isthereanybodyaliveoutthere:
laptop-politics:
I have a confession to make. I am quite the feminist. But no, I’m not going to go burn my bras (we wear them for a reason. Comfort. Seriously.) And I certainly don’t hate men. (They make great eye candy!)
The reason I class myself as a feminist is because I want to see equal rights and equal standards for both men and women. And not just equal pay and rights in the workforce either. Despite the progress that has been made, especially in the last 50 years, there is still a gap between the genders. And I will do whatever I can to fix that…
First, let me say that equality is essential. Equality-driven feminism is admirable and necessary.
But about the other stuff; that’s not feminism. That’s common sense and respect and it shouldn’t only apply to women. All those things listed above are as true for men as they are for women. I feel the kind of “don’t let men tell you what to do YEAH!” feminism is not very beneficial at all. It only aids to increase hostility and distrust between the genders. I mean, you’re right, women shouldn’t let men tell them what to do. Just like men shouldn’t let women tell them what to do either. And loving yourself and loving your body isn’t feminism (or it shouldn’t have that tag). Men get called skinny, weak, or fat too. Personal rights/freedom of choice etc. should be approached as a cross-sex issue, not a gender-specific one.
Sidenote:
I found one of your opening lines interesting. Imagine if a man had said:
”I certainly don’t hate women. (They make great eye candy!) ”
Wouldn’t the feminists be up in arms? Objectification and whatnot?
I have to say I do agree.
However, there are some issues where men really should have no say, as a whole. For example, a man ran under the banner of no abortions in the last state election. In the cause of abortion, the only man with a say should be the father. No man should be able to run for parliament, or even suggest, that he knows what is best for a woman and the choices she makes about her own body.
And while it may be common sense- women get degraded for all of those choices. Which is why it is important to make a stand about it.
I also understand that men have self esteem issues too, but I think we can both agree that the level to which women’s bodies get scruitinised is higher. Which is something else it is worth fighting against
I wish there was no need for feminism. I wish that people were judged on their character and actions, people of both genders. But there is a clear divide still between the way men and women are treated.
And yes, some feminists would. But there are those who use the title and then try and suggest that women are better than men, and I think that that type of woman would feel offended. But personally I would have no issue with it- men are allowed to find women attractive after all.
(via ichbineinbelieber)
I have a confession to make. I am quite the feminist. But no, I’m not going to go burn my bras (we wear them for a reason. Comfort. Seriously.) And I certainly don’t hate men. (They make great eye candy!)
The reason I class myself as a feminist is because I want to see equal rights and equal standards for both men and women. And not just equal pay and rights in the workforce either. Despite the progress that has been made, especially in the last 50 years, there is still a gap between the genders. And I will do whatever I can to fix that.
The thing is, a feminist’s job isn’t to tell other women what to do.
If a woman wants to wait until marriage to have sex: that’s cool.
If a woman wants to have one night stands, or purely sexual relationships, that’s cool.
If a woman wants to have an abortion, that’s cool.
If a woman wants to raise a child, that’s cool.
If a woman wants to get married in her twenties, that’s cool.
If a woman wants to establish a career first, that’s cool.
If a woman doesn’t want to get married at all, that’s cool.
If a woman wants to not work and be at stay home mum, that’s cool.
If a woman wants to wear ‘revealing clothes’, that’s cool.
What’s not cool is telling a woman what she should do. When she should have sex, who she should have sex with, what she should wear, what she should do with her body, whether she should get married or not, whether she should have kids or not.
All of that is up to the individual discretion of a woman. And should not be dictated by anyone, not her religion, her friends, family. And not by men.
Another issue that gets raised under the heading of feminism is body image. Skinny girls get called anorexic, curvy girls fat. We’re constantly exposed to images of women we should desire to look like. But really, there should be no ‘desired body type.’ If you’re happy with yourself, that’s desirable. Love yourself, love your body, and make decisions for yourself. Don’t let people tell you what you can and can’t do. Now that’s feminism.
Marriage for all:
I was going to send this as a letter to The Advertiser but it got really long so I’ll leave it here instead.
Over and over, the same reasons not to support marriage equality get dragged out by the same old people. ‘Think of the children!’ They cry. Why, then, not spare a thought for the teenagers who are scared to out themselves as gay because of the prejudice that’s spread throughout our community? If you believe a child should be raised by a married couple, why not let the couple get married?
