Tag Archives: gah

Arsehat award for July 2015 – Eric Abetz

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.

Related Posts:

The post that was eaten by a goat

Well I did write a post on being angry, and the related emotional journey I have had with anger, but it has been eaten, I can only assume by the internet goat.

I can’t find a cached copy of it anywhere, and hadn’t backed up my site immediately after posting, so it’s gone.

Normal service will resume shortly.

Related Posts:

Dear Google (again)

Hi there, you seem to have not noticed my first letter to you, which I found a bit disappointing.  Perhaps you did notice it, and thought “well we’ve got all these secret plans which will resolve this issue, but since they’re secret we’re not going to say anything”, which still sucks, because you could have at least said, “Yes, we’re aware that this is a problem and we’re working on a solution”.  I would have been much cooler with that… since I wasn’t the only person who had raised this as an issue, something I discovered after checking your google feedback and issues page.

So you didn’t notice, and life moved on.  You created Googe Plus (G+), a rival to Facebook, something that looked interesting and inviting until the Nymwars began, and I quit.  I didn’t quit all my other google products.  I still have my calendar, my email and my RSS feed with Google, it’s annoying (though not impossible) to move them all.

I didn’t complain when you changed the way that Google Calendar looks, although I think it looks sterile and ugly.  When there was mention that Google Buzz was going to be shut down, I wasn’t particularly concerned – afterall, most of that stuff was on Google Reader anyway, and Buzz wasn’t all that popular.

When I heard that Google Reader might be rolled into G+ I was concerned.  I use Reader a lot.  I share articles with friends and people with similar interests to me.  I read articles shared by friends and people with similar interests.  I have a decent investment in Reader, but I thought to myself (clearly blithely) that most of the existing functionality of Reader would remain, because not every Google client is able to use G+ (particularly those with nyms, and/or a need for anonymity).

Clearly I couldn’t’ve been more wrong.  Google, you broke Reader.  You broke everything that made it a product that I enjoyed using, and that my friends enjoyed using, and that was actually useful.  You broke communities of people who shared stuff with one another, in the hope of improving your G+ product.  I don’t understand why we can’t have both G+ and Reader.

Now, if I want to see what my friends have read and are interested in sharing, I have to rejoin G+, something I’m not interested in doing until you’ve fixed the nymwar issues.  I know that you are working hard on this, you’ve had your VP of Social wassname come out and say that pseudonyms will be allowed, but without a time-frame.  I’m not willing to rejoin until that happens, so for me, and all of those who can’t or won’t use G+ until that time?  You’ve taken away communities from us.  That sucks.

The other issue, the one you appear to have completely failed to take into account, is about how much people want to share, and who they want to share it with, as well as how people use Reader and the items that people share with them.  In moving Reader to only share on G+, you’re effectively making people spam the feeds of their friends, and not allowing those who don’t have time every day to check the items that someone has shared, to stockpile those and read them when they have time.

I know you can create circles on G+ so that you only share things with people you want to share things with, but do I, or anyone else I know, want to flood a friend’s feed with a whole range of blog posts that interest me, when they can’t pick and choose the time to go and read them?  That was one of the best things with Reader.  I could leave it for a couple of days if I was really busy, and then spend some time to catch up.  There have been months when I’ve had very little time to read posts shared by people who read some very fascinating stuff, and letting it stockpile until I had time meant that I didn’t miss out on anything, and that I knew it would be there for me to read when I found that time.

I know I’m not a lone voice in the wilderness about this.  I know that I’m not alone in being very upset that you’ve killed off a community building function so that you could focus entirely on G+.  I urge everyone else who is reading this, and who is upset at the removal of sharing functionality from Reader, to sign the petition.

 

Related Posts:

For my exes

*Trigger warning for discussion of rape and relationship abuse*

 

So, dear exes… these songs are all for you.

