This morning, Australian news was abuzz with excitement over a caucus meeting of the Australian Labor Party that was set to vote on ousting current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in favour of his Deputy PM, Julia Gillard. And in a piece of Australian political history, Rudd did indeed step down, leaving Gillard Australia’s first female prime minister.

Everyone seems pretty excited about it – the morning ‘news’ broadcasts aired into overtime in order to cover the meeting and change of leadership. However, without missing a beat, wouldn’t you know, Sunrise anchor Melissa Doyle announces that tomorrow we’ll discuss whether or not Australia “is ready for a female prime minister”?

I’m going to set my outrage aside for a moment. I accept that these sorts of sensationalist morning programs require “provocation,” if you want to call it that, to engage viewers in their thirty-second discussions of salient news issues. But it’s cheap media. It’s a cheap trick, and a tired one. Worst of all, though, it’s insidious for two reasons. Firstly, by questioning whether or not Australia is ready for a female prime minister, Sunrise implies that the country is not, that a female leader is something to be feared or approached cautiously, or as anything but what it really is, which is LONG OVERDUE. The question legitimizes chauvenism by opening the door to arguments that women shouldn’t be Prime Minister. Secondly, the question represents exactly the barriers faced by women in politics. Were it a male challenger, no one would be asking if Australia were ready for him. The media is notoriously bad for getting stuck in the gender angle when reporting on female politicians, so all we ever hear about is their childbearing/rearing capabilities, their fashion sense, or their bitchiness (which is very interesting to contrast with the forms of confrontation expressed by their male counterparts).

I suppose, Mel, you’ll be asking your “expert” guests to comment on whether Gillard’s ascension to Prime Minister means the end of the feminist struggle, or somehow proves that Australia isn’t a sexist country. You’ll be wrong.

That Gillard was ever made deputy was probably the biggest step for women in Australian politics. Honestly, there was no alternative for leadership if the party had decided Rudd couldn’t win them another election. And before we applaud ourselves too much, by my count, Australia is now the 54th country in the world to elect a female leader. Surely, Mel, we deserve our spot among the ranks of:

• Trinidad and Tobago
• Lithuania
• Moldova
• South Korea
• Liberia
• Ukraine
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Senegal
• Latvia
• Mongolia
• Guyana

Surely we won’t suggest that there’s something particularly progressive about the 53 other countries in the world who have had female leaders that Australia may yet be lacking. In terms of Australia’s representation of women, just 13 per cent of the current ministry are female, putting us in the company of countries such as Oman, Qatar. Bahrain, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo – all of whom have less than 20 per cent women in ministerial positions. Only Australia, Israel and the US among the developed democracies have such small numbers of women political leaders.

I think the media plays an important role in maintaining negative perceptions of female politicians. Voters have shown themselves to be willing to vote for a female representative, with women comprising 25-35% of seats in parliaments across the country. It is not from the public that the majority of criticisms of female politicians come – it is from the media. Journalists trivialise women publicly, focusing narrowly on their hair and clothes, assessing her worth by her maternal and domestic prowess. Gillard has been criticised in the media not only for lacking children, but for having a kitchen that is “too clean.”

What more would it take for Australia to be “ready” for Gillard? She already wears the standard uniform of dark suits, and has appropriated the required mimicking of men to speak in ‘polliespeak’. She demurs from confrontation lest she be called a ‘bitch.’ She knows not to show any originality and difference, because the media will make her pay if she does otherwise.

No, it’s rather unhelpful to question the ‘readiness’ of Australia for a female prime minister. As twitterer benpobjie so accurately responded to the question: “if not, a pro-Gillard vote may well tear the space-time continuum.”

Bookmark It

The host of my preferred morning show was, this morning, rather pleased with himself for being part of a group of men who apparently do more domestic work than others: Australians. This is, of course, only in comparison with a very small and not-sure-how-they-were-selected cross section of Western countries – namely, Italy, Denmark and France. And by “others,” I of course am referring to “other men.” This is big news in Australia today, though I’m not sure why as I can’t seem to find any recent publication made by the study author Lyn Craig.

Here’s what she has to say about Australian men and domestic work:

Australian fathers, her study shows, are run off their feet. Their long hours in paid work combined with their domestic labours means they work harder than Danish, French or Italian fathers and the same as Americans. For example, they spend 10 to 11 hours a day in paid and domestic work compared to eight hours for Danish men.
…
The French, in particular, are sanguine about time spent with their children. French fathers spend on average 20 minutes a day in routine physical care of their children aged under five, and in accompanying them places, compared to 40 minutes by Australian fathers. They also spend much less time reading to them and playing with them.

