stuck do something in service of people or things you like. Then it isn’t about you, it is about the work, it is about service and you will push yourself harder and won’t give up. I like Fablecroft and I liked their concept, so I checked them out.
Scanning through the list and thinking about what wasn’t on the list I swiftly decided that Oodgeroo Noonuccal needed to be in the anthology. I had fallen in love with her poetry in high school, its ferocity, tenderness and politics. She had an unflinching power that created space for all the motions, space for anger, despair, fighting spirit and a wry sense of humour. I feel like through her work I experienced one of my first role models of a balanced fighter. She was someone who was an activist, but did not let the consuming nature of the fight tear her apart. She was a whole human being.
Ana Stevenson, an Australian citizen finishing her PhD in history at The University of Queensland, and currently a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh, submitted her post, “Belle, Books, and Ballot: The Life and Writing of Nineteenth Century Reformer Lillie Devereux Blake (1833-1913)“:
These early novels were influenced by the sentimental literature of the era, but they also challenged the literary conventions with which this genre was associated. Echoing Laura Curtis Bullard’s Christine; or Woman’s Trials and Triumphs (1856) and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper’s “The Two Offers” (1858), Southwold and Rockford demonstrate the consequences of ill-suited marriages. In addition, these novels featured a plethora of complex female protagonists and experimented with challenging heroines. Medora, Southwold’s defiant heroine, explicitly embarks upon securing a lucrative marriage when faced with destitution. Zella Dangerfield, a character in a later novel, Forced Vows; or, A Revengeful Woman’s Fate (1870), had “an American girl’s independent spirit”; in demonstrating that “coercion was not for her,” however, Zella was perfectly happy coercing others. Personally, Lillie believed marriage should be “an equal partnership with no thought of mastership on either side,” and she found this with second husband Grinfill Blake, whom she married in 1866. Blake’s growing literary focus on marriage and women’s rights, and the fertile storytelling these themes provided, belied her developing interest in women’s suffrage.
Wendy Harmer writes at The Hoopla, “THE HOOPLA … LAST DRINKS! ALLEY OOP!“:
It is with sadness that co-founder of The Hoopla, Jane Waterhouse and I tell you that this will be the last edition of The Hoopla in its present incarnation.
From today we will be presenting a “best of ” from our archives and then ceasing publication altogether very soon.
For almost four years The Hoopla has taken great pride in bringing you the best in opinion writing and the daily news seen through the eyes of Australian women. “Smart with heart,” has been our motto. Always independent. Calling it without fear or favour.
Since 2011, The Hoopla has published some 5,000 articles, 300 writers and more than 100,000 of your incisive and thoughtful comments – and has been very proud to do so. Thank you all for taking a seat in our Big Top to watch the daily acrobatics and spectacle.
Cat Pause at Friend of Marilyn writes, “On fitting in (t-shirts and stuff)“:
Throughout my life, I have loved music. I love listening to music, I love making music. I love live music especially. I love the energy of the crowd, and getting to see the performers in person; catching the occasional unguarded moment. In all my years attending concerts, however, I’ve been denied the opportunity to be the audience member sporting a tour T (or, Madonna forbid, a T from the last tour). Merchandise booths never carry sizes I can wear; they rarely go past a 2x. I still stand in line though, picking out a programme or a keychain – something tangible I can keep with me or gift to others. And I still ask, ‘What is the largest size you have?’ of the t-shirt or hoodie that catches my eye while I wait in the queue.
At one particular show in Dallas a few years back, an amazing thing happened. The concert hoodie went up to a 5x. I couldn’t believe it. It made my mind race – how have I missed this before? HAVE I missed this before? I decided that I hadn’t, because I’m always looking for clothes in my size. Even when I know it’s for naught, I keep looking (the result of an emerging adulthood devoid of fashion options). Perhaps as fat concert goers get louder about what we want, marketers are beginning to pay attention (it is one of the golden rules of capitalism, right? Sell the people what they want?) It may also be gendered – larger sizes are made with men in mind, and the hoodie I bought was definitely masculine. I didn’t wear it that night, but I do wear it often, and I experience a bit of glee each time. It makes me feel delightfully normal (but that’s another story for later).
Jackie Wykes and Cat Pause write at The Conversation (with some really beautiful photos), “The ‘dancer’s body’ is fat: Force Majeure’s Nothing to Lose“:
This is not to dismiss those conversations entirely; normative ideas about health, beauty, and self-esteem have very real implications for material bodies, after all. They create a culture in which fat people’s very right to exist is contingent on whether or not we can approximate normative ideas closely enough to be deemed acceptable by the mainstream.
But even then, such acceptance is always contingent; never full membership, this is a visitor’s pass a best.
Blunt Shovels writes, “All about able women“:
I wondered how they could dismiss the one in five women who have a disability. I wondered if they knew any of the kick-arse disabled women I knew, and start collecting a list, just to be helpful. Women who work in advocacy, women with experiences of living in institutions, women who use wheelchairs or sign language, women who write, women who dream, women who love. Surely I was mistaken, and I would hear from the curators before too long.
I was told I needed to ask about accessibility in private, out of the public eye. Perhaps I am not part of the public? A disabled woman couldn’t possibly be made welcome by publicising how easy it would be for her to take part. That was quickly fixed, but I wondered why it had taken some minor Facebook agitation to make it happen.
Kath at Fat Heffalump writes, “Each and Every One Of Us“:
No fat person is unacceptable in fat activism. It is important that when we take up the challenge of demanding dignity and respect for fat people, we need to include ALL fat people, especially those people who aren’t considered “valuable” to society. Because human value isn’t about being pretty or fashionable or worthy. All humans, by right of their existence, are valid, valuable people. Fat people shouldn’t have to prove that they “contribute to society” to be included in fat activism.
Parenting and families
Boganette writes, “Thank you“:
I had a terrible pregnancy. I vomited every day for 25 weeks. Then I vomited every second or third day for the rest of my pregnancy. But my midwife was always there with me. She cheered us on. She kept me excited even when I was exhausted and overwhelmed. She more than tolerated my tears of frustration in her office. She was more than my midwife, she was my counsellor too.
I felt so guilty that I had wanted a baby for so long but I absolutely hated pregnancy. I didn’t feel in touch with my body, I couldn’t stop puking, I felt unhealthy, exhausted, overwhelmed, I sure as fuck wasn’t glowing. She was so patient and caring and gentle with me. She always made me feel like I was strong and she gave me so much confidence. She never denied my feelings.
Stephanie Convery writes at The Guardian, Comment is Free, “Don’t be fooled by the language of ‘choice’. Deregulation is bad for women“:
Children are not commodities, but a predominantly privatised childcare sector cannot help but treat them that way. Child/carer ratios exist to provide a safe and attentive environment in which to appropriately support children’s development, learning and socialisation. The importance of qualifications for workers in the sector reflects the importance of children being supervised by workers who are adequately trained. But the wholesale deregulation of the industry will drive down quality of care by bringing in lower-skilled workers. It will also drive down wages for the (mostly female) workforce, and there is no evidence to show that it will have any effect on lowering the cost of childcare at all.
Shae at Free Range in Suburbia writes, “Missing out“:
So we signed up for all of the things the kids wanted to do and tried to squeeze in some set bookwork time. We went on all the camps we could, all the meet ups, all the play dates. We have spent this term running around and now I see what we are really missing out on.
QUILTBAG (queer, undecided, intersex, lesbian, trans*, bisexual, asexual, gay)
Brocklesnitch writes, “David v Goliathomophobia“:
Some of the reaction to this, like the reaction to the suspension of the rugby league player, was disheartening. Pocock has been accused by certain people of grandstanding, attention seeking, or horror of horrors – placing his morals above the untouchable game of Rugby. As if that isn’t exactly the kind of thing we should be applauding athletes for. As if professional team sport doesn’t often foster sexism, sexual assault, homophobia, and violence against women. As if we shouldn’t be encouraging athletes to be decent humans, as well as good at sport. Part of this is not only NOT being sexist, racist, or homophobic yourself, but also saying something when you see it happening. All Pocock did is walk the walk, after football codes have been talking the talk for a long time about trying to combat homophobic culture.
Chrys Stevenson writes at Gladly the Crossed-Eyed Bear, “Christians Supporting Equal Marriage“:
On a day when it’s just been announced that the Senate supports the call for a conscience vote on marriage equality , I think it’s very appropriate to remind ourselves that the majority of Australian Christians (and those of other faiths) are not homophobic. Most Christians support marriage equality, and politicians like Fred Nile, political parties like Family First and Rise Up Australia, and lobby groups like the Australian Christian Lobby represent only a fringe group of right-wing fundamentalists.
Race and Racism
Stephanie at No Award writes, “indigenous business: bundarra sportswear“:
There is some crap going on, and it’s all important, but maybe you’re thinking about how you want to do something that’s not rallies and writing to your local member. And that’s okay! So once a week here at No Award, we’re going to showcase an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander thing. “Thing” is a bit inexact, but we don’t want to limit ourselves – we’re talking businesses and not for profits and designers. Things. We here at No Award still want you talking about injustices and and rallying if you can! But things are important, too. (If you can think of a good name for these posts, please let us know)
Megpie71 writes at Hoyden About Town, ““Country”“:
This is part of why I feel angry and upset about the WA state government’s decision to close a number of remote communities. I would not want to push that feeling of displacement, of always being in the wrong place, on anyone else. It would be a wrongness, an evil, a wicked thing to do. I am angry the government of Western Australia is doing this in my name. I am upset the Premier, Colin Barnett, is implicitly claiming he has the support of white Western Australians to do this. His government does not have my support, or my consent.
Natasha Guantai writes at Overland, “‘Are there Black people in Australia?’“:
My experience of being Black in Australia is also different from that of migrants of African descent who were born in other white-dominated countries such as the US or UK. I have not been racialised as Black within the context of another country. There are Aboriginal people who tell me that they use ‘Black’ as a way of highlighting their experiences as a result of, and in contrast with, white Australia. Similarly, I am Black primarily due to my relation to white Australia. My experience, while obviously different from that of Indigenous Australians, is nevertheless of an Australian Blackness.
Celeste Liddle at Rantings of an Aboriginal Feminist wrote, “Parliament House is an unviable political community“:
Finally, the educational services they’ve provided just seem to be diminishing and it’s clear that this government is simply unable to keep a higher education sector properly funded, maintained and running.
Celeste Liddle and Roxanne Gay were interviewed on ABC Radio National in, “I’m a feminist, but….“
It’s so good to see the Boganette blogging again. In this she writes, “Accepting help“:
I now know that accepting help is so important. When I started accepting help (or at least trying to) I stopped feeling so overwhelmed. I stopped feeling so isolated. I stopped feeling so scared. So alone. It’s really, really hard to ask for help. Harder than it is to accept I reckon. So when it’s offered – take it, even if it feels weird.
And if you’re in a position to help a new mum, maybe just give her stuff (especially if it’s food) even if she doesn’t expressly ask for it. It can be hard to get past that “I don’t want to be a pain” reflex that a lot of women have. Women are taught to always be the provider, to always help instead of being helped. It can be really hard to overcome all that social conditioning to allow someone else to look after you. I’m grateful to my friends who just said “I’ve made you some dinner, when can I bring it over?”
Rachel Hills writes, “Who does she think she is? (Part deux.)“:
As of the last couple of months, though, I don’t have to ask any more. I get it now. Right now, I ask people to pay attention to my work every day: always sending out emails, setting up coffees, forever dreaming up ideas for possible collaboration, partnership, ways of spreading of the message. Because now, finally, I am at a point where my desire to share what I’ve created outweighs my fear of overstepping an invisible line by asking people to pay attention to it.
Mindy writes at Hoyden About Town, “Please don’t liken yourselves to Rosa Parks“:
Rosa Park’s actions, which went well beyond refusing to give up a seat on a bus and started well before that day, forced society to see black people as people deserving of a seat on the bus and as members of American society. Regardless of whether Tattersall’s finally do allow women to be members, it will still be a small number of elites who make the cut. Rosa Park’s was fighting for all black Americans, not a privileged few who enjoyed lifestyles and riches well beyond that of ordinary folk. To invoke her name for such a ridiculous reason, not to mention having no idea of either her history of that of the US civil rights movement*, diminishes her actions and the outcomes of her work.
Andie Fox writes at Daily Life, “Why are married couples afraid of the newly divorced?“:
I have not been longing for change or adventure – there is plenty of both when your life relationship comes to an end, and you follow that up with a few more relationships and break-ups. I have, instead, craved contentment. I thought that fixing or solving or finding or knowing would ease my mind but by the end of last year I finally saw that it was about comfort with self, and that this therefore wouldn’t be located outside, but within.
misc (I couldn’t think of a category and I liked these posts)
Steph at No Award writes about being a cyclist with, “reasons why i, a cyclist”
Liz Barr at No Award writes “No Award’s Print, Cut ‘n’ Keep Folk Festival Bingo Card“:
Bless their peace-loving hearts, but the only thing worse than a hippie is an upper-middle-class suburban hippie wannabe. Think the Morgendorffers. Think Homer Simpson’s mother, although she was actually pretty great and who wouldn’t leave Grandpa Simpson? Yes, all of our examples are cartoons, but that doesn’t change the fact that any folk festival is going to contain at least some of the following…
Violence (The posts in this section carry trigger warnings for violence)
Scarlett at The Scarlett woman writes an indepth discussion regarding the WWE’s lauding of men convicted of violent crimes against woman, but won’t induct into the hall of fame a woman who is now working in the sex industry, in “World Wrestling Entertainment Will Never #GiveDivasaChance As Long As It Prioritises Bad Men.”
Austin also asked Levesque if he thought Chyna—a pioneer in the world of wrestling, both women’s and otherwise—would be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame. (Again, that’s a decision Levesque would have a lot of sway over.) Despite Chyna’s (real name: Joanie Laurer) status as Levesque’s ex-girlfriend, she’s also found a post-wrestling career in porn, which severely limits the likelihood of her induction. Levesque said:
“I’ve got an eight-year-old kid and my eight-year-old kid sees the Hall of Fame and my eight-year-old kid goes on the internet to look at, you know, ‘there’s Chyna, I’ve never heard of her. I’m eight years old, I’ve never heard of her, so I go put that in, and I punch it up,’ and what comes up? And I’m not criticising anybody, I’m not criticising lifestyle choices. Everybody has their reasons and I don’t know what they were and I don’t care to know. It’s not a morality thing or anything else. It’s just the fact of what it is. And that’s a difficult choice. The Hall of Fame is a funny thing in that it is not as simple as, this guy had a really good career, a legendary career, he should go in the Hall of Fame. Yeah… but we can’t because of this reason. We can’t because of this legal instance.”
Helen Pringle writes at ABC Religion, “Disempowered Men? Tanveer Ahmed and the ‘Feminist Lynch Mob’“:
As he waded, Ahmed says, he was “treated to an orgy of abuse, threats and complete mis-representation.” Nurses at his hospital took him aside to ask him how he was doing, articles and letters were published on the net in support of him, unnamed (because trembling presumably) academics approached him on the sly to share how difficult it is to speak openly about “this issue” and Dr Ahmed was invited to speak at a Toronto conference “all expenses paid.” To be sure, all this so very much resembles the “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks, who in any way deign to think for themselves” shamelessly cited by (Justice) Clarence Thomas when he was asked to explain his behaviour towards Anita Harris.
Astha Rajvanshi writes about students who have survived domestic violence at Honi Soit, “Behind Closed Doors“:
The students I interviewed for this article share two things in common: they are all women, and they have all endured long-term abuse, social stigma, and shame from people they loved.
I suppose if I were to try and make sense of it all, these are the 1 in 3 women across all socio-economic backgrounds who tolerate, on average, 35 assaults before telling someone about it. They are an extension of the 950,000 young Australian women who reported in 2005 that they had been sexually assaulted before the age of 15; of the one in four children who witnessed violence against their mothers or carers; the 22% of women under 20 who have experienced dating violence.
Jennifer Wilson at No Place for Sheep writes, “Vale all the dead women. IWD 2015“:
I’d attend a dawn candlelight memorial service for women and children all over the world murdered by violent partners, but I don’t think that’s caught on as an International Women’s Day ritual. It’s alarming that it hasn’t, really. So, at the risk of raining on the self-congratulatory feminist talk-fest parade, here’s where my thoughts are at, and who IWD ought to be for.
No celebratory event should begin today without first acknowledging the women and children who’ve died, and those who live and suffer often for their whole lives, from the violence perpetrated against them.
LudditeJourno writes at The Hand Mirror, “Three Strikes, you’re out NZ Police“:
The Police need reform, they need improvements in sexual violence practice to be measured and reported on, they need more training. They need to take sanctions against officers who treat sexual violence so cavalierly – if they want this to stop being a systemic problem. Top quality investigation of sexual violence cases need to be a key performance indicator at a District level, so the hierarchy take it seriously. Until their officers actually understand and implement the law, they should be reporting on their improvements to an impartial group which has the power to hire and fire.
LudditeJourno also writes at the Hand Mirror, “Undoing rape culture, one sports field at a time“:
Men consistently overestimate other men’s use of and support for gendered violence. Related to this, men consistently underestimate other men’s willingness to stand up to gendered violence, which limits their own willingness to intervene. Put together, these two planks of what men think masculinity means make it harder for men to stand up to other men when they behave badly.
Mindy writes at Hoyden About Town, “‘It’s my right to get hellish’…Orly?“:
The singer claims a right to act ‘hellish’, whatever that means, because he still gets jealous. I don’t believe jealousy gives you any rights actually, apart from the right to STFU and deal with your own shit. The relationship between the person who he is getting jealous over and himself is never clear. Is he husband/boyfriend/partner or ex/stalker/fan for whom the distinction between friends and fans does not exist? Even the film clip doesn’t make it any clearer. He doesn’t like how this person posts stuff on social media, he admits to being possessive, passive aggressive and puffing out his chest to defend what he sees as his territory. All this in a pop song. On high rotation. The overtones of control and violence are really worrying.
I first wrote this post back in February 2013, when Geert Wilders was in Australia, being bigoted and racist. Given Tony Abbott’s recent comments about instituting a law to ban hate preachers (we already have such laws, but never mind), and a random Guardian commenter’s hope that this wouldn’t block Geert from coming out to Australia, I thought I’d republish this post so we can remember what Geert actually believes in, and the outcome of beliefs such as his.
Geert Wilders, the bigoted and racist Dutch politician, is in Australia peddling Islamaphobia. It is safe to say that I pretty much disagree with everything he has to say. In the marketplace of ideas his viewpoints attract people who already hold the same repugnant views as himself, those that haven’t actually thought deeply about what is being said, and those who are afraid of difference. I hope in this post to reach the last two groups, the first is welded off from hearing anything I say.
Wilders would have you believe that Europe is at risk of being overrun by Muslims and that he alone stands against the Muslim tide, which would have everyone required to submit to Sharia law, cats and dogs living together, or something. The article in today’s Age is a bit vague about what all these threats are:
Mr Wilders – impeccably dressed and coiffured, a polished media performer who never raised his voice despite some hostile questioning – said Islam was a totalitarian system that was incompatible with freedom. Individual Muslims might integrate into Western countries, but Islam never could.
“I am here to talk about the Islamisation of Europe,” he said. “If you think what happened in Europe will not happen in Australia, you are totally wrong.”
Shorter Wilders, “The Muslims are coming, things will go badly, run for the hills/ban them from coming in the first place!”
I don’t know “what happened in Europe”, I’m guessing that the French Government banning of Face Covering is clearly the fist move by the Muslims to take Europe, closely followed by banning of Mosque Minarets. Europe must be reeling from such attacks by the Muslim community… oh no wait, I got that back to front – the bigoted and racist Governments in Europe are making the Muslim communities in their respective countries feel unwelcome and unappreciated.
I might also mention from Wikipedia:
Major lethal attacks on civilians in Europe credited to Islamist terrorism include the 1985 El Descanso bombing in Madrid, the 1995 Paris Metro bombings, 11 March 2004 bombings of commuter trains in Madrid, where 191 people were killed, and the 7 July 2005 London bombings, also of public transport, which killed 52 commuters. According to EU Terrorism Report, however, there were almost 500 acts of terrorism across the European Union in 2006, but only one, the foiled suitcase bomb plot in Germany, was related to Islamist terror. In 2009, a Europol report also showed that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last three years were, in fact, carried out by non-Muslims. In terms of arrests, out of a total of 1,009 arrested terror suspects in 2008, 187 of them were arrested in relation to Islamist terrorism. The report also showed that the majority of Islamist terror suspects were not first generation immigrants, but were rather children of immigrants who no longer identified with the culture of their parents and at the same time felt excluded from Western society, “which still perceives them as foreigners,” thus they became “more attracted to the idea of becoming ‘citizens’ of the virtual worldwide Islamic community, removed from territory and national culture.” [emphasis added]
In reality, the Islamisation of Europe is all in Wilders’s, and others who think like him, head. Governments in Europe are nowhere near embracing Islam and instead are making life difficult for their respective Muslim communities. It is this difficulty and entrenched racism that drives some to extremism. Less people like Wilders would probably mean less extremists, if I am reading the bolded text above correctly.
For those who believe the Muslim Demographics urban myth, Snopes.com have a lovely debunking of that for you here.
Let’s now consider a vital point that Wilders and his ilk hope you don’t think about. They talk constantly about the Muslim threat, the Islamisation of Europe, that Muslims are effectively plotting together to enact Sharia in a town near you. Now just think about this for a moment. Of all the people you know, how many of them are 100% committed to a religious or political idealology? Of all those people, what is the percentage of them who will act on their religious or political idealology to attempt to change the status quo? Of that percentage, how many of them are going to be ultimately successful? It’ll be a number fairly close to zero. Now, how many Muslims do you think are actively engaged in Islamicising the nearest town?
Now this may surprise some people but Muslims are not a monolith, they do not have an agenda to take over Europe, or Australia, or even the world. Muslims don’t even have a central authority unlike Catholicism and the Anglican Church. The idea of an overarching Muslim agenda smacks very much of a rewording of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. A hoax which ultimately resulted in the Holocaust.
The average person has average dreams and ambitions, to be happy, to have somewhere to live, to have people to love and be loved, to enjoy their day, to have enough food to feel full, to be healthy, and to be financially comfortable. To suggest that anyone of any religion does not have these dreams and ambitions is suggest that they are not the same as you, that they are a completely different type of person and that they have alien desires to your own.
I know that new things are different, and that people asking for recognition of the articles of their faith may seem like they are attempting to force their beliefs on you, but just as religious days such as Christmas and Easter are public holidays in Australia, and that Coles promotes “Fish for Lent” (which pushes Christianity and Catholicism respectively on everyone else), surely recognising that other religions have their own special days and special dietary requirements won’t hurt. In fact, if it weren’t for the fantastic people who have braved the institutional racism of Australia when they came here, Australia would be a far poorer country in relation to art, fashion, food, innovation, business, design and other fields of endeavour.
Eating Halal food will not make you Muslim no more than eating Kosher food would make you Jewish. Halal and Kosher are terms that relate to religious requirements for food, they are not a gateway drug into religious experience. Eating fish during Lent does not make one a Catholic, avoiding eating beef does not make one a Hindu, and being a vegetarian does not make one a Jain or Buddhist. With the exception of the Mormons baptising people after they’ve died, you cannot be inducted into a religion by stealth.
No religion is superior to another, they are all flawed and I’m not a fan, but I respect people’s individual rights to believe and participate in any faith they choose.
For those people who argue Al Qaeda, I would like to remind you that they are a fringe group, and are definitely a terrorist group, a group who can only control through terror. I would also point out that other religions have also had their own terrorist groups with Christian Militias (with Israeli help) in Lebanon massacring Muslims in Sabra and Shatila; the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Island; the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda; the Klu Klux Klan in the US, and Sikh Extremism. There is no way that terrorism is an activity only undertaken by Muslim extremists.
- People who follow a religion are people
- No religion is superior than another
- Terrorism is a result of extremism and elements of fundamentalism which can occur in any religious group
- Recognising different religion’s special days and dietary requirements is not conversion by stealth
- You cannot be stealth inducted into a religion
I wrote this post in August 2011, and again with the rise of bigotry towards those who are, or who are identified as, Muslim, particularly Muslim women, I thought I’d publish it again. This one is particularly for the Jackie Lambies and Cory Bernardies who believe that women can’t be trusted to choose to select which aspects of their faith they want to engage with.
Feminism is the radical idea that women are people. People that can reason, think, educate themselves, and make their own decisions. For some men at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s, this was a radical notion, and one that took a great deal of getting used to. Society is still structured around the antiquated notion that the default human is male (I’ll blog more on that another time) and so there is still a deep societal distrust of women who do their own thing, who act differently to others, who stand up for themselves, and they get called names, and pressured to be like everyone else, because a group of women being the same is somehow more comforting.
Ok, I might have made most of that up, or it might be a long chain of thoughts from all the feminist blog posts I’ve read over the past ages, or it might be that I’ve been watching the world from the sidelines from time to time. This post, which is white-Western feminism based, is about what we (and I’m thinking about both society and Western feminists) trust women to do and what we don’t.
This post is partly inspired by Chally’s recent post on religious faith and social justice and on thoughts I was having on the flight over to Malaysia before I fell asleep on the plane. I’m not sure what inspired them exactly, but let me lay them out for you.
If we can trust women to make up their mind on which political candidate they are going to vote for, if we can trust women to decide on which medical procedures and treatment they wish to undertake, if we can trust women to decide on who they do and do not want to sleep with (slightly contentious in rape culture I know), and if we can trust women to make their own moral and ethical decisions, why do so many of us have trouble trusting women deciding to be religious (with all that their specific faith entails)?
Yes there will always be cases where women are pressured into things, that happens with every example I’ve listed above, and no one suggests that women shouldn’t vote because they’re being pressured into voting for a certain candidate, or that they shouldn’t be able to make their own medical decisions because they’re being pressured into it by someone.
Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding the debate about women who follow the strictures of their faith. But from what I’ve heard about politicians and some people who identify as feminists, women are clearly being oppressed by the strictures of their faith – the faith that they have most likely chosen to have.
I am an atheist, I am against organised (generally read as Christian) religion attempting to dictate to me and anyone else who isn’t a member of that faith how to behave. I am for the separation of religion and politics. But most importantly I am for the right for any individual to practise the faith that they believe in if it is doing no harm to anyone else.
As a former Catholic I remember many of the times I questioned whether what I believed in was real, from when I was a child to the day I stopped believing. Perhaps we should give religious women credit that they have also spent time questioning their faith and the strictures of that faith, and that they have made a conscious choice to continue believing and to continue practising their faith. These women do not need to be rescued from an “oppressive religion”, a religion that they probably do not believe to be oppressive – as the nuances and the ways that it is practised will be as individual as each person in that religion.
A great discussion on the comment thread of Stargazer’s post on The Hand Mirror, “yet another burqa post”
I wrote this post in March 2011, and with the current political climate in Australia, I think it needs to be republished. The situation described below is not much different in Australia currently with many of our Conservative politicians calling for bans of Sharia law, bans on burqas (which aren’t worn in Australia, and they usually mean the niqab), and now increased threats and assaults against those who appear to be Muslim. This typically means Muslim women are being assaulted, usually by bigoted white people.
I’ve read with… well not exactly dismay because it is part of the whole USA falling into a chasm… more resignation, the stories recently of the US Congress setting up a body to probe US Muslims, of US taxes going towards law enforcement bodies to “educate” them about Islam and instead failing to do so, and about Tennessee wanting to ban Sharia.
[ok I now have a fever and am sick, so if this post doesn’t make all the sense that I intend, apologies]
The stories above are just the Government actions taken against US Muslims. They do not detail in any way the daily prejudice, discrimination and bigotry faced by Muslims in the US. Islamaphobia is in full swing.
From where I’m sitting (sick and fuzzy headed), the Islamaphobia in the US (yes, I know it exists in Australia too, and is equally problematic) can lead to some very bad outcomes. The estimated number of Muslims in the US is around 2.3% of the US population (Australia’s Muslim population is 1.71% of the overall population). There just are not enough Muslims in the US (or Australia) to rise up and protest against the oppression they’re suffering (unlike the peoples in many Middle Eastern nations currently – which has nothing to do with Islam and all to do with oppression, lack of opportunities, etc). The research on stereotype threat also suggests that Muslims may feel that they have to conform to the predominant sterotype held of them, which doesn’t do anyone any favours.
If we look back at history, we can see many many examples of groups that have been vilified and terrible results (clearly we are very bad at learning from history and are doomed to repeat it). The news media played a large part in the Rwandan Genocide.
According to recent commentators, the news media played a crucial role in the genocide; local print and radio media fueled the killings while the international media either ignored or seriously misconstrued events on the ground. The print media in Rwanda is believed to have started hate speech against Tutsis, which was later continued by radio stations. According to commentators, anti-Tutsi hate speech “…became so systemic as to seem the norm.”
From late October 1993, the RTLM repeatedly broadcast themes developed by the extremist written press, underlining the inherent differences between Hutu and Tutsi, the foreign origin of Tutsi, the disproportionate share of Tutsi wealth and power, and the horrors of past Tutsi rule. The RTLM also repeatedly stressed the need to be alert to Tutsi plots and possible attacks. It warned Hutu to prepare to “defend” themselves against the Tutsi. (Source: Wikipedia – link above)
We can also look at the internment of Japanese people (definitions on who was Japanese or not was interestingly broad) in the US during World War 2.
Many concerns over the loyalty of ethnic Japanese seemed to stem from racial prejudice rather than evidence of actual malfeasance. Major Karl Bendetsen and Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, head of the Western Command, each questioned Japanese American loyalty. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that “A Jap’s a Jap” and testified to Congress,
I don’t want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty… It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty… But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.
Internment was popular among many white farmers who resented the Japanese-American farmers. “White American farmers admitted that their self-interest required removal of the Japanese.” These individuals saw internment as a convenient means of uprooting their Japanese American competitors. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942:
“We’re charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It’s a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over… If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we’d never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either.”
The Roberts Commission Report, prepared at President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s request, has been cited as an example of the fear and prejudice informing the thinking behind the internment program. The Report sought to link Japanese Americans with espionage activity, and to associate them with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Columnist Henry McLemore reflected growing public sentiment fueled by this report:
“I am for the immediate removal of every Japanese on the West Coast to a point deep in the interior. I don’t mean a nice part of the interior either. Herd ‘em up, pack ‘em off and give ‘em the inside room in the badlands… Personally, I hate the Japanese. And that goes for all of them.”
Other California newspapers also embraced this view. According to a Los Angeles Times editorial,
“A viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched… So, a Japanese American born of Japanese parents, nurtured upon Japanese traditions, living in a transplanted Japanese atmosphere… notwithstanding his nominal brand of accidental citizenship almost inevitably and with the rarest exceptions grows up to be a Japanese, and not an American… Thus, while it might cause injustice to a few to treat them all as potential enemies, I cannot escape the conclusion… that such treatment… should be accorded to each and all of them while we are at war with their race.” (Source: Wikipedia article linked above)
Again, the same sort of language is used to vilify a group, which then results in investigation and restriction of that group’s ability to participate in society. I worry that the Muslims in the West (particularly in the US and Australia) are going to be increasingly targeted and that is going to end up being really bad. I don’t really have a solution, just fears that the situation is going to get worse, but I hope I can stand up against Islamaphobia whenever I encounter it.
Propagating this fear runs the risk of radicalising the general population against those who follow Islam, and that crimes against Muslims may not be reported or may not be fully investigated by the authorities. Discrimination and prejudice will continue to rise, people may feel obliged to recant their faith in order to face less bigotry, to hide their culture and act white, to remove their sense of self to find some safety. This sucks.
Hello, and welcome to a world full of fantastic feminist writing from the month of July. Before you rush off to get your drink of choice (a nice cup of tea would be my recommendation) and sit back to enjoy writing by Australian and New Zealand feminists, I want to beg you to host a carnival yourself. The Down Under Feminists’ Carnival desperately needs new hosts from October 2014 onwards. Don’t think that it is a monumental job, I and others will provide you with links to lots of great posts, you just need to detail them with as much (or as little) information as you like. Some hosts just provide the author’s name and the blog title as a clickable link, others categorise them, and some put summaries about what the post is all about. You put them together as you feel most appropriate to your time and energy. So now that I’ve encouraged you to host a carnival, please wander over to the Down Under Feminists Carnival website or email chally [dot] zeroatthebone [at] gmail [dot] com and say you want to host, and your availability.
And on with the carnival.
Skud writes at Geek Feminism, “Dropping the F bomb“:
It felt good, at first, to be in a group of tech women who had similar experiences to me. Yet, when I started to talk about feminist issues — mentioning sexism in the wider open source or tech community, for instance — I was shut down. I was essentially asked to leave the channel and go somewhere else if I wanted to talk about that stuff. Better yet, it was the project’s male community manager — men were allowed in this channel — who took it upon himself to push me out of that space, and who still continues to this day to shut down feminist discussion in communities that he leads.
Clementine Ford at Daily Life writes, “So you want to be ‘beautiful’ instead of ‘hot’?”
But there are few greater mysteries that perplex the female mind than the elusive riddle of beauty. Specifically, who has it and what does it mean? Specificallyer, what makes a woman beautiful instead of just hot? The world’s greatest lady philosopheresses have pondered this for literally thousands of years or maybe even two seconds and been unable to provide a definitive answer.
Alex Skud Bailey rewrites Google’s apology regarding their real name policy in, “Meanwhile, in an alternate universe…“:
We apologise unreservedly to those people, who through our actions were marginalised, denied access to services, and whose identities we treated as lesser. We especially apologise to those who were already marginalised, discriminated against, or unsafe, such as queer youth or victims of domestic violence, whose already difficult situations were worsened through our actions. We also apologise specifically to those whose accounts were banned, not only for refusing them access to our services, but for the poor treatment they received from our staff when they sought support.
Eliza Cussen writes at Fix It Dear Henry, “Who holds back the electric car? White Ribbon does.“:
Women don’t need to be told the questions men need to ask themselves about violence. We don’t need to be told how many of us are being killed by our partners or exes. We don’t need to be told because either the reality of it, or the potential of it is part of the female experience.
Both O’Keefe and Pickering wrote their pieces as part of their role as White Ribbon Australia ambassadors. This is an exclusive boy’s club. I can only imagine they have poker nights to which no women are invited. In the lead up to White Ribbon Day in November each year, these men are trotted out, promising to start a dialogue between men about the culture that permits violence against women. This is a good thing.
Eleanor Robertson writes at Comment is Free at the Guardian, “Tackling the gender gap is simple: pay women more money. End of story“:
Here it is: we simply pay women more money. Whether we do this by reducing women’s tax burden, providing them with an income supplement, or allowing women to personally shake down their male colleagues until an appropriate amount of change falls from their pockets, I don’t mind. But it’s clear that sitting around furrowing our brows isn’t working, so it’s time to make some changes.
Alex Skud Bailey provides slide decks and notes on the talks she delivered at Open Source Bridge, including Knitting for Programmers, Feminist Point of View: A Geek Feminist Retrospective and “Advanced” Community Management.
Judy Horacek writes, “This Creative Life No.2 – July 2014“:
I have often said that I became a cartoonist to try and change the world. I mean this as a true statement, but also as a slightly tongue-in-cheek one. Much as I would like cartoons to be all-powerful – to believe that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and the missile and the drone – well, just take a look at the world…
What the ‘change-the-world’ statement boils down to is that I became a cartoonist because I care deeply about certain things such as social justice, feminism, the environment. These are the things I like to make cartoons about. Of course I also do silly jokes that are about nothing, but my first love is making cartoons commenting on our society and our world.
Kelly Ellis guest posts at the Daily Blog, “GUEST BLOG: Kelly Ellis – Privilege Lost“:
I learned I was now an alien. I learned that the social contract men had was different from the one for women. I learned that male privilege was not a free ticket to the footie or a free upsize on a Mac Meal; male privilege is simply the freedom from prejudice that everyone else gets for not being a man.
Marianne Elliot guest posts at Justine Musk with, “I don’t care if you like it (guest post by Marianne Elliott)“:
Last year I spent most of five months travelling through the US, Canada and Europe talking about my book, ZEN UNDER FIRE. At almost every book talk I gave, someone would ask me, ‘Weren’t you afraid to be in Afghanistan, such a dangerous country for women?’
My standard answer was that all countries are dangerous for women.
Allison M writes at The Hand Mirror, “Pat Rosier and Who We Remember“:
As Prue writes, Pat’s early life was relatively conventional. Her dad was a railway clerk, and she grew up at a time when no one in a working class family, “let alone a girl”, went to university. She married, had two children and trained as primary teacher, which was her job from 1973 to 1985. Then, something happened. Pat found Simone de Beauvoir, the Women’s Liberation Movement, lesbianism – and reinvented herself.
Pat chronicled at least part of that reinvention in the 1991 collection, Changing Our Lives: Women Working in the Women’s Liberation Movement, 1970-1990 (eds Christine Dann & Maud Cahill, Bridget Williams Books).
Orlando writes at Hoyden About Town, “Friday Hoyden quick hit: Linda Brodsky“:
Dr Linda Brodsky was an American paediatric ear, nose and throat surgeon. In the 90s, having become a tenured professor at SUNY Buffalo, she discovered she was being paid far less than male colleagues, many with less seniority and fewer qualifications. On further investigation she found that the same was true of her pay from her medical employers, and that it applied to other women working in the same institutions. When she attempted to have the disparities addressed she was fired. Dr Brodsky spent years suing her employers, not only on her own behalf, but to help ensure that other women would not be treated the same way. She was aware that the privileges she had put her in the rare position of being able to fight, and thus made it a moral obligation.