For the pain, heartache, and torture you put me through during and after our relationship by being a complete and utter arsehat.  For dumping me so you could be monogamous with your other girlfriend because she’d earlier dumped you and you’d never been dumped before.  For so completely misunderstanding me and never asking me why I did something or what I was thinking.  For emotionally abusing me for years, treating me like dirt, because the power got you off.  For raping me and not listening to me say “no” and then being faux apologetic afterwards, “Let’s not do that again”, and then at the next opportunity pressuring me into having sex with you again.  For failing to communicate effectively with me and instead just dumping announcements and changes on me, expecting that I’d be completely fine with them.

These are the breakup songs which speak to me and help me keep going on, the songs that help me know that I did nothing to deserve the pain that I went through, and that I sing with the other strong women (lyrics linked to in song titles).

The first is by Paul Mac, featuring Ngaiire, called, “It’s not me, it’s you“.  I hadn’t actually seen the film clip to this song until tonight, and it’s awesome.

  

The second is by a relatively unknown (at least in Australia) indy band called Elizabeth and the Catapults – called “Momma’s Boy“.  Because I relate to this song so much (and I like this song but it isn’t specifically breakup related).

 

The third is by Goyte, “Somebody that I used to know” featuring Kimbra, because I relate quite strongly to Kimbra’s part.

 

 

The fourth is Basement Jaxx featuring Lisa Kekaula, “Good Luck“, which is a great “FUCK YOU” song.

The fifth is Kelis with her song, “Caught Out There” (Trigger warning for abelism and depictions of violence).

And the final song is Vassy’s “Wanna Fly“.

Related Posts:

Dear clothing retailers

You suck.

You suck in so many ways it’s difficult to quantify how much you suck and the amount of despair you put me through whenever I go shopping for clothes.  In an ideal world you’d all have the clothing sizes you carry listed on the outside of your store, that way I wouldn’t bother setting foot inside your store looking for something to wear because I know you don’t cater to me.  This would also require clothing sizes to be standard, something that would also make me happy. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to not quite fit into the size 18 for “thin” people, but for the size 18 for “fat” people to be too big?  Does this even make sense?  And why is the clothing for “fat” people so limited in variety and fashion?  I walk in, look at what you have on offer and turn around and walk out again – it’s boring, uninteresting, and certainly not flattering.  It’d be nice if you offer clothing for “thin” people and “fat” people that the sizes just continue up the scale – and that you sell the same type of stuff.

And those stores which do sell clothes that fit me – why is everything made from such heavy synthetic material?  I prefer to wear cotton or cotton blends, I like my clothes to breathe so I don’t overheat.  Also, don’t suggest that I “enjoy my curves” by completing covering them all up – that doesn’t make sense.

And if we “fat” people are to exercise to lose weight – why on earth do you not sell exercise clothing for people above a “thin” size 18 – yes I am specifically looking at you Target…. and in fact most sports stores.  It’s a catch 22 situation if we’re told to exercise because we’re too fat, but can’t buy clothes to exercise in.

So thank you for making me almost cry in a shopping centre from frustration and shame.  I really appreciated the public humiliation you kindly dished out to me.  Please remember – the harder you make it for me to shop in your store – the less I’m likely to return if I do ever lose weight and fall into your sizing range.

Related Posts:

Repulsiveness

I’d like to be quite clear straight up, I loath Danny Nalliah and especially loath his god (and by that I mean his interpretation of god).  This is a man who claimed that Victoria decriminalising abortion resulted in the Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 that killed 173 people and wounded 414, because he had a dream about fire and brimstone.

Now he’s come out saying that the floods in Queensland, specifically Brisbane, are the result of our former Prime Minister (now Foreign Minister), Kevin Rudd, being mean to Israel (don’t read the comments on that piece unless you’re prepared for a dose of scary).  Apparently asking Israel to to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all its nuclear facilities to UN inspectors is mean, and Australia/Queensland/Rudd needed smiting as a result.

I can’t (and even when I was Catholic struggled really hard with this) worship or believe in a god that would happily kill (or make miserable) hundreds or thousands of people because of something that someone else did (or even that they did).  I don’t even get how that makes sense.  I never liked the whole fire and brimstone methods used by some ministers and hate the rhetoric of fear (which is something that Nalliah uses all the time).

