Author: Rebecca

Linkspam of the gods December 2011

Stuff I’ve been reading about the place:

Stephanie Bolt’s (Andrew Bolt’s sister)’s piece: I want marriage equality for all

Some gays and lesbians view their relationships as equal to those of straight people. But I know of others who would admit to feeling “lesser” or, even if they don’t, are fed up with receiving negative physical, verbal or other signals from the world around them.

Burt Humburg’s journey to outing himself as gay: ‘There’s only one Burt’

“(Suppressing the desires) worked for a while. … but I started to become quietly insane,” Humburg said. “My craziness was getting worse and worse and worse. I was a jerk.”

He said he briefly considered suicide.

“Within 10 seconds I concluded that was not the answer,” Humburg said. “I just thought, ‘You’re a straight-A student headed (into) medicine at some point. What are you gonna do – throw that all away just because of some Bronze Age understandings of the Bible and human sexuality?’ Let’s just take this slow and see how it goes.

“So I stopped fighting it. And as soon as I allowed (homosexuality) to be a consideration – bam. I knew.”

A fascinating article on the Christian basis of the understanding of marriage in Australia: Should Marriage Be A Life Sentence?

In order to preclude the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, the 2004 Bill proposed to incorporate the common law definition of marriage set out by Lord Penzance in the case of Hyde noted above, which involved the status of Mormon polygamous unions made in America. Lord Penzance noted: “marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. The words, “as understood in Christendom”, do not appear in section 46 of the Marriage Act nor in section 43 of the Family Law Act. The Hyde definition is otherwise intact in those sections.

Sady Doyle’s article: The Girl’s Guide to Staying Safe Online

For years, it’s been an open secret that having a visibly female online identity – especially if one writes about sexism – is a personal security risk. Highly visible bloggers such as Jessica Valenti report receiving hate mail every day. Some have been subject to campaigns aimed at getting them fired. This doesn’t only happen to high-profile feminists, or women; some people, including men, have been harassed at work simply for commenting on the wrong blog. But it is a gendered phenomenon: W.H.O.A. reports that, in 2010, 73% of cyberstalking victims were female.

A great article on body image and how large women with breasts can been seen as problematic in the office: It Happened to Me: I Got in Trouble for Bringing My Boobs to the Office

At one point in the “conversation,” I’d tried to point out that my dress wasn’t any different from what the other women in the department wore. In fact, it was pretty common knowledge one of the other women had a certain outfit she wore when she wanted something from her boss. I, uh, did not mention that to the department head. That was when my department head told me, in uncomfortable and tentative wording, that the issue was really my large boobs.

Related Posts:

“It has always been that way since the dawn of humanity.”

You know, with the exception of scientific laws, every time I hear someone say the above, I know that I have ever just heard or am about to hear, something that is complete bollocks.

So today the Australian Labour Party voted in favour of “gay” marriage (from here on in referred to as equal marriage).  The ALP national platform now supports equal marriage, though sadly the conscience vote still holds.  I don’t understand how elected representatives are allowed to vote with their conscience and not with the will of their electorate, clearly that’s just me (and several million other Australians).

Continue reading

Related Posts:

Being angry (resurrected)

Kindly supplied by “e” who had this post in their feed-reader.  I don’t know who e is, but I owe them a drink.  🙂

 

As promised, a post on anger.  This is completely out of my head without any supporting psychology theory exactly, though I suppose I could go and find some somewhere.  Anyway… anger and my experience of it.

I can confidently say that my role models for dealing with anger as a child were not very good.  I don’t know any people who had good conflict, frustration, or anger role models as children.  My parents, like many people had troubled childhoods (which is a nice way of saying that for the most part both their childhoods were incredibly traumatic), and a lack of good role models in their life to deal with conflict, frustration, or anger.

I think that this lack of experience in seeing anger as another emotion, much like being sad, happy, concerned, worried, silly, etc, meant that my ability to be angry did not mature as my other emotions did.  I no longer am sad as I was as a child, or a teenager, I am not longer happy as I was as a child… but my anger is… well… immature.  My first response is to just go quiet and cold.  To be angry, but not even to be able to express it.  Anger was avoided in my family, both my parents would be angry behind closed doors, failing to hear each other (I thought), and eventually one of them, usually my father, storming out of the house and going for a walk.

When I moved out of home I unconsciously resolved to communicate differently with my partner than my parents did with each other.  It certainly helped that I ended up in relationships with people who generally communicated with a similar language set and meanings (my parents do not seem to have the same dictionary when talking to each other – or perhaps it is an implicit/explicit communication conflict).  Anyway… although I feel I communicate with my partners better than my parents communicate with each other, and I manage to avoid conflict through miscommunication along the way, my initial way of dealing with conflict and anger was to avoid them as much as possible.