‘Marriage has always been between a man and a woman’ I hear you say. Marriage used to be only between a man and a woman of the same race. Once upon a time, women had no rights. They couldn’t vote, couldn’t work, couldn’t get an education. Do we want to scrap all the progressive changes we’ve made and go back to medieval times? Or do we want to ‘move forward’.
‘The Bible says it’s wrong’. Look, I’m not here to deny you your religion. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but we live in a secular society. The church doesn’t rule us, and with more and more Australians turning their backs on religion, to dictate someone’s rights based on your religion is foolish. If you want to live by your interpretation of The Bible that’s fine, but don’t force others to.
You think being gay is unnatural? Why, then, do people keep being born gay? It’s happened since the start of humanity. It happens in other species too. And ask yourself- why would anyone choose to be gay in a society where hate crime is still rife? When you’re so keen on ridiculing them for who they are? Homosexuals have higher rates of suicide, self harm and substance abuse. That’s a fact. And it’s because of this discrimination. No-one would choose that for themselves.
‘We may as well allow polygamy then!’ That’s a whole different debate. We’re talking about a union of two people here, just as your ‘traditional marriage’ is. If two people love each other who are you to sit there trying to deny their happiness? Everyone should have the choice to marry whoever they please. The one person who they so desire to. If two people, people you’ve probably never met in your life, getting married makes you anxious; I think you’re the one with an issue.
The ‘homosexual lobby’ (and please don’t label me as part of that. I’m not even gay.) aren’t asking for ‘gay marriage’, just like people don’t ‘gay eat breakfast’. What’s being asked for is marriage. Marriage for all, everyone as an equal. The best part of this whole thing is that if you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex (I certainly don’t), you don’t even have to. Everyone’s a winner!
hey guys;
I know I’ve been a terrible person and not written in ages. Thank school for that. But it’s pretty well the end of term, I’ve only got a few exams to go, so I’m gearing up for a big summer of blogging. I think I’ll change things up a little- reblog stuff, make some shorter posts etc, and post waaaaay more freqently. Thanks for sticking around. Much love.
Youth in Politics
The way that the media portrays generation Y is not exactly flattering. Today’s youth are assumed to be always drinking, always texting, shallow beings with no awareness of the world around them. Which is a pretty big generalisation. While it may ring true for part of this demographic, I think it is fairly clear that not all young people today are disengaged from society. I like to think of myself as a case in point (although, according to google, I do not belong to generation Y. Gosh, I am so young). Look at me, I’m blogging about political and ethical issues. I belong to the AYCC. I would not call that disengaged. So why the assumption?
Well, it is pretty easy for the media to get hold of stories of teenagers and twenty-somethings having wild parties, doing drugs in Bali or going chk chk BOOM. And, what’s more, people seem to enjoy reading and watching them, just as they enjoy reading about a celebrities marriage breakdown. I’ve never really understood why this is, but it appears to be a fact. The news caters for what the majority want to read, and the majority seem to enjoy reading about dumb things other people do. Perhaps it makes them feel better.
When the news of young people is about political or social engagement, however, it seems to take a different tone. Take the occupy movement as an example. Here, we had a group of people, a large number of whom were young, protesting against something they didn’t agree with. But all the media was talking about was how they, apparently, didn’t know what they were protesting. That they just thought of it as a big party. Comments on news websites from members of the public labelled them as smelly young dole-bludging hippies who didn’t have enough life experience. So would they prefer that they went out partying and constantly updated their twitter instead?
Now maybe it’s because of the friendship group I’ve acquired this year, but I know a lot of people my age who are also just as interested in politics as I am. We spent an hour at a party talking about Tony Abbott and his dumb policies. We have a school Australian Youth Climate Coalition club, and plenty of us take this further into the community. I spend time with a particular friend every Wednesday discussing Andrew Bolt’s latest rant.
Suddenly, I think I see what the media’s issue is. It’s so easy to cover stories about dumb teenagers. People can judge to their heart’s content, as they love to do. It becomes so much easier to do so when the media is fueling this ignorance. What if we started to cover real issues that young people get involved in, protests and the like. Maybe then the media would accept that the community’s views are starting to change on topical issues. And that young people do really care about these same issues.
Let’s take a look at the politically aware or interested people I know. I don’t have a single friend who is anti marriage equality. (I do, unfortunately, have an ex who is a complete homophobe. But we don’t talk. So that’s not a friendship at all.) We all want onshore processing for refugees. The most contentious issue with people I know would be the carbon tax, but will I blame the media and Tony Abbott in part for this. I spoke to a girl who was against it because she didn’t want to pay taxes from her job into it. After explaining it to her, she now agrees with the plan. The thing is, the majority of young people’s views clash with those of the mainstream media.
I’m not trying to generalise in the slightest either. I understand that there are young people who are right wing, homophobic or racist etc. Take the young liberals for example. My 18 year old cousin is a climate change skeptic. And on the same note, the media is not all right wing biased. But it certainly is in parts. Just like it is biased towards young people, painting them in a way that suits their stories. If more people were aware of what young people are capable of, and are already doing, maybe these opinions would have more of an influence.
A topical issue walks into a bar…
Welcome to the world of topical and important issues. Here on my left we have Climate Change, Equal Rights and Euthanasia. To the right; meet Asylum Seekers and The Economy. But someone’s missing. Someone who, realistically, is involved in all of these issues. Population growth should be near the top of our agendas. I mean, we live on a planet where despite the fact that we’re running out of resources, the population is rising exponentially. We had Kevin Rudd preaching for a Big Australia, then Dick Smith creating a film advocating for the opposite. But, just like Smith said, population is the elephant in the room, the issue that perhaps is too daunting to want to tackle. Yet it is so, so important.
With all this talk of environmentalism, you know, saving the planet from climate change, I would have thought that a small population would be being pushed. Less people to emit carbon, right? But it’s just never mentioned. Living on a finite planet with finite resources and already facing environmental disasters it’s simply crazy that no-one seems to be talking about it! The only thing you will hear is talk in support of population growth, to stimulate the economy etc. And that’s all well and good, but, especially as a young person, I would like to think that I have some sort of future, stimulated economy or not.
Now I’m not suggesting a crazy one child policy like China. That’s almost overly drastic, and way too hard to achieve. If we’re thinking about this logically, we would want to start by steadying the population, and trying to level it out. Before the industrial boom of the 1800’s, which also marked an increase in the role of medicine, the world’s population reached 1 billion, and stayed fairly static there for a while. Now, we’re six days away from 7 billion. (According to this nifty little clock, that is.) That’s a sevenfold increase in about 200 years. Fairly scary numbers.
Most of this increase has happened in developing countries, such as China and India. The main cities there are packed to the brim and more. But that doesn’t mean we’re not fighting problems of our own here. Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth. Water is always going to be in short supply. The majority of the country is uninhabitable. So we cram into major cities, all on the coast, creating sprawl of the highest level. Even in little Adelaide, it can take up to an hour do drive from the southernmost edge to the northernmost edge of the suburbs. Our local weather contains forecasts for the CBD, Noarlunga and Elizabeth.
My answer to all this? Encourage families to have two children maximum. Obviously, some will choose to have one, some none, and some people will be forced to have more than two (triplets take your fancy, anyone?) Perhaps make an incentive, but don’t pressure anyone. Simply let it be known that by having two children, simply replacing yourself on Earth, you are doing yourself and your children a favour. I know that Australia doing this won’t make a big impact on the global scale, and I know it will be hard to enforce. But if we don’t do something, if we don’t even talk about population, the consequences could be severe.
Also, I would like to apologise for the delay in a new post, but I’ve been sick/busy with school work. Thankyou to you all for following and reading. I’ve hit 50 followers!
Anonymous asked: As far as I'm aware, China have lots of nuclear weapons already
Yes, and as we’re supplying them with more uranium to cover their nuclear power needs it’s like we’re supporting them to keep making weapons. Quite embarrassing, really.
Olympic Dam Expansion
I read with horror this morning that the mega expansion of Olympic Dam mine had been approved. For those unsure about the project- I’m not sure how much coverage it’s been getting interstate- I’ll give a quick run-through. Olympic Dam, situated near Roxby Downs in the north of South Australia, is currently an underground mine which produces Copper, Uranium, Gold and Silver. It is currently the fourth largest copper mine in the world, and is home to the largest deposit of uranium in the world. However, at the moment uranium is not the prime source of income for the mine, run by BHP Billiton.
The planned expansion of the mine will turn it from relatively small (mine wise) to the world’s largest open cut mine. The pit will be roughly the size of the metropolitan Adelaide, if I remember correctly. I’m struggling to find exact measurements, but those figures come from State Greens MP Mark Parnell, in a speech delivered to my science class last year. So with this expansion, the mine will increase their production of resources by 75%. That’s a lot of .
There are a few reasons why I’m against this development (but too late now I guess. Won’t say I didn’t warn you, later down the track). First of all, I’d like to share a little anecdote I have from a school trip to the far north last year. As part of our science/geology course, we spent five days in the far north of the state, visiting Coober Pedy, Glendambo (Glenwherebo?), Woomera and Roxby Downs. Were were able to do a tour of the Olympic Dam site (I was asleep in the bus for most of it, I really do not care about your smelters) but before we went on this tour, we were given a speech by a BHP PR woman about the expansion and such.
Now, one of the people in my class who was on the trip just so happens to be Mark Parnell’s son. It would be fair to say that he’s inherited his father’s political traits, so as this boy, his girlfriend and I sat next to each other and endured this speech, we became very agitated by what the woman was saying particularly when it came to talking about the environment. Finally, the speech (which included a whole lot of propaganda about all the ‘good’ work they do for the community) ended, and we were invited to ask questions. Naturally the three hands belonging to our little ‘lefty’ group, shot straight into the air.
Parnell’s son was chosen to ask a question first. ‘What are you doing to protect the environment?’ He asked. The PR lady responded with an answer that has since gone down in history with our science class; “If we cared about the environment, we wouldn’t be mining here.’ She then went on to talk about their gazillion page environment policy we can go read at the State Library, but the damage had been done. We put our hands up, asking to enquire, but questions had gone elsewhere, and we had no opportunity to reply to this ridiculous statement.
It is this damage to the environment, that seems to be overlooked far too much, that really puts me off this expansion. I understand why mining is so important, it boosts our economy, not to mention the obvious of how much we depend on it’s resources. But aren’t we coping just fine with what we’ve got now? Aren’t we staring down a future with overpopulation and climate change forcing us to change our consumption habits? And I understand that the expansion will make more money. But won’t most of that money stay within an already grossly rich, based overseas company? How much of that will really reach our economy?
The other issue I have with the expansion is the uranium factor. Seeing as we don’t use nuclear power in Australia, what is the point of us mining it? I know that we send it to other countries, but this seems oddly hypocritical to me. Sending uranium offshore makes it seem as though we’re in support of nuclear power, when surely as a nation we are not or we would be using it, right? Countries such as China are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, meaning that they cannot use imported uranium to make nuclear weapons. However, China have their own uranium mines, which produce enough uranium to power their nuclear power stations, or to make nuclear weapons, but not both. Logically, it follows that they could use our uranium for power, leaving their own uranium for nuclear weapons. That’s not even against the treaty.
Obviously there are other issues with nuclear power which have been fairly well documented, furthering my discontent with the expansion. Honestly, I believe that BHP are pushing for this expansion because they want to see nuclear power in Australia. Their ability to mine uranium will be greatly increased once the mine has been expanded. I am just sad to see this go through parliament without any real public consultation, and without any consideration for the impact it will have on our environment. It’s a real shame.
We’ve got 99 problems, and Bolt ain’t one
I love Andrew Bolt. In the same way that I love Miranda Devine, Tony Abbott, Fred Nile, Bob Katter and other such douchebags. You see, without people like them, life would be boring. Imagine never having that feeling of pure anger as you try to eat your rice bubbles. If Bolt didn’t have a column in our newspapers, my Wednesday mornings would be ever so dull. I would have no reason to use my outside voice inside, as I would never have to complain about how much of a racist/homophobe/idiot/moron/expletive/expletive/expletive someone is to the person nearest to me. We need people who disagree with us to keep making ridiculous points to further our counter arguments. Which is why I don’t want Bolt to disappear all together.
So on that token I will now proceed to point out the flaws in his arguments of recent times, particularly in his column published today, because frankly, it’s a cracker. I’m hoping you’ve been following the whole Bolt ‘It’s hip to be black’ article - ‘NO YOU’RE RUINING MY FREE SPEECH ENTITLEMENTS TO PUBLISH LIES’ - everyone ganging up on Bolt saga. It’s compulsive viewing, and was especially satisfying to watch him walk out of court after having being found guilty, seeing that little bulge thing next to his nose throbbing with bigotry and anger. Or, you know, just that feeling that a piece of his writing had broken the law. Whatever floats your boat.
In the column entitled ‘How I Became A Monster’, found here, Bolt begins by saying
‘Ever wondered how it would feel to have a pack of journalists write about you? Especially one drooling to see you in the very worst?’
Well, Andrew, this does seem a bit silly coming from a man who is constantly, how did you put it, drooling to see the left side of politics at their very worst. I was under the impression, you, as a ‘journalist,’ made a living out of writing about, and in your case constantly demeaning, other people. So I cannot see how you expect me to feel sympathy for you here.
Bolt then goes on to give examples of ways he has been described by other journalists, as he calls them, members of the ‘Leftist ‘Elite,’’ whatever that is. And yes, like he says, some of it is not true, and some blown slightly out of proportion. I will give him that. But I think it’s fair to mention, not as justification for these other journalist’s words, but simply as a point of interest, that Bolt has himself just been found guilty of publishing lies in his own column. Carrying on… The remark about his son was quite amusing, I must say. Even his son finds him boring! He has no hope! I really should get back to writing about, you know, important things.
‘I did indeed make a mistake to say Paul Behrendt was German. But does that really destroy my argument?’ Bolt goes on to say. Well, I’m afraid it kind of does destroy your argument. It’s like if someone said ‘Climate Change isn’t happening and Al Gore said so.’ Well, no, Al Gore didn’t say that. So then you could hardly turn around and say ‘oh well actually he says it’s happening BUT I THINK IT’S NOT SO OBVIOUSLY IT ISN’T.’ That doesn’t make sense. Like, you can’t make up stuff and then say it’s not true but your argument still stands. I thought everyone knew that.
What it doesn’t do, which is what Bolt is claiming is happening, is deny his right to freedom of speech. You have the right to publish whatever you want, Andrew, and that’s been pretty clearly shown over the years. But what you don’t have the right to do is publish lies in newspapers. Nobody has that right, not even the Left, no matter what you claim. If you think that benefits to Indigenous people is an issue, talk about it. But not in the way that you did, not using lies as your evidence, because you’ll get nowhere. You’ll end up where you are now. Which is, apparently, awful given all your whinging.
And then, the typical comment found in a Bolt article that makes you so damn sure he’s actually someone taking the piss out of right-wing commentators. ‘There’s even racist abuse there, such as Lying Dutchman.’ Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. They’re not suggesting that you lied BECAUSE you are Dutch. They’re simply stating, using only the truth, that you lied, and that you are Dutch. Which, wikipedia tells me, is the truth. Not even you are denying that one. So is it really necessary to bring it up? Is it really necessary, even, to write an entire article which consists solely of your complaining? Next time, stick to writing about things you actually care about, which are part of decent discussion. Even if I still use it against you. Today’s article made me miss the Bolt I love.
Scare Campaigning.
Scare campaigning is something we should all be used to. Whenever a policy plan gets announced, there will always be people opposed to it. And they will try and convince us that we’re opposed to it too. One of the ‘clever’ ways that this is done is through fear, showing us all how we will be affected by this new policy. It happens on both sides of politics, but is becoming more common as we sit in this tense political climate. It would seem that every time Labor suggest anything be done, Liberal have one word in reply ‘no’. They then go on to somewhat explain their answer, an explanation which generally consists of ‘families will be worse off. THINK OF THE FAMILIES, they cry.
When discussing the Carbon Tax, all that seems to come from Tony Abbott’s mouth can be summised in this following quote : “no but families will be worse off small businesses no average australian economic turmoil no no no.” So, excellent, he’s got our best interests in mind. That’s what he’s trying to scare us into thinking. But does he know the facts? If people weren’t so intent on listening to what he has to say, and actually stopped to find out what the Carbon Tax really was, I’m sure approval would go up. What I’m also sure of is that Abbott is just intent on becoming PM as early as he can, and is using this scare tactic as a way of booting Labor out, somehow.
When it comes to fear campaigns, nothing is bigger right now than the opposition to Plain Packaging for Cigarettes. Unsurprisingly, the tobacco companies have come out swinging. But this time, well honestly, it’s just plain funny. Tobacco companies are suggesting that these laws are a bad idea because they will lose money through a loss of sales. Well, thanks captain obvious, but that’s the point. To, you know, stop people buying them. Yet people are running with this! Or, doing the opposite, and saying it won’t curb smoking. Haven’t the companies that make the product just proven it will work?
The same happened with the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. In fact, I can’t remember anything Labor have announced they want to do without some sort of scare coming from the otherside. I’m not at all trying to say that it’s exclusive to Liberals, but I am getting damn sick of it. We don’t see any actual discussion on policy. Instead, we get scenes that resemble the bitchiness of lunch at an all girls school. It’s slowly becoming more and more detrimental to anyone’s attempts at actually getting a policy through, and is becoming more and more malicious. Surely I’m not the only one who wants to slap Abbott in the face and tell him to do something constructive.