That Fleming Gent posted a comment on Nalliah’s press release/blog post/thing and unsurprisingly that comment was not published, because it disagreed with the message that Nalliah was pushing.  PZ Myers also had some good commentary on Nalliah:

Kevin Rudd has been insufficiently zealous in his support for Israel, and Rudd is originally from Queensland, so God is making it rain great buckets in Queensland to send him a message.

It’s a rather opaque message, O Lord, and it seems to be causing far more suffering to other people, rather than Rudd. Wouldn’t it have been far more effective and efficient if, say, the Lord God Almighty made the plumbing in Rudd’s upstairs bathroom overflow? I should think it far more persuasive that something mysterious and ominous was going on if every time Rudd flushed, he ended up with a gusher of feces and urine on his shoes. Taking aim at the whole of Queensland is just a bit sloppy.

I also don’t understand, if god is loving, forgiving and understanding, why ordinary, regular sinners are being punished for their representative’s alleged sins (I refer to Queensland (and bits of NSW and Victoria) for Rudd and Victoria for the decriminalisation of abortion).  That doesn’t make any sense to me, and I’d hope it doesn’t make much sense to those Christians who actually critically think about things.

And then, Nalliah and his “church” took credit for the Brisbane flood not peaking as high as it did, because they prayed for Queensland, filling the gap between Rudd’s actions and god’s wrath… or something.  Seriously, they gathered on the steps of the Victorian Parliament (because they’d get publicity there) and prayed loudly and publicly (you know, something Jesus recommended against):

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. Matthew 6:5 (NIV)

Prayers such as Nalliah’s are great thing, it’s not like you can test them scientifically, and discover whether or not the prayers had any effect (they didn’t), and when things turn out well you can say that your prayers had the right effect, and if things turn out badly, you can say it was clearly god’s will, and that you tried.  It’s a win-win situation and really does nothing for anyone.  It’s not like someone, who claims that god speaks to them, would ever admit that their prayers were not heard.

I honestly would like Nalliah and his Ministry to stop receiving publicity, to go away and be on the fringe where they belong.  I’d love Nalliah to stop being so afraid and infecting others with his fear.  I’d love him to recant his hateful and prideful ways and to be humble and listen to the stories of those he currently considers sinful and learn that there is more than black and white in the world.  I’d love him to actually love, unconditionally as Christians are called to love, and to stop judging as he should really know better.

Related Posts:

Tropics below Capricorn

[I’d like to state at the very beginning of this post that I am having a small whine.  I, unlike Queenslanders who have been affected by the floods, have a roof over my head and haven’t lost family, friends, belongings, pets, or my house.  If you want to donate to the Queensland flood relief fund go here]

For the past few days, I haven’t been living in Melbourne, well I have, I’ve been living back in the tropics.  The warm nights and warm days, with very high humidity have put me in mind of my time on Christmas Island versus living in Melbourne.  My tiles are covered in condensation, meaning we have towels all over the place, my carpet is damp (and smells of wet sheep or carpet depending on your point of view) and the humidity level inside the house are currently at 98% (only slightly below being immersed in water (this is a joke)).

My back garden (have I mentioned that we’re situated on clay soil?) has taken as much water in as it can, and has flooded into the garage, so for an hour after I returned from the gym we bailed out the back yard, moved stuff that shouldn’t get wet in the garage higher, tried to seal the garage against further inundation, swept excess water from the garage, and then bought cat litter for the poor kittens who don’t want to go to the toilet in a lake.

This La Niña, although successfully having broke the drought for much of Australia, has been incredibly destructive.  My parents have had their property flooded twice, and this time they’ve evacuated because the reservoir upstream from them is above capacity and the Government is concerned about downstream residents.  I’m wondering how many of us want the drought back.

Related Posts:

What is wrong with this country?