So when angry, I’d walk away.  I mirrored my father’s behaviour and his reaction to being angry.  I didn’t lash out physically or verbally, I’d retreat and go away.  Eventually (sometimes quickly, sometimes not) I’d come back and be in tears because I didn’t have a better response.  I felt guilty about being angry about some things, and justified but unable to explain exactly what I was feeling in others.  Part of that guilt I know is that women are supposed to be nice, good, quiet, biddable, etc creatures (not really human after all), who don’t get angry, because if we’re angry we’re bitches, shrews, shrill, uppity, etc. Part of the guilt had to do with being angry with people I loved and over things that were difficult for us to deal with at the time (my husband being clinically depressed for the first 9 years of our marriage for example).

When I was unable to communicate that I was angry, I would get upset.  Much like feeling stupid is something that upsets me, being unable to articulate (and therefore feeling that I can’t communicate, therefore am stupid), upsets me.  Feeling, as I did at the time, that I had to explain my anger/disappointment/whatever gently and carefully in order to not distress my husband added to the burden of dealing with anger and conflict, and made me even more likely to avoid it.

My husband was treated for his depression, we found the big wide world of polyamory, and having to deal with conflict and anger became something I could no longer avoid.  Polyamory challenges assumptions about relationships, forces you to look at the relationships you are currently in and assess the health of habits and behaviours that you and your partner have been wandering around in (well it did for us).  The relationships that we became involved in challenged both of us, and the way we acted towards each other, the things that we just put up with, the idiosyncrasies, and our avoidance of conflict.

It would be true to state that my first polyamorous relationship (outside my marriage) was with a high drama and high maintenance man and resulted in conflict with him and some of his other partners during the life of that relationship.  I didn’t handle the conflict, anger, or frustration well (I still don’t think I do), but I learnt a lot.  My counsellor was instrumental in helping me accept that anger is a valid emotion, one that is completely ok to have, and it is not the end of the world (or relationships) to be angry.  I learnt that if I can’t immediately articulate what I’m angry about, that it is ok (though this I still struggle with because I take a while to process strong emotions and often the whole thing is done before I have a handle on why I’m angry/upset).  I have learnt that I can talk about it, I can experience it, and it is another emotional response to stimuli as the others are.

As I have accepted that anger is ok, and a valid response, it has changed and grown into a different emotion than it was 6 years ago.  I am no longer guilty for being angry, though still struggle with whether anger is necessarily the best emotional response (not quite the same as guilt).  I also have a hard time processing some comments (particularly those I hear versus those I read) quickly, so am meaning deaf to comments that might otherwise make me angry until I process them at a later stage.

What is the moral of this story (apart from not write blog posts late at night because then you tend to ramble)?  It’s ok to be angry, and it’s ok for your anger to be the anger of a younger you.  The more I accepted my anger, the more it matured.

Related Posts:

Feeling stupid

There is this thing that I… hate… detest… suffer from… something… the feeling of being stupid.  I’m not sure why exactly I have a thing about this, because I know I don’t know everything, nor do I understand everything, and I’m also quite smart… but feeling stupid is something that sometimes really upsets me.

A case in point happened last week, while I was in a work training course.  We were doing a role-play of a real life scenario, and consequently didn’t have ALL the data.  We were provided with a three page summary of what was happening, and my team were the guinea pigs for this case.  This meant that our team was under the greatest pressure in the case study, we had the least preparation time for the two scenarios (they were back to back), and we’d only just been trained in the theory that we were practising.

Halfway through the first case study, I realised I had no idea of what was going on.  The team I was a part of seemed to have read a completely different case study to the one I had read, well that’s how it felt, and I suddenly felt cast adrift.  In feeling like I’d missed a major point or issue in the case study, I suddenly felt like I was stupid, which really upset me.  Upset me to the point of tears, in a training room with many of my colleagues, and members of my senior leadership team.  So yes, I was feeling stupid, upset and humiliated all at once.

It’s not necessarily about being wrong, because as I said, I don’t know everything, and I will be wrong sometimes.  I think it’s a lot to do with how I feel (I was exhausted at the time of that role play), the amount of stress I’m under, and how important my competence/image is at that moment.  Given how I’m still not feeling 100% sure in my current role, feeling stupid is a really big deal.  The added stress of nearly bursting into tears during the role play was extra stressful and extra humiliating.

I suppose that this really ties into some of the important (and mostly fucked up) messages I got as a child.  Image is important, very important.  Being smart was as important as looking smart (I’m not sure how that works really).  I suppose that me becoming an adult at 3 years of age has kinda warped some of my ideas about what it is to be an adult, and what is and is not important.

Next post – being angry.

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:

Occupy Melbourne and Police Violence

*Trigger warning for discussion (and links to footage) of violence, particularly police violence*

Sadly police violence is a given.  It’d be great to live in a world where police violence wasn’t the norm, particularly when it came to protests of various forms, but with protests against the establishment, particularly protests that go (or stay) where the establishment don’t want them to go (or stay), shit happens far too often.

Continue reading

Related Posts:

Bad slogan number 4,598,765,197,984,651 (no really)

Pain is temporary.  Quitting is forever

No and no… and no and no and no and no

Neither of those two statements are true.  Pain is not always temporary, and to suggest it is makes those who live with chronic pain either non-existent, or delusional.  Some pain is temporary, and some pain is not.

Quitting is not forever.  Quitting is just a thing.  Sometimes it can be about personal boundaries, abilities, or coping capacity.  Sometimes it can just be because you are done and don’t want to continue.  Sometimes it can be because you’ve changed your mind.  None of these things are necessarily permanent – though of course they could be, but that doesn’t mean that all things you quit are.

So, poster on the wall at my gym, kindly take your offensive slogan away and sod off – because fire… the effects of that can be permanent.

Related Posts:

Growing older

Bluejuice, one of my favourite Australian bands (they’re very funky) released a new single this week called Act Yr Age.  I watched it because I thought, “Hey, awesome… new song by cool band” and then continued watching it wondering what the fuck I’d just seen.  My initial reaction was revulsion, because that’s what we’re trained to see in this clip, that’s what society tells us is revolting and wrong and icky, and that’s what I want to explore.  (Clip and the rest under the jump)

Continue reading

Related Posts:

Let’s talk about Immigration

Not government policy about Immigration, and all that entails, but the Department itself, the workplace I spent 15 years of my working life in, the Department in which I developed as an individual, learnt a lot of interesting and worthwhile things, and made a great number of friends.

Because when Immigration is demonised, I was demonised, my colleagues were demonised, and really it was rather shit.  So why not demonise an entire Department of people?  So glad you asked…

Immigration as an institution of people was significantly less racist than general society, and was one of the more diverse government departments (according to data I read from somewhere when I was there).  It was important in Immigration as to where our clients came from, because then we could assist with interpreters, etc, but otherwise their origin was unimportant overall.  Yes the world was divided into non-citizens, and Australian residents and citizens, but that was the nature of the job. The world was not divided into white and non-white, but along lines of visa eligibility (for example some nations could obtain Electronic Travel Authorities – which are a simple visitor visa to Australia, and others could not.  Again not based on white or non-white lines).

When it comes down to it, the people you’d want to be working with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, are the ones that actually are.  Many of my colleagues were left-leaning, socialist, caring souls who wanted the best outcome for the client.  They were satisfied that, for the most part, if they made a mistake, or if a client’s situation changed, there were review mechanisms in place to look at the case again.

Let’s use an example.  I had a group of clients from Kazakhstan apply for Protection Visas.  Based on the country information at that time, I refused their applications as they did not meet the definition of a refugee as outlined by the United Nations Convention on Refugees.  Between the time I decided their application and the time their review was finalised the situation in Kazakhstan had changed dramatically, meaning that some of them were found to be refugees.

That safety net, the ability to know that the decision I made would be (most times if rejected) reviewed made my job easier.  Things which didn’t make my job easier were being demonised for working for Immigration; dealing with stories of torture, trauma, rape, and loss; a department that was becoming increasingly risk averse; and my own lack of good judgement about how many extra-curricular roles I could take on as well as my full time job.

The people who work at Immigration are great people doing a difficult job.  Like all Government departments and agencies, their role is to implement Government policy.  Believe me, when they don’t agree with that policy, they let those who need to know, know.  My former colleagues are a rather bolshy lot and will speak up and explain exactly why X or Y is a bad idea.  Whether they are listened to is a different issue of course.  A number of times when I was still working for Immigration draft policy was sent for comment, and we were given the opportunity to shred it, which if it needed to be, we would.  Our comments were often taken into account, and I know of several occasions where policy was withdrawn on the basis of the comments that were made.

Disagreeing with Government policy is all well and good, disagreeing with individual visa decisions is also fine, slamming an entire organisation because of Government policy or a visa decision – not so good.  Really, with all Government departments, you want the best people possible to work there.  The salary is not great, though in many cases the conditions are, and the people there are attempting to provide good outcomes for people.  Suggesting that all Immigration employees are facists, racists, or any other epithet you think is a great one to hurl at Immigration hurts those that work there, and does nothing to change Government policy.

If you don’t like the policy of the Government of the day, talk to them, get a lobby group together, write to your local MP, attend meetings and forums where you can be heard, but don’t demonise those who are doing their jobs and who actually want the best outcome for their clients.

Related Posts:

Navigation