I wrote a piece called, “Let’s try with some empathy“:
How about instead of telling someone how they should react to something, you think a bit about why they might be reacting that way, how constant microaggressions might have worn them down, and how this might have been the final straw after they’ve been polite to everyone else whose pushed them down that day/week/month/year. Think about how they might actually see the thing that you said or wrote, and how that might look from their position. Actually apologise for upsetting them and then invite them to tell you what you can do to avoid upsetting them again in future – because people generally want to avoid having their feet stepped on, they will often provide you with suggestions resources on how your organisation or yourself can be more inclusive, open, and less upsetting.
Media and Stories
Clementine Ford at Daily Life writes, “The two most complained about TV ads of 2014“, which I’m mostly sharing for the First Moon Party ad, it’s the best:
So before evil witch-women gathered under full moons to cast spells from their devil teats which gave them total command of humanity’s most powerful institutions, we shrouded such things in secrecy, knowing full well the danger that would be wrought from speaking the names out loud. Moonblood. The Curse. Menstruation.
But then the feminists took over, and everything changed. Now we’re forced to endure grotesque advertisements which mention heathen words like ‘vagina’, ‘tampons’ and ‘hole’. The top two most complained about advertisements of 2014 so far were created for Carefree.
Zhenya at beyond escapism writes, “Always already perfect: beauty and female characters in fantasy books” (Zhenya also has a number of great book reviews at her blog too):
But there’s another feature that’s missing from this list, at least when it comes to the major female characters in fantasy. I’ve written about this before, but today I felt a Need to Vent, and in any case I think this is a topic that deserves a post of its own. It’s time to talk about beauty – or more specifically, the way that beauty is pretty much compulsory for the major female characters in a fantasy novel.
Anna at Flaming Moth writes, “Macbeth, Prophesy and Trauma“:
Lady Macbeth, for example, is less and more than she has been given credit for. When, in lines that fix themselves in the listener’s memory, she tells her husband that she would kill her own child if she had sworn to do so, it has usually been read as a mark of her callousness, forgetting that her point is that this is the most horrifying thing she can think of doing. When she asks for the help of dark powers, rather than demonstrating her fiendishness, she shows her vulnerability by revealing to us that she doesn’t have the necessary resolve to perform evil deeds without them. Immediately after Duncan’s murder she even admits, privately, that she was not capable of bringing herself to do it.
gillpolak writes, “On the suppression and bastardisation of minority voices“:
The writers who tell me that they are entitled to write about any story in the world bug me. These are the writers who claim that the artist has privilege of story regardless of culture and regardless of understanding and regardless of permissions and regardless of power differentials. I’ve been trying to explain to them that writing is never culturally neutral and that there are ethics involved. I’ve said that cultural appropriation is not a good thing and tried to explain why. I’ve said many things. Some writers listen and learn respect. Some writers seem to have a selective deafness, quite possibly arising from their culturally privileged background.
Scarlett Harris at The Scarlett Woman writes, “Leaning In to Grey’s Anatomy” (Spoiler Alert):
Across its ten season run, Grey’s has dealt with parenting, childlessness, abortion, romantic relationships—both heterosexual and otherwise, illness, loss, friendship and career mostly through the eyes of its female protagonist, Meredith Grey, and her colleagues, friends and family: Cristina, Izzie, Lexie, Callie, Arizona, April, Addison, Bailey and so on. This season, though, seemed to really tap into the oft-mentioned feminist issue of “having it all” (meaning kids and career) and what happens when a woman shuns that path.
Sky Croeser writes at Global Comment, “Maleficent: an anarchafeminist fairytale?“:
I’ll start off with the news that will surprise no one. Maleficent is overwhelmingly white: the only notable role for a non-white character is a captain sent out to destroy Maleficent, played by John Macmillan. Beauty is not only glaringly white, but also thin and conventionally attractive (notwithstanding augmented cheekbones). Disney is obviously not brave enough to explore a world that includes people of colour and unconventionally beautiful people as protagonists, even if that world is populated by walking trees and fairies.
And now for the surprise: Maleficent felt like a credible anarchafeminist fairytale (especially if you consider the whiteness of the film to mirror, sadly, the frequent failures of anarchist and feminist communities to fully address the ongoing impacts of structural racism).
No Award went to the movies and saw Snowpiercer. Liz wrote about it here, “No Award goes to the movies: Snowpiercer” and Stephanie here, “snowpiercer: the revolution cannot be trusted if it’s white“. Both great reviews looking at different aspects of the movies, and not agreeing on it at all.
Kerryn Goldsworthy guest posts at Hoyden About Town with, “Every Australian Novel Ever!“. It’s funny, you really want to read it.
Rachel at the Abyss of Perfect Knowledge writes, “Dear Australian Liberal National Party“:
It is obvious you kept this stereotype of “the ideal Australian LNP voting family” in mind when you ignored the fact that 719,700 Australians were unemployed in May 2014. You kept this stereotype in mind when you ignored the fact that there were only 146,100 job vacancies in Australia during May 2014. It looks to me like the numbers don’t exactly add up. You kept this stereotype at the forefront of your minds when you ignored the fact that 2,265,000 Australians are living below the poverty line. My family falls below this line.
My family is my mother. She works two jobs, seven days per week and still does not earn enough from her jobs to pay rent, bills and living costs. Unlike your stereotype of drinking, partying hard and going to music festivals I give most of the money I receive from Centrelink (i.e. taxpayers) to my mother so I can continue to live at home. She would not be able to keep me at home without this money.
Ebs at The Travelling Unicorn writes, “To be black is to be political“:
The judgment happened when I met a certain community member last night. She looked me up and down when she was introduced me and with a critical eye said “I’ve never met you before”. I politely brushed it off but fact of the matter is, I’ve met her a million times over.
Like many blackfellas, my moderate and sometimes uncontroversial public demeanor means that I am passed off as just another white claiming heritage, when in reality, I know who I am, I know who you are and I am careful as fuck around you.
Why? Because despite your immense intelligence and connection to certain parts of my community, you are a ticking time bomb. A lateral violence molotov cocktail that is just waiting for me to fuck up so you can discredit me in any circles that you can.
Veronica Sheen writes at The Conversation, “Ten job seekers per vacancy: a reality check on welfare overhaul“:
The overall unemployment rate is now 6%, and 13.5% for 15-24 year olds. In May there were 146,000 job vacancies with 720,000 people unemployed. Another 920,000 were underemployed and wanting more hours of work. Underemployment is a very important labour market indicator as, under the terms of internationally agreed labour statistics collection, an individual is counted as employed if working one hour a week for pay or profit.
Altogether, these figures mean 1.64 million people who have no work or not enough work are potentially competing for available job vacancies.
Ariane at Ariane’s Little World writes, “Musings on Radical Inclusion“:
The idea of radical inclusion seems both wonderful and deeply problematic to me. On the one hand, this principle is probably 90% of the reason I decided to go. It’s very clear that I don’t have to already be part of the community to welcomed by it. That’s awesome. But when I start to think about the implications of being truly radically inclusive, that pesky “other hand” gives me trouble. To be inclusive, and to welcome people, implies that the space is safe and accessible for those people. To be inclusive and welcoming to everyone implies a space is safe and accessible to everyone, and I’m not entirely sure that such a space can actually exist, even in theory.
Stephanie at No Award writes, “things your government has been doing“:
UGH, AUSPOL. Why must you be the blurst? Anyway, to keep you up to date on reasons to hate our federal government, here’s a summary of some things over the last week. Don’t worry, there’s more.
Rebecca Shaw writes at SBS, “Comment: Opponents of same-sex parenting are part of the problem“:
In this week’s ‘news that is shocking to nobody except for those who blindly ignore logic and reason because of ideology’, a study from researchers at the University of Melbourne has found that children of same-sex couples do just as well as children with heterosexual parents, and are, in fact, above-average on a number of key measures of physical health and social well-being.
The research surveyed 315 same-sex attracted parents with a total of 500 children aged up to 17 years old. Lead researcher Dr Simon Crouch attributed the positive differences to same-sex couples facing less pressure to fulfill ‘traditional’ gender roles, leading to a more equitable distribution of child-care and work responsibilities, which contributes to a more harmonious household and a positive impact on the children’s health.
Rainbow Lotus at Signposts and Mirrors writes, “Bi-activism and Sisyphus“:
For some years now I’ve been involved in a local bi community, and have been on the committee of an organisation which provides support and engages in raising bi-visibility.
I am increasingly feeling like the proverbial Sisyphus because not only does it feel like that we are continually having to stick our hand up to say, ‘don’t forget about us’ within the LGbTI (lower case ‘b’ intentional, see this post) communities, but I also feel like there is a lack of willingness to stand up and be engaged by those who identify as ‘b’ or otherwise attracted to more than one gender.
Rebecca Shaw writes at Brocklesnitch, “Thorplease“:
Ian Thorpe and I are almost exactly the same age, give or a take a few weeks. In 2000 when we were both 17, we were in slightly different places. I was at home in my regional Queensland town of Toowoomba, watching the Sydney Olympics with my family. At the same time, he was becoming the most successful athlete at those Olympics, and the most talked about person in Australia. A lot of this talk was admiration for his amazing achievements in swimming, but another part of it was discussion about his sexuality. About the way he talked, his voice, his soft-spoken way, and the fact that maybe he was gay. That he probably was gay. In the following years he was asked about his sexuality over and over again. It was discussed in the media, and by the public (don’t kid yourselves), constantly. And he was forced to answer the question, over and over again. And he chose to deny it. Until now. For whatever reason, he has decided to go on television and make it final, to tell us for once and for all that he is not heterosexual.
Rebecca Shaw also writes at Kings Tribune this month with, “Queer women and straight men“:
This could be a cynical conclusion to draw, but this issue was not invented by Tinder and is certainly not restricted to Tinder. At least on Tinder you can just swipe away the problem without being approached. There are plenty of other apps where queer women are inundated with messages from men attempting to convince them that they just need a man.
The issue is not even restricted to the Internet. In the year of our Beyoncé 2014, the mindset of some straight men that you encounter online, within apps, out in the real world and in a lot movies is STILL that lesbians are just waiting for the right man to come along. Women can’t possibly be satisfied emotionally or sexually with only each other. The patriarchy benefits straight men the most, and some of them are bewildered and scared by the thought that women can somehow get along without them.
Jay Aaminah Khan writes at days like crazy paving, “So You Just Met a Bisexual: a Guide for Allies (and “Allies”)“:
Congratulations! You just met your very first bisexual! Isn’t it exciting? I’m sure you’re brimming with questions about everything from your new friend’s sex life to whether or not it’s true that they’re invisible. (They are. All bisexuals have the ability to disappear whenever they like.) Before you draw up a list and start the interrogation, however, let me preempt a few of the questions you’re most likely to ask – and explain to you why you probably ought not ask them.
Elizabeth writes at Spilt Milk, “Queer mothering in a straight world: AMIRCI Conference Paper“:
For the first four years of my daughter’s life I was, to the casual observer, a straight woman. That is to say that for her formative years, our family fit the social norm. Her family structure — mum, dad, kid — was represented in almost every picture book, almost every television programme, and was replicated in almost all of the suburban homes around her. Our family was visible, in that we were allowed to be seen anywhere, and invisible in that we appeared so normal as to be entirely unremarkable. And like so many couples, we were afforded a level of comfort that we took for granted even as it demanded a certain amount of silence about how very unhappy we were.
Celeste Liddle writes at The Guardian, “We must remember Indigenous warriors who fought war itself” *TW: Rape*
As Paul Daley wrote on Monday, getting the war memorial and the public to acknowledge the frontier wars is difficult enough. Within the story of frontier conflict though, we need to remember so much more. If we don’t, we risk neglecting our true history – especially the trials of women, many of whom have descendants alive today.
We need to remember those women who carried out resistance actions, such as the “howling hideous old hag” Colonel Peter Warburton’s party captured during their exploration of Victoria. This woman deliberately led Warburton’s party in the opposite direction to native wells, dehydrating them and their camels for two days, and also keeping them away from local clans.
Bree Blakeman writes at Field Notes & Footnotes, “Rest in Peace Amala.“:
Rest in Peace amala, my old Mummy, who always told me that I didn’t treat my husband right, whose company I adored. (If one could explain the art of witty, acerbic conversation in Yolŋu-matha, and the skilful play on words, switching across and back between languages.) Countless hours together in company under the mango tree, weaving, talking, smoking and drinking tea (and amala would often break into song, so quietly, half facing away). She taught my dhuway what it meant to be a son-in-law and he duly avoided her as his mokul, sending gifts and care through his galay, my brothers and sisters. She was my amala and I was her waku.
Celeste Liddle writes at Rantings of an Aboriginal Feminist, “On diverse views of Constitutional Recognition“:
Part of the reason the discussion on Constitutional Recognition is being held is that sections of the constitution were written specifically to exclude Indigenous people. This is evident from the race power that it includes; the amendment of which has been recommended by the expert panel. Therefore, a question arising from sections of the community is this: do we wish this historical example of institutionalised racism to be rectified simply by our inclusion within the constitution, or are there other moves that we should take to ensure that we are coming to the table as respected original peoples and negotiating the way forward for this country on equal footing?
Celeste Liddle also provided a series of profiles as an alternative to the Miss Naidoc titles, guest posted by many different authors, I will link to them all: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Celeste’s explanation for the Ms Naidoc profiles is, “Stuff “Miss NAIDOC”. Bring on the first annual “Ms NAIDOC”!”
Bodies and body image
Clem Bastow at Daily Life writes, “Prince Fielder: why everyone is talking about this naked male athlete“:
This is why representation is so important: if you can see it, you can be it. And in this case, “it” doesn’t necessarily mean “a pinup”, but when your body type is not only rarely seen in mainstream media, but on the occasion it is seen it’s played for laughs, it’s not hard to imagine that seeing a bigger dude a) reach the top of his game and b) have praise heaped on him as a newly minted sex symbol is a big deal. For the rest of us, it’s cause to stop for a moment and wonder how much of what we think (or “know”) is attractive is down to what the media tells us is so.
Chally writes at Zero at the Bone, “Being ill when you’re already ill“:
I’m ill. It’s what I think of as “normal person sick,” a fever, a cough, sneezing, and weakness that’s keeping me in bed and from my usual routine. It’s not pleasant in and of itself, but it is pleasant to be able to explain this and get instant understanding and sympathy, because I’m rather used to questions and justifications as a person with a chronic illness. You don’t have to explain “normal sick”. You don’t have to rely on someone accepting that you’re not just being lazy or exaggerating.
Kath at Fat Heffalump, writes, “No Fat Chicks“:
Firstly, most of you already know, I’m a fat chick. I’m also a single fat chick. Apparently, being a fat chick is a BAD THING. The author of the blog/book, Adrienne Santos-Longhurst says that she is offering “the no BS guide to dating with confidence for the plus size girl” – so let me just get this right. Being a plus size girl is ok, but being a fat chick is not. Indeed, that is what she says at the top of the page… “If you let your size dictate how and who you date then YOU, my dear, are a Fat Chick.”
Brianna Doolan at Lip Mag writes, “masculinism and the ‘f’ word: a terrifying tale in modern discourse“:
An Broc claims that feminism has an inherent misandry (the hatred of men) and that it perpetuates the idea that ‘all men are rapists, all men are wicked and there’s this big evil patriarchy which never existed in history…feminism tends to demonise all men and holds all men guilty for the crimes of a few.’
Alternatively he believes in a concept called ‘feminin-ism’, a novel idea of a woman who identifies as a feminist but wants to know how to protect herself.
Maeve Marsden writes at Daily Life, “Just for Laughs: the world’s favourite comedy festival has no room for women“:
This morning I got an email from the Sydney Opera House informing me that I could buy tickets to “the world’s favourite comedy festival.” I love comedy, I thought. Indeed, I perform comedy. This is the festival for me!
Except it isn’t.
Like so many comedy festivals, events, open mic nights and variety shows, ‘Just for Laughs’ has just announced an exclusively male line up. Now, I’m not saying that Bill Bailey, Trevor Noah, Rhys Darby, Jim Gaffigan and Dave Thornton aren’t funny, I am just completely fed up with the exclusion of women in Australian comedy.
Scuba Nurse at The Hand Mirror writes, “Shouting from water skis“:
Sometimes being a woman in a male dominated field feels a bit like trying to teach from water-skis.
No, water-skis are not the best platform to teach from.
Race and Racism
Yassmin writes at Redefining the Narrative, “Are you worried about the European elections?“:
The recent European Union elections have given a legitimate seat to quite a few far right parties, prompting questions around where this level of extremism is coming from, and to what end it is leading?
The Huffpost reports on some of the most extreme, including the Dutch party which wants to rid the country of Moroccans (who were ironically brought in by the Dutch themselves to bolster their workforce), a group in Hungary who want all Jews to sign a register (sound familiar?) and a number of strongly anti-immigration and anti-European parties across the continent.
It is extremely disappointing to see such strong levels of hatred, downright racism and homophobic rhetoric coming out of so called ‘civilised’ nations. We have been frustrated in Australia with the level of anti-asylum seeker language, but it hasn’t reached the levels of mainland Europe and the Tea Party across the pond. Where is this all coming from, why is it so and how can we tackle it?
Shae at Freerange in Suburbia writes, “Awkward“:
The other Mum cocks her head to the side, looks back at the team, looks back at me and has a face that says I’m confused. She is silent.
That’s all it takes for my must-I-be-having-this-conversation-and-it’s-sure-not-to-go-well-and-I’m-destined-to-be-the-weirdo-again brain to decide I should just jump in. Let’s get it over with. GO.
“She’s not in school uniform because she doesn’t go to school. That is we home educate. She’s the same age as these girls though and even knows one of them from her sister’s ballet”. This all spills out in one breath and without punctuation. I’m kind of spewing forth this info at the poor woman.
Shae at Freerange in Suburbia also writes, “This is Willow. She loves sharks.“:
Her other big passion, aside from ballet and Monster High dolls, is SHARKS. Willow loves sharks. Particularly Great White Sharks. We have borrowed every shark book from the library at least twice, watched all the docos and browsed a lot of you tube. Willow loves them so much that on our recent trip to Seaworld she stared into the tank, sighed, and asked “do you think they’re happy in there?” rather than being pumped to see them up close. She has a big heart.
She is worried the numbers of great white shark, and others, are in decline. She wants to know why practices like shark netting, shark culls and killing sharks for fin soup are still allowed. She has concern for the health of the ocean where her favorite animals live.
Penguin unearthed writes, “Oral History“:
Tui used to love to imitate his father, Henry Haswell, when he was in full flight complaining about his dinner table. To tell the story, my dad started putting on the accent of Henry Haswell and quoting him – who apparently had the scottish accent common to the people in their part of New Zealand at the time (Henry’s parents were part of the great Nova Scotian migration to northern New Zealand in the 1850s).
So my father was imitating the voice of a man who died more than a hundred years ago, which had been passed on to him by his father, via Tui. It is quite amazing to see oral history in action like that.
Violence – Trigger warnings for all posts in this section
Scarlett Harris writes at The Scarlett Woman, “Walk A Mile in Their Shoes.“:
From here the conversation turned to domestic violence victims and, as we oft hear, “why they just don’t leave” and that “there would have to be some evidence of years of abuse” when victims are pushed to the brink and end up murdering their abusers. By this point I was livid and held myself back from saying what I am about to type lest I damage my at-arms-length but daily relationship with these people: intimate partner violence doesn’t just happen out of the blue. It’s not like one day your loving, equal partner snaps and hits you and that’s it: you leave them (although I’m sure there are a small amount of cases like this, the vast majority of abusers have a pattern of behaviour prior that results in violence).
Liz Barr at No Award writes, “Power, abuse, fandom“:
Is the internet safe for kids? AHAHAHAHA NO. And I’m not here to tell people with real, actual children how to supervise them online. I just have a cat, and I can assure you that he’s not allowed on the internet without an adult human present.
But here’s the thing: fans create fan work, and some of these artefacts are problematic in terms of their sexualised portrayal of children.
Kath at Fat Heffalump writes, “I Stand With Shakesville“:
The truth is, there are lots of things you can do. Start by believing women who talk about this abuse and harassment. Help by saying clearly and publicly “This is wrong. This has to stop.” Signal boost when women write about the abuse and harassment they face. When other people make excuses about the abuse and harassment women deal with, challenge them. Tell them it is not acceptable to minimise or excuse the abuse and harassment. Campaign online platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and any others to put in adequate security for their users – proper block functions, well moderated abuse reporting systems, clear anti-abuse terms of service requirements and strong anti-hacking/spam systems. If you know a woman who is being harassed/abused online, listen to her when she needs to vent. Ask her if she’s OK and if there are any ways you can help. Often just knowing someone cares and is listening is the thing that is least expressed. Support her if she goes to the authorities to report it. Document anything you receive by being associated with her.
tigtog writes at Hoyden About Town, “Procedure Fail: WisCon, Feminism and Safe Spaces“:
Readers who are already part of SF fandom have probably seen a lot of this WisCon 38 fallout already, and there is a great deal of related/background reading that might seem daunting to those anyone who hasn’t heard about this at all (I certainly haven’t read everything myself), but this situation is worth people outside SFF reading about because one of the major revelations that has come to light about how/why this was mishandled so badly was that decision-makers were not made aware of nor did they factcheck all relevant information before reaching their decision: precedents regarding a similar situation at a different convention in recent years that was mishandled in a way that should have made WisCon more alert to avoidable mistakes, past accusations/confessions against/from the accused, details of reports from accusers in this situation not conveyed, the accused was given further followup and input into the final decision but the accusers were not, and claims about legal obligations made by the accused have since been revealed to be false. Since this sort of institutional memory-holing of relevant history regarding serial harassers and non-transparency of procedures to the accusers is precisely the sort of social convention that serial harassers rely upon in order to keep getting away with what they do, alongside the fallacy that harassers are obvious deviants who could never be part of my well-ordered community (when in fact they are commonly those with the well-liked/respected status to be given the benefit of the doubt when/if reports are made against them), it’s worth reading about the mistakes of communities with which one isn’t familiar so that one can learn about patterns to watch out for and procedural standards which need to be known and practised by decision-makers.
Mindy at Hoyden About Town writes, “Today in someone is wrong on the internet“:
Clicking through my favourite feminist blogs this morning I came across an interesting comment left by well lets call him Alphaboy (naturally on a post that had nothing whatsoever to do with his comment). Alphaboy (not his real name) is very concerned about throat cancers. Not just any throat cancer but ones caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Not just any throat cancers caused by HPV but specifically the ones in men. (Can you see where this is heading? [ha! unintentional pun]). HPV throat cancers are believed to be primarily caused by oral sex.