I’m Australian, and consequently value real-estate quite a lot (housing is in short supply and consequently rather expensive).  I’m also, I guess, an intellectual, and value knowledge and books quite a lot too.  So when I see photos, like these of Detroit, I am unable to comprehend why there is so much derelict property lying around (not to mention books, and police files).  I do understand that Detroit is in the process of being abandoned and that there are many (apparently) insurmountable social issues, as well as being part of the rust belt’s decline, but I am staggered by the decay and abandonment of the property in these photos.  Every time I see photos of abandoned real-estate in the US (without good reason like it being riddled with asbestos or unsafe to live in), I wonder how a nation can have such a glut of what is/was perfectly serviceable property that could be turned into residences or something else useful.

A photo of a library in disrepair.  Books line shelves or are on the ground, light filters through a dirty window and the paint is peeling from the ceiling
A photo of a library in disrepair. Books line shelves or are on the ground, light filters through a dirty window and the paint is peeling from the ceiling
Photos from police dossiers litter the floor of a police office.  Filing cabinets have their draws left open and the paint on a secure room door peels
Photos from police dossiers litter the floor of a police office. Filing cabinets have their draws left open and the paint on a secure room door peels

This photo (above) disturbs me for the wanton privacy breach.  Because the people represented in the photos here clearly don’t deserve any privacy.

A ransacked desk is in the foreground, with draws pulled open and a box of what appears to be brightly coloured Children's Books spilled onto the floor.  The pain in the wide but brightly lit room is peeling and books remain on the shelves on the far walls
A ransacked desk is in the foreground with draws pulled open and a box of what appears to be brightly coloured Children's Books spilled onto the floor. The paint in the wide but brightly lit room is peeling and books remain on the shelves on the far walls

Related Posts:

Things that are not cool

Apparently I touched a nerve with my comments on Brendan Black’s article in Fairfax on Friday.  Now I can understand someone wanting to rebut the assertions and critique I (a lowly nobody really) made about their piece, but there are ways, and oddly enough my preferred way would be to actually comment on this blog.

But no, Mr Black decided he’d hunt down my personal email address (which is not on this blog) and email me personally.  This is not cool.  He published an article in a public space, I deconstructed the article with my own opinions and readings in a public space.  There was no call for him to dig up my email from the various places it is on the interwebs and personally email me.

I have placed his comment, in which he decides to correct my reading of his article, in the comments section of my blog so you can judge that on its merits.  This is a request for all future people who decide that they REALLY need to write to me about something I’ve written on this blog.  Put it in the comments section.  I do not appreciate being emailed out of the blue by someone who is upset at something I’ve written.

Emailing me privately, after going to the effort of digging up my email, is not flattering, it is down right creepy.

Related Posts:

Rampant sexism in Friday’s MX (10 September 2010)

Colour me surprised and everything… who thought I’d find rampant sexism and plain bad journalism in the Herald Sun’s tabloid afternoon news paper… but I did and I thought, why not blog about it with my OODLES of spare time (hah!).  For what it is worth, one of their journalists wrote an opinion piece dismissing the article discussing gender roles being linked to biology (thank you so much Amelia Grevis-James).

So onto the articles which upset me. I’ll find equivalent links to either news.com.au articles on the same topic, or other relevant news sources as I discuss each article that offended me.

Sin? Your biology made you do it  (Maria Bervanakis)

This article is so NOT newsworthy that it was not run by news.com.au nor any other actual news source (I cannot find it on google news at all).  Instead, the best source I can find for it is Newswise from August this year.  Maria tells us that:

A study by a church-backed uni found that biology has a major role in sinful behaviour.

US Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Matthew Stanford, of the Baylor University in Texas, examined years of research into people that commit the seven deadly sins and discovered their actions could be explained by their physical make-up.

What the article in the MX doesn’t say, which is reported in Newswise, is that Professor Stanford himself is religiously aligned, which is evident in the use of “sin” if you think about it.  The Newswire also doesn’t report of Professor Stanford actually has any qualifications in biology other than his qualifications in Neuroscience, and indeed where he obtained the qualifications he holds.

Newswire reports:

Stanford said all of the behaviors outlined in the book violate, in some way, the creative order that God has established, yet something biologically occurs in us that causes the behavior. However, biology is not destiny, Stanford said, and when we fully understand the effects of sin on our physical bodies, it becomes clear that “broken biology” can never be used as an excuse for sinful behavior.

As Stanford studied the data, he also noticed that, on average, men and women sin differently. Stanford said men tend to be outwardly manifested and focused on obtaining immediate gratification like aggression or adultery. The sins of women, on the other hand, tend to be more inwardly focused and concern on relational status, privilege or position like envy or pride.

“Because God created men and women physically different, it is understandable that the effect of original sin on our bodies and minds varies between the sexes,” Stanford said. “This is not to say that men and women differ in their degree of sinfulness, but simply that they sin in different ways. Men and women are equally sinful and sin is equally destructive in both.”

Each of these paragraphs should be addressed, although briefly because I don’t want to give this whackjob more time than he’s already had.

  1. Professor Stanford has published a book.  I haven’t read it, I’m not going to read it, and quite frankly am not interested in reading a book regarding what someone views as “sin” when I don’t share his religion.  To suggest that sin has any “effects on our physical bodies” without actually being clearer and providing examples (yes I know this is a summary report) and then saying that “‘broken biology’ can never be used as an excuse for sinful behaviour” comes across more as homosexuality is a sin and even if being gay is biological it is still a sin and you can control your behaviour.
  2. Look, men and women are different so they act differently and sin differently.  Quite frankly Professor Stanford, go fuck yourself and attend some Feminism 101 before ever saying such crap again.
  3. Look sinfulness is destructive (though it all depends on what you view as wrongful behaviour – according to Prof Stanford I’m a terrible sinner and would never get to heaven) and it impacts on women and men differently because they are different.  Seriously Professor Stanford, go and meet some actual real people and find out how similar (apart from societal conditioning) men and women actually are.

Wife’s pay can cost a marriage (unattributed)

This article was also run The Times of India, I can find no other news source in Australia that ran this piece.

Apparently, if a woman in a heterosexual relationship out-earns her male partner, that relationship breaking up is far more likely than in situations where a woman under earns her male partner. From MX:

The finding is the result of a 25-year study of more than 2500 marriages and follows other research showing that house-husbands are prone to affairs.

The US researchers found that women who consistently made more money than their husbands were up to 38 per cent more likely to divorce than others.

Jay Teachman, of Western Washington University, said possible reasons for the statistic were that financial independence makes it easier for women to escape an unhappy marriage, and dented egos – of both sexes.

For a happy marriage, Teachman recommends a 60/40 split in income, with the husband being the higher earner.

Thank you Mr Teachman for suggesting that women continue to earn less money than men and therefore have less money as a safety net to retire on.  Thank you Mr Teachman for proposing that instead of finding a way to solve the problem you’ve identified by having society treat each partner’s contribution to the relationship as valid, that women just take lower paying jobs.  And you know what lower paying jobs typically are Mr Teachman?  Would you do them?

This issue has been covered repeatedly, even on news.com.au.  So here are some good links so I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, you can just read it yourself.  🙂

So it’d be nice Mr Teachman if you actually think beyond “let’s make the wimmenz earnz less” and into whether or not those relationships should have been saved, what societal changes need to be made so that if women out-earn men then nothing negative happens.

Payback for hubby theft (unattributed)

Matching article at the Vancouver Sun.

Now… last I checked if you were going to have an affair with someone, that other person had to be willing – otherwise we’re entering the realm of unconsensual behaviour – and the MX and the Vancouver Sun certainly do not suggest there was any question of consent.  The MX used terms like “theft” and “stolen” in this article, which implies that the husband in this case was an automaton and had no part to play in the affair he clearly was involved in.  So yes, it takes two to tango here and suggesting otherwise removes agency from the now ex-husband and makes him completely blameless.  I note that the Vancouver Sun did not use either “theft” or “stolen”.

I’m not going to debate the strange law that North Carolina has on it’s books here right now.

So thank you MX for continuing the sexism that is prevalent in the world right now.  You had a great opportunity to dispel sexism and make the world a better place, but no you decided to wander the easy path and screw women over again.  I appreciate it, I really do.

Related Posts: