Tag Archives: politics

Google Plus and why I left

This is relatively old news now, but I quit Google Plus (G+ from here on in).  My reasons were relatively simple, and yet not at the same time.  I had planned to write this post when I quit, but stuff happened and I didn’t.  Stilgherrian’s piece at ABC’s The Drum today reminded me of why I was going to write, and effectively summed up what I was going to say, but I’ll lay out my reasons nonetheless.

Continue reading Google Plus and why I left

Related Posts:

How much do you trust?

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.

 

Further reading:

A great discussion on the comment thread of Stargazer’s post on The Hand Mirror, “yet another burqa post”

Related Posts:

What is “natural”?

Fred Nile decided to have a hate filled rant today after Penny Wong shared her happy news that her partner was pregnant and thanked the IVF services that made this possible.  I don’t want to give Fred Nile more air time, because I don’t think he deserves it, but I do want to focus on just one tiny point he’s made that is just so silly that it needs to be looked at.

She needn’t have made it public – it just promotes their lesbian lifestyle and trying to make it natural where it’s unnatural.

 

Fred Nile is clearly an arbiter of what is and what is not natural and he should be the man we all approach whenever we want to ask what is and what is not natural.  Because really, what is “natural”?

If we go back to the Bible that Fred Nile believes that all of us (even those that aren’t Christian) should follow, it has a lot to say about what is good and what is bad, but doesn’t focus all that much on what is natural and what is unnatural.  Clearly Nile believes that unnatural things are bad, so modern society with our reliance on technology, plastics and machines must be unnatural, since they are not directly from nature.  I’m sure that Nile would agree that modern society is a bad thing, what with our desire for equality for the LGBTIQ community, so Nile must also be pushing to return modern society back to an agrarian age where we lived more in harmony with nature (including suffering from natural diseases and famines).

Perhaps Nile is suggesting that being queer is unnatural, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary in nature.  After all plenty of animal species show evidence of homosexual and/or trans* behaviour, and nothing is more natural than animals in the wild.  So if animals in the wild are busy shagging whatever takes their fancy, why is it unnatural that some humans are doing the same?  What is so unnatural about same sex relationships when taken into broader consideration with the whole animal kingdom, especially as we evolved from an ape-like ancestor?

Even if Nile is a creationist (it’s hinted at in his Wikipedia profile), according to his beliefs god created every person in His image (capitalisation only for differentiation between Nile and god), so if god created queer people, then surely that’s god’s will.  Who is Nile to say what is and what is not natural when god has created someone to be who they are?

In the end, surely what would be more unnatural would be someone who is same sex attracted forcing themselves to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex just to satisfy the desires of conservative Christian wankers.

Related Posts:

Gendering and exclusion all at once

I was catching up on Australian news today, now that I’ve returned from Malaysia, and stumbled across an article about the Freemasons in Sydney as their election of a new Grand Master.

The journalist thought that this was an appropriate comment to make:

Some may have looked like cardinals, while others sported more bling than a man really should.

 

Clearly, thinks whichever anonymous journalist for the AAP that wrote this article, there is an upper limit on how much jewellery a man can wear before his manliness should be called into account.  As men should never have their manliness called into account (they might be wearing enough jewellery to be mistaken for women!), they should be careful how much jewellery they wear.

I call bollocks.

Continue reading Gendering and exclusion all at once

Related Posts:

The Democratic Labour Party

I am related by marriage to the newly elected Democratic Labour Party senator for Victoria.  This is not a happy thing.  I wrote him a letter:

Continue reading The Democratic Labour Party

Related Posts:

38th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival

Down Under Feminists' Carnival Logo

Hello everyone and welcome to the 38th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival.  Thanks for all the fantastic submissions and to everyone who wrote all the fantastic articles I’m linking to.

If at any point I have misnamed, mislabled, or misgendered someone, please let me know immediately so that I can correct my error If I have included a post of yours that you would not like included, please let me know and I will remove it.  Should any of my links be broken, just let me know and I’ll attempt to fix it.

Continue reading 38th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival

Related Posts:

They’re not even trying anymore

From The Age today I found the following two articles which just staggered me.  The first is about train level crossings, titled “Liberal Seats Gets Crossing Priority“:

A TRANSPORT Department list of the most dangerous railway level crossings has been ignored by the Baillieu government, which has instead directed millions of dollars towards upgrading crossings in Liberal-held seats.

Well thank the FSM that the Baillieu government has it’s priorities sorted out.  It’s much more about rewarding those who voted this current government in, and far less about saving the lives of Victorians.  I mean really, I should have guessed, it’s quite obvious when you think about it… no wait, it’s not.

The second is about female representation on government boards, titled “Ballieu wants more women on boards“:

THE Baillieu government has adopted a target to have women filling at least half of all positions on state boards, but has ruled out imposing quotas because ”positive discrimination” won’t always lead to the best person being picked for the job.

The Coalition has adopted a statewide target to get women into 50 per cent of government board positions, which are often regarded as a stepping stone to senior roles in the corporate sector, where women are largely under-represented.

”Targets can be very effective because it focuses the mind in making sure women are actively considered, and that their merit is taken seriously … rather than say, ‘well this spot has to go to a woman instead of the best person for the job’,” Ms Wooldridge told The Sunday Age.

I considered blogging about this when the last discussion of women on boards hit the airwaves, but I ran out of time and energy and brain.  Positive discrimination/Affirmative Action/whatever you’re going to call it does have it’s place.  Because if your colleagues on any given board are male, then actually thinking outside that typically “white male is the best for the job” box is rather hard.  And if you are presented with two equally qualified candidates, one male, one female, then far too often the individual selected is the same as the rest of the make-up of the board – which in Australia is generally white men.

So why not put a quota in place?  It won’t hurt, it will give you good quality candidates that you didn’t think of to start with, and if it all falls into a heap, then you can reverse it.  Ah, the joys of being able to change your mind.

Related Posts:

Swear Jar

Fucking hell, the Victorian Liberal Party, in their grand “law and order” plan, have decided that instead of having people who are charged with using:

language deemed to be indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening. (The Age)

go to court, a process which is time consuming and rarely successful (on the point of the prosecutors), that police will now be able to issue an on-the-spot fine of up to $240.

The Age article continues:

The crackdown — which extends the Baillieu government’s ever-growing law-and-order agenda — means police will be able to issue infringement notices for offensive behaviour and indecent language similar to parking and speeding fines.

Attorney-General Robert Clark said the idea was to lower the police workload by allowing them to issue fines instead of tackling bad language using the court system.

“It frees up police time for other law enforcement activities and enables them to more readily issue penalties against those offenders who deserve them,” Mr Clark said.

“By providing police with as many enforcement tools as possible, Parliament is sending a strong signal that people who engage in criminal behaviour can expect to be dealt with under the law.”

Offensive language has been an offence in Victoria since 1966. Swearing — if it is deemed serious enough — can carry a penalty of up to two years’ jail, and is even considered an offence if no one is present to hear it.

In truth, they’ve all been out of bounds since the Act was introduced in 1966, but until 2008 anyone thus charged had to have their case heard in court. That took time and effort and got in the way of more pressing cases. Frankly, who could blame the legal system if it collectively decided it really couldn’t be arsed to hear such matters – matters that Ross Garnaut might feasibly have described as “pissant”? (The Age -another article)

Because saying “FUCK” (and other swears) is clearly criminal behaviour.  I didn’t know, until now, that “offensive language” was actually a real offence, and only had been since 1966.  I’d also like to know what “offensive language” actually means.  Sure it’s almost described with “indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening” language, but what does that really mean?

How will police define “indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening” language?  Will some groups, as I suspect they will, receive far more leniency from police in relation to swearing than others?  Will some groups who have threatening language used towards them (those who are not white, the homeless, the LBGTIQ community, etc) really have an effective response from the police if they report the language used against them?

It has been suggested that this is just an attempt at revenue raising by the Victorian State Government, and I’m inclined to agree.  Instead of ensuring that minority groups who already have existing issues with police are protected adequately, this will be further power for some police to put the boot in even more.