Well, thanks for that, news service, but I think something important is being overlooked, and something that Dr. Craig emphasizes herself in her interviews with these media outlets:

”They do less than Australian women but they compare favourably to men in some other countries,”

…
Dr Craig points out in her study, Work and Family Time: Australia in Comparative Perspectives, that the gender division of labour is much more unequal here – not because fathers do less childcare than fathers overseas, but because their wives do less paid work, and much more housework and childcare than elsewhere.

Dr Craig believes it is pointless for Australian policymakers to exhort hard-pressed men to pitch in more at home. ”Perhaps rather than looking at what households should do to share the load more equally,” she says, ”we need to look at what workplaces should do to limit demands on workers’ time.”

What Dr. Craig is actually discovering about Australian culture is not that it is more egalitarian in terms of gender, but rather that Australians as a whole are overworked compared to their European counterparts.

And regardless of the amount of work that Australian men are doing in terms of childcare, Australian mothers are doing more work than fathers.

So quit congratulating yourselves and give your partner a hand with the cooking, already.

Bookmark It

What a buffoon! According to a Sydney-based researcher, the Australian Prime Minister, at an event in January, told her that her PhD was an excuse commonly used by young women “to avoid starting a family”.

Deputy PM Julia Gillard better get on the clean up trail after that one. Apparently Mr. Rudd doesn’t recall making such a comment. I’m sure he did – he’s such a useless goon. I’m also sure he’s not a total misogynist like his rival, Tony Abbott. He’s just an indoctrinated, socialized, mostly-misogynist like most other men. He may not really believe she’s avoiding having babies, but his comment does imply a belief that education is somehow lost on women.

And I don’t fully believe that Rudd wants to see women get a fair go. Otherwise his government would not have just denied any possibility of a quota system for women’s employment. According to a newly released KPMG report, only 54 per cent of employed women are full-time, compared to 84 per cent of men. The findings didn’t seem to phase Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, who sluffed off the suggestion that the government should address this disparity with an appeal to the fact that the report included no formal recommendations to government.

Riiiight, so governments are incapable of analysing data and finding their own solutions, but must rely on recommendations from the private or NFP sector for action?

Bullshit, Ruddy, you just think women have stolen enough rights and should be happy with where they’ve gotten to, right?

Bookmark It

In what has to be described as one of the most authoritarian moves of the decade, the South Australian government has passed a new law requires anyone making an online comment about next month’s state election to publish their real name and postcode. This blanket law applies to any website in which anyone posts a comment relating to the election, including online news sources, Facebook, and Twitter. It could also be applied to talkback radio shows.

The law, one of many amendments to the Electoral Act, also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.

According to Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, this new law is not an attack on free speech:

“The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud,” Mr Atkinson said.

“There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.”

Mr Atkinson also said he expected The Advertiser to target him for sponsoring the law.

“I am also certain that Advertiser Newspapers and News Limited will punish me personally, viciously for being the attorney-general responsible for this law,” he said.

“You will publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me.”

Right, sounds like a case of someone with serious insecurity issues. Really, one shouldn’t be in public office if one cannot handle public criticism. What is the reason that Mr. Atkinson would insist on getting the full names and addresses of anyone writing shit about the election, if not to track them down and threaten them in some way? From his quotation above, it would seem he plans on filing defamation suits against anyone with an opinion.

This South Australian law differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym. Apparently the law expires at 6pm on polling day, but its brevity is not the issue. The precedent is the issue. That Australia lacks constitutionally entrenched rights, such as the right to free speech, is the issue, as there is apparently no legal footing by which to challenge this ridiculous restriction of freedoms.

Bookmark It

An Australian banker was caught on live television looking up pornography, not realizing a newscaster was broadcasting live just a few feet away. This is classic:

The man in question works at Macquarie Bank in Sydney and had his back to the camera when Channel 7′s morning Sunrise program cut live to their business analyst giving a live update on interest rates. One of the topless images has been identified as girlfriend of Orlando Bloom, Miranda Kerr.

The video footage shows the man in question appear behind the reporter, sit down at his computer and immediately he brings up the photos in question. As a colleague chats to him from the other side of his screen, he flicks between photos of girls and financial news, before turning and finally seeing the camera behind him.

Allegedly, the photos came from an email of Kerr’s recent GQ photo shoot. Macquarie Bank is in clean-up mode and has released the following statement:

Macquarie takes matters such as the unacceptable use of technology extremely seriously,” the bank said.

“Macquarie has strict policies in place surrounding the use of technology and the issue arising from today’s live cross on 7 News is being dealt with internally.”

Bookmark It

Somehow this one slipped by the morning news show I religiously tune into. The big news circulating the blogs this morning is that Australia is going to ban small breasts from pornography allegedly because of its paedophilic implications.

According to the rumour, the ban is the result of a campaign by senators Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett who claimed that publications featuring small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia.

More accurately, though, the rumour has been traced to the Australian Sex Party, who on Wednesday issued a press release claiming that the Australian Classification Board is refusing to classify any rudey films featuring women ejaculating. The ASP suggests that the Board is banning these films on the grounds that these are depictions of urination (I’m not kidding) and furthermore that the depiction of female ejaculation is “abhorrent”. Furthermore, according to Fiona Patten, Convenor of the Australian Sex Party:

“We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup size. It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late.”

Apparently, the ban is going to be included in the ludicrous internet censorship filter that the Australian government has gone ahead with.

However, it appears the panic is somewhat overblown. A spokesperson for the Australian Classification Board clarified that:

Publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC.

They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

Okay, here are my problems with this story. Firstly, through an intention to keep child pornography illegal, the government is regulating anything that could “appear to be” a person under the age of 18. But on what basis do they judge a person’s age? Fiona Patten says she attended a ACB training session late last year where they showed examples of publications that had been Refused Classification due to the size of the woman’s breasts.

While it is clearly not a hard and fast rule, it is problematic that the Board apparently judges age based on breast size. Does it also imply that if a man likes small-breasted women, he’s by implication a paedophile? What this classification suggests is that small breasts are, in fact, obscene at worst, and at best simply juvenile.

Mostly, though, my issue is with a classifications of obscenity with pornography that limits women’s sexuality. I am anti-porn and I think the entire industry is violent and offensive to women. But what is worse than its pervasiveness in every day life is that the government makes decisions on what is and isn’t acceptable depiction of women’s degradation and somehow double anal makes the cut but female ejaculation doesn’t?

As Ms. Naughty succinctly sums up:

adult companies are already narrowing down the range of “acceptable” body types they can display. Add in the requirement to Photoshop out any glimpses of inner labia and you’ve got a delightful recipe for distorted body images.

Indeed, these new rules are pretty much saying: normal women should have nice large fake tits and never emit any kind of liquid when they orgasm. Actually, it might even be less obscene if the women don’t have orgasms at all. Much easier that way. Just stick to the facials and the bukkake, thanks very much.

God, I hate the porn industry and the conservative government structures that support it.

Bookmark It

New circulating Australia today is about comments made by Opposition Leader Tony Abbot to Australian Women’s Weekly, in which he advises women to “stick to the rules” when considering sex before marriage, and to consider their virginity “a gift.” According to Abbot, contraceptives have actually burdened women as men have become more sexually liberated as a result and are taking advantage of unmarried women.

When his comments leaked, they understandably caused a ripple through Australian media. In a subsequent interview with 3AW in Melbourne, Mr Abbott said he was “subjected to a one-hour grilling” by the magazine in which he did his best to give honest answers.

“I think all of us should act in ways that value ourselves, and I’m trying not to be prescriptive here, I’m trying not to be a preacher and all of that,” he said.

“Because in the end these are all very personal things. But if someone asked my advice, I would say, don’t do anything that you will live to regret if you can possibly help it, and try to act in ways in which a self-respecting person would act.”

Deputy PM Julia Gillard has responded, saying Abbott’s comments were likely to confirm women’s “worst fears” about Mr. Abbott. She also said that “Australian women want to make their own choices and they don’t want to be lectured to by Mr Abbott.”

While some conservative idiot at the Australian has defended Abbott’s comments as applying “equally to men as well as women,” and coming from a “compassionate, fatherly concern for his three daughters,” but this is clearly not the case.

What is the case? Conservative valuing of women in terms of their sexual purity. His comments resonate with pre-liberation opinions of women, who would be shamed for having a human sexual appetite and engaging in human sexual behaviour. These regressive political views are a targeted backlash against women’s liberation, with a political agenda aimed at rolling back women’s rights. Abbott’s goals here are mired in old-school gender roles, and its primary tool is young women’s sexuality. His obsession with women’s sexuality stems from the same sexist mentality as the “Girls Gone Wild” enterprise, as both sides of this continuum value women solely in terms of their sexuality. It’s a fetish, this obsession with virginity.

As Jessica Valenti so articulately claims in her book The Purity Myth:

There is a moral panic in America over young women’s sexuality — and it’s entirely misplaced. Girls “going wild” aren’t damaging a generation of women, the myth of sexual purity is. The lie of virginity — the idea that such a thing even exists — is ensuring that young women’s perception of themselves is inextricable from their bodies, and that their ability to be moral actors is absolutely dependent on their sexuality. It’s time to teach our daughters that their ability to be good people depends on their being good people, not on whether or not they’re sexually active.

A combination of forces — our media- and society-driven virginity fetish, an increase in abstinence-only education, and the strategic political rollback of women’s rights among the primary culprits — has created a juggernaut of unrealistic sexual expectations for young women. Unable to live up to the ideal of purity that’s forced upon them in one aspect of their lives, many young women are choosing the hypersexualized alternative that’s offered to them everywhere else as the easier — and more attractive — option.

More than 1,400 purity balls, where young girls pledge their virginity to their fathers at a promlike event, were held in 2006 (the balls are federally funded). Facebook is peppered with purity groups that exist to support girls trying to “save it.” Schools hold abstinence rallies and assemblies featuring hip-hop dancers and comedians alongside religious leaders. Virginity and chastity are reemerging as a trend in pop culture, in our schools, in the media, and even in legislation. So while young women are subject to overt sexual messages every day, they’re simultaneously being taught — by the people who are supposed to care for their personal and moral development, no less — that their only real worth is their virginity and ability to remain “pure.”

So what are young women left with? Abstinence-only education during the day and Girls Gone Wild commercials at night! Whether it’s delivered through a virginity pledge or by a barely dressed tween pop singer writhing across the television screen, the message is the same: A woman’s worth lies in her ability — or her refusal — to be sexual. And we’re teaching American girls that, one way or another, their bodies and their sexuality are what make them valuable. The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it’s irrevocably damaging young women.

Clearly, I couldn’t have said it better myself. You’re better off buying the book if you want a concise and articulate argument against Abbott’s ridiculous fetishizing of his daughters’ and all Australians’ virginity.

Bookmark It

An Ontario dairy farmer has made huge strides today in the fight against forced pasteurization. A ruling from a Newmarket justice of the peace made today found that Michael Schmidt’s raw milk operation does not violate the province’s milk-marketing or public-health regulations.

You may remember Michael Schmidt from a LMB post nearly two years ago on the pasteurization conspiracy, which described Schmidt’s legal battle to provide raw milk to demanding customers. The ruling is being heralded as a big win for the growing food-rights movement that is distrustful of industrial farming techniques (and rightfully so, it would seem).

Today’s ruling means that raw, or unpasteurized, milk produced by Mr. Schmidt’s cows – heritage Canadiennes bred near the town of Durham, Ont. – can legally be distributed to the small network of consumers who have bought “cow shares” in exchange for access to the animals’ unprocessed milk.
…
The Schmidt case, which began when his farm was raided in 2006, has captivated food-rights academics and advocates in Canada, and around the world, who argue the court’s decision will ripple well beyond the raw-milk community. At its crux, they argue, the case is really about the extent to which consumers should be free to buy foods, however rarefied, and whether constitutional rights stretch as far as the grocery basket, farmer’s market and the people who own shares in – but do not live on – food-producing farms.

Although many US states have decriminalized unpasteurized milk sales, in Canada it is still illegal to sell raw milk because of concerns of E. Coli contamination. However, this law does not extend to cheeses made from raw milk, which are legal provided the cheese is aged for at least 60 days. Similarly, in Australia raw milk for drinking purposes is illegal in all states and territories, as is all raw cheese. This has been circumvented somewhat by selling raw milk as bath milk. An exception to the cheese rule has been made recently for two Roquefort cheeses. There is some indication of share owning cows, allowing the “owners” to consume the raw milk, but also evidence that the government is trying to close this loophole.

But why are people so interested in unpasteurized milk?

Raw-milk advocates claim that it is more nutritious than pasteurised dairy. According to Real Milk Australia, a Melbourne-based group lobbying to make raw milk legal, pasteurisation eradicates vitamins, minerals and enzymes that make dairy easier to digest and less likely to trigger allergies.

According to Realmilk.com:

Pasteurization’s great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose – which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization’s worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and brain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Joanne Hay, editor of online magazine Nourished, started drinking raw milk six years ago and claims: “I’ve seen it do miraculous things with the health of my family.” She also claims that the consumption of raw milk cleared up asthma, eczema and tooth decay problems in her three children.

I’m inclined to be pretty distrusting of government regulations aimed at controlling our behaviour, so I see this ruling as a pretty substantial win for the “back to the basics” approach to living. And anything that could undermine the “food industrial complex” is a good thing in my books.

Bookmark It

Every month, a story emerges out of Melbourne of another vicious beating or murder of an Indian. Last week, it was a story of an Indian cab driver who was followed by a threatening passenger and assaulted. The week before, an Indian man was attacked by a gang and set on fire. And the week before that, an Indian student was stabbed on his way to work.

What’s most surprising about all of these attacks is that the government, the police, and most of the public are quick to declare that the attacks are not racially motivated.

Julia Gillard, the deputy prime minister, was quick to condemn Mr Garg’s murder, but stressed that there was no indication that it was racially motivated.

“I obviously unreservedly condemn this attack,” Miss Gillard said. “People in Melbourne’s west, people around the nation, I think they will be joining together to say we unreservedly condemn this violence.”

Kieran Walshe, Victoria’s deputy police commissioner, said the state had a large Indian population and he did not believe the community was being singled out.

NOT being singled out? According to police statistics, some 1,447 people of Indian descent were crime victims in Victoria state in the 12 months to July 2008. Indians are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of assault than any other Melburnians. And yet, only a third of Melburnians believe the attacks are racially motivated.

Here’s a theory to explain the attacks that I think holds some water:

The most contentious theory, the one that has caused such damage to Australian-Indian relations, is that Indian students are targeted by Romper Stomper-style teenage thugs, skinheads looking to reassert control over suburbs newly populated by Sikhs and Hindus; an atavistic and violent response by racists sick of Indians working in every cab, service station and every pub they frequent.

It is certainly far more explanatory than the alternative suggestion, which is that Indians are easy ‘soft targets’ for theft of cash, iPods, and jewellry. Particularly since the stabbing death of Nitin Garg did not involve any theft. There are plenty of other easy targets with jewellery, iPods, and cash who don’t happen to be immigrants from the subcontinent who are not experiencing the same kinds of violence Indians in Melbourne are experiencing. And I think it’s particularly insensitive for Melburnians to be denying the racial motivation behind these attacks. Is it not bad enough to be afraid to be out in public at night because you happen to be a particular colour? But to have the public outraged at the suggestion that your fear might actually have a reasonable basis?

Research conducted about a year ago at the University of Western Sydney found an alarming number of survey respondents still espouse racist beliefs, particularly relating to ‘types of people not belonging’ in Australia and aversion to intercultural marriage. And of course the methodological problem with this sort of survey is that people know they shouldn’t seem racist, so a lot of people were probably censoring their true feelings.

Australia certainly isn’t unique in this regard; racism is literally everywhere. I think the government and police would do more favours in addressing the problem, though, by first admitting that it is, in fact, a problem.

Bookmark It

KFC has been under fire today in the US for this video that they have been airing during the cricket in Oz:

When someone posted the ad on YouTube, it generated a fury of response from American viewers, many of whom point to the African American racial stereotype associating fried chicken with African Americans as the point of insensitivity. KFC Australia responded:

KFC Australia has come out fighting, saying that the commercial was a “light-hearted reference to the West Indian cricket team” that had been “misinterpreted by a segment of people in the US.”

The company said: “The ad was reproduced online in the US without KFC’s permission, where we are told a culturally-based stereotype exists, leading to the incorrect assertion of racism.

While it’s true that Australia does not, in the same way, associate the consumption of fried chicken with any particular ethnic minority, that does not mean this ad isn’t racist. I think the racist overtones are more aptly expressed by US radio persenter Ana Kasparian, who said:

“These people, they’re so unruly and uncivilised and so rowdy, jumping up and down,” she said. “They just can’t sit down unless you give them some damn fried chicken! It’s too easy!”

What’s dangerous about this depiction is the stereotyping of West Indian culture and behaviour, and how it is somehow ‘unsavoury’ to our delicate white sensibilities. While I can accept that this ad, in the same vein as that awful Hey Hey It’s Saturday skit, was attempting to be ‘light hearted’ and humourous, I think these are insufficient excuses for perpetuating racist stereotypes. While acting PM Julia Gillard may not think Australia is racist, the examples of it just seem to keep piling up.

Luckily, KFC’s head office in the US has decided to pull the ad and apologize for the ‘misinterpretation.’

Bookmark It