Then there is the cultural impact – the fact that people can (and probably will) be fined for swearing at sporting events, live music concerts (Yeah, how is Cee-Lo (warning for NSFW swears) ever going to perform his song in Victoria?), comedy, or the theatre?  The Melbourne International Comedy Festival (one of the biggest comedy festivals in Australia -possibly the third biggest in the English speaking world), is worried that the new laws will impact on the festival next year.

Comedian Wil Anderson yesterday tweeted in response to the news. “Victoria announced on-the-spot fines of $240 for indecent language. Suddenly my [comedy festival] show is going to cost me a lot more next year.”

Melbourne International Comedy Festival director Susan Provan said she was taking a wait-and-see approach. “We at the Comedy Festival will be waiting with bated breath for news on what does and does not constitute swearing,” she said. However, she added that the festival may need to consider hiring people “with bleepers in all areas of our activity”.

The Baillieu government is pitching this as part of its ever-expanding law-and-order agenda, but the cynically inclined might wonder if it is not also a blatant revenue-raising exercise. Given the difficulty of successfully prosecuting someone for swearing (or, more broadly, offensive language) in court, this is by and large money the government would not otherwise have had. (The Age)

The Age article the excerpt above is from also defines all the places in which it will be illegal to swear – and about the only place you will be able to swear will be in the privacy of your own home – provided that the public is not gathering there – so not when you’re having a party probably.

In fact, there is little agreement even on what constitutes “offensive” language in 2011, as distinct from 1966. One man’s meat is another man’s cruelly harvested animal flesh, as it were.

In a much-noted ruling in 2002, NSW magistrate David Heilpern observed of the F word that “one would have to live an excessively cloistered existence not to come into regular contact with the word, and not to have become somewhat immune to its suggested previously legally offensive status”. (The Age)

With no fucking clue as to what constitutes offensive language, the potential for this new police power to be massively misused is very high.  Personally I’d take the fine to court and ask that the 2002 NSW ruling be taken into account, if I was fined by the police for swearing.  I have that luxury and privilege.  Those who have minimal incomes, minimal support, and/or an unfamiliarity with the Australian Justice System are going to struggle to have the fine waived, and in many cases struggle to pay the fine.

This is not a law which does anyone any favours if all the attention is put on “offensive” and none on “threatening”.  I’d like to see “threatening” strengthened, and a real discussion about whether or not we need to be protected from swears when we’re out in public these days.

Related Posts:

Mr Kevin Donnelly is racist

I’ve struggled with calling Kevin Donnelly racist, versus what he wrote being racist – but given the repeated racism in his article at the ABC, I can only say that he is racist based on his beliefs.  I also thought about whether or not I should even give Donnelly airtime, but then decided that calling out his racist arsehattedness (yes, that is a word) was important – even though the commenters on the ABC piece did a great job of doing that anyway.  Michael Stuchbery‘s response piece is also fantastic, and had it not been for his response, I wouldn’t have seen the original article.

The article penned by Kevin Donnelly was first written in July 2010, and what we’re reading is a revised version – so clearly he stands by his racist comments and sees nothing wrong with them…. Unlike me.

Continue reading Mr Kevin Donnelly is racist

Related Posts:

An open letter to Geoff Shaw and the Victorian Liberal Party

Dear Mr Shaw (and Mr Baillieu),

I am appalled that you responded to Mr Quilligan’s email with the following:

You state that you ” want to work, live and love freely during the course of my life, and I want to do that without thinking that I can’t”. What if I loved driving 150kms per hour in residential areas? What if there was a convicted sex offender who stated that, or a child molester? Can they still do what they want? Under your statement the answer is yes.

You equated a consensual adult relationships to two illegal activities.  Last I checked (regardless of what you actually feel about the topic), same sex relationships were not illegal – however paedophilia and speeding are both illegal activities with a great deal of societal harm attached to them.  So you suggested that Mr Quilligan’s desire to “love freely during the course of [his] life” was the equivalent to a paedophile or sex offender raping someone.  Seriously?  Were you thinking straight when you said that?

Continue reading An open letter to Geoff Shaw and the Victorian Liberal Party

Related Posts: