Sometimes I read an article that is so idiotic that I've got to wonder how the journalist responsible manages to get out of bed in the morning without hurting himself. There are some journalists (eg Piers Akerman) that produce nonsensical gibberish so often that I don't even have to wonder how any respectable newspaper would publish their rantings. Well, it seems that the Age, which usually displays some sense, has a star of their own.
An article by Michael Vaughan titled "We don't need feminism to fight inequity" takes the idiotic tripe cake. Before taking a closer look at the article I can't help but question who it is that Michael refers to when he says "we"? Sure he doesn't need feminism to fight whatever inequity he may be facing, but going by his name, he's not the one feminism is fighting for. Either Michael is pretending to be one of the girls or he's presumptuous enough to think that he knows what women need, in which case he should probably reveal the basis for his omniscience.
The hypocritical headline aside, the rest of the article is an example of what you get by mixing complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, illogicality and poor writing and pour the product onto a newspaper page. The article is an attempted critique of an opinion piece by Karen Murphy titled "Blame women for the death of feminism". Karen laments modern women abandoning feminist ideals and heading back into "slavery" and sexualisation.
Whether you agree or disagree with Karen's views, she raises a serious social and political issue, one that requires a considered response from someone who knows what they are talking about. If Michael Vaughan thought that described him, he was dead wrong. Just because Michael claims to be a great believer in equality and because he has a female boss (so what one might ask?), he thinks his commentary has some sort of authoritative status. Hmmm. So lets see what sort of equality does Michael believe in.
Karen specifically singles out for criticism certain types of women and activities that betray feminist achievements. Michael comes back with a "brilliant" equality argument - some men do it too, therefore, it's all good, we are all equal. Let me list some of the activities and illustrate why his position in nonsensical.
- lap dancers, strippers, topless barmaids and well-educated prostitutes who do it for the money
Yes, Michael, there are male prostitutes, strippers etc. But if there is one male prostitute or stripper for every hundred women, that isn't equality. It's a sign that the use and abuse of women as sexual objects is much more widespread and, dare I say, acceptable, than similar use of men. And yes, Michael, men do go "topless for many reasons" - sun baking may be one - but a topless woman and a topless men aren't quite the same. The catch is in the sexual nature of the act.
- participating/degrading oneself in pornography
Yep, men do it too, but for some reason whenever I come across those foul pop-ups or ads on the web, they always describe, graphically or otherwise the sexual degradation of women. Men do participate in pornography, but usually as ones doing the fucking/degradation of the woman. When it comes to degrees of degradation, the equality is just not there, Michael.
- model in degrading advertisements for money.
I haven't seen many ads where men are posed with half open mouths near another man's (or woman's) crotch, in a position clearly implying acts of fellatio, but maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. The key word here is "degrading". Perhaps Michael can name a few ads as degrading to men as the Chivas Regal or the Windsor Shoes ads (to name a few) are to women.
- have cosmetic surgery and breast enhancements to make themselves desirable.
Ah yes, my favourite one. Michael must know lots of men who pump silicon into their breasts (or should that be boobs, knockers, tits - those things that men stare at on the train?). Does he spend a lot of time wishing that his B cup was a D, so that he's more attractive to the opposite sex? Is his desirability or identity defined by the size of his boobs? Enough said, I think.
In fact, Michael does nothing to address the key point of Karen's article - that women are increasingly sexualised and defined by their sexuality and that they are complicit in that definition. He prefers to pick on her grammar or expression and imply that the only way for her to know about sexualisation of women is to admire pornography, while claiming that he doesn't take cheap shots. Yeah, those are really killer points Michael - very convincing. Just a tip for future improvement - you might like to try an actual argument once in a while, it helps. Because if all you can do is pick on someone's grammar, your audience may conclude that you don't have any valid points to make.
And when it comes to his claim that Karen must have "taken the time to watch (look at, scan, ogle or admire — your call) all of the things you mention. How else would you be authoritative enough to comment" - Michael, what Karen talks about is all around you. It doesn't require research, just opening one's eyes. And one's mind.
December 12th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Media, Women |
one comment
One can't help but feel a certain sense of unreality when reading that nine men can gang-rape a ten year old girl and get away without so much as a slap on the wrist. In light of the attention given to child sexual abuse crisis in indigenous communities (which was used by the previous government as a justification for sending troops into the NT) it is extraordinary that a Crown prosecutor would not even make submissions requesting custodial sentences for the rapists (aged between 14 and 26), some with previous criminal records.
In light of the DPP's failure to pursue justice for the victim, it is hardly surprising that the court handed down what appear to be ludicrously lenient sentences, including not recording convictions (I am not familiar with the practice in criminal cases, but it would seem anomalous for a court to impose a sentence more severe than that sought by the prosecution). Even so, Judge Bradley's comments that the victim "was not forced" and "probably agreed to have sex" with the perpetrators reveals a staggeringly inappropriate approach to a child-rape case. A ten year old child is by definition unable to "agree" or consent to have sex with anyone for the very reason that makes the crime of child rape so heinous - because she is a child whose developmental stage is such as to disable her from making the choice, because she is incapable of understanding the nature of the act. That being so, talking about her "agreement" to have sex with nine men is nothing short of reprehensible.
Furthermore, how is it relevant that the victim was not "forced"? Force is not an element of the crime of rape and lack of force does not detract from the seriousness of the crime. How does the rape of someone who does not need to be physically forced because she does not understand what is being done to her merit any less condemnation than use of brute force to secure the victim's submission? Is a victim who is coerced into non-consensual sex by means other than physical force any less deserving of protection? Must she put up a physical fight or risk a judge (or a prosecutor) saying that she asked for it, that her rape was not all that serious? Must the rapists slap around a ten year old child as well as fuck her before they are considered sufficiently blameworthy to merit a conviction?
The legal system is not well adapted to dealing with the crime of rape because of the problematic notion of consent, but one would expect that gang rape of a child would not raise such problems. However when a judge makes remarks like those made by Judge Bradley and when a prosecutor does not even bother to ask for a sentence to match the crime, it is clear that even when dealing with child rape the legal system is plagued by inappropriate attitudes.
Incidentally, while I think that Judge Bradley's remarks deserve strong criticism, I believe that the calls for her sacking are inappropriate (as is the behaviour of journalists who appear to have followed her to her home seeking comment on the sentences). Independence of the judiciary is one of the most sacred aspects of our justice system (and rightly so - just consider what occurs in the systems where that independence has been lost) and that independence cannot be maintained if judges are at risk of sacking because their judgments upset the community. The correct remedy for such judicial error is the appellate process, which in our adversarial system ought to have been invoked by the prosecution. When the prosecution does not do its job, one can hardly be surprised that a miscarriage of justice occurs. In the present case the miscarriage of justice is particularly repugnant, but it is not an excuse for making inroads into the principles of judicial independence.
December 10th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Women, Indigenous people |
2 comments
What a great night! Who would have thought that staring at numbers and graphs for six hours could be so exhilarating! The Howard era has finally ended.
I must say that Howard's concession speech was both dignified and gracious. He has (finally) accepted the responsibility for the Libs' woes. And, to be fair, a political career spanning a third of a century must be acknowledged and honoured, no matter how repugnant one considers his policies. Howard should also be given credit for remaining in his long-held, but somewhat marginal seat of Bennelong, rather than seeking a safer harbour. He looks likely to lose that seat, which would be symbolically appropriate - a captain going down with his ship.
Personally, I am not a Rudd fan (Gillard is closer to my end of political spectrum), but he deserves enormous credit for turning around the Labor party when it was drifting aimlessly in the political seas and leading the party to a decisive victory in a way somewhat reminiscent of Tony Blair. One can only hope that the party will be able to stay true to its principles and to its promises. We must also hope that the Labor government will repair some of the damage done to our values and our political institutions under Howard. That it will put a higher value on accountability, transparency, fairness, responsibility and intelligent public discourse. Eleven years is a lot of damage to repair and I'm not sure that Labor has the will to do it. But here's to hoping.
November 24th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Rudd and Labor, Australian election |
no comments
Having taken a bit of a break from writing, I'm now back, presently turning purple from holding my breath and typing very slowly with crossed fingers. 11 years of Howard's regime may just end tonight and it looks like Howard may be losing his seat (one does have to give him credit for having the guts to run in a fairly marginal seat though).
We may have no more Howard, no more Workchoices and no more idiotic election campaign ads screaming about fanatics and extremists (I was wondering how long it would be to escalate to "terrorists", but then came the little stunt in Lindsay and it became clear that the Liberal party desperation has reached a critical point. Hopefully, tonight their desperation will prove warranted and Mr Howard will be able to go into a long-deserved retirement.
I'm heading back to the TV screen to continue watching the coverage and to see whether I can walk with crossed toes.
November 24th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian election |
no comments
It is doubly annoying having to listen to yet another Liberal party ad about how interest rates will be higher under Labor because of "union fanatics" "environmental extremists" and learner leaders, when we have now had yet another interest rise (the sixth since 2004) and the prediction is that the rates will keep on going up. Howard's solution is to boast about strong economy and bleat about his economic management credentials. Given that both the interest rates and prices for essential goods are growing at an alarming rate, those of us not earning $300K a year may think that an overheating economy is not so great.
And what is Howard's great plan to stop interest rates hitting 10% or more? Give people more tax cuts. That's right, create more inflationary pressures so the interest rates go up even further and for each dollar we get by virtue of tax cuts we have to shell out ten dollars to cover the additional mortgage repayments.
In the interests of fairness - Labor is not necessarily better. Rudd adopted Howard's plan for tax cuts. If they are elected and implement it, they would be just as much to blame for the subsequent rise in interest rates as Howard. The fact that Rudd keeps on reminding us about Howard's broken promise that he'll keep interest rates low is all good and well - we need a little dose of reality to counteract the blatantly misleading election campaign strategies of the Libs - but pointing the finger at Howard is not good enough. Rudd must be able to show why his party would be an improvement. Admitting that the planned $32 billion in tax-cut would put further pressure on interest rates would be a start. Ditching the plan would be even better, but I wouldn't bank on it in an election year.
November 7th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Australian election, Economics |
no comments
"While you weren't looking, your freedom went up in smoke" - a good headline for an opinion piece. Makes one expect an interesting argument about erosion of our freedoms. The freedoms that matter - such as the freedom from arbitrary arrest and lengthy detention without justifiable evidence, such as the freedom of information to enable us to make rational decisions, which is consistently undermined by governments, such as freedom from torture, which is being forgotten in the so-called war on terror.
But no, the author of the article - Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs - laments the loss of such freedoms as smoking whenever and wherever you chose and allowing junk food commercials aimed at children. Chris is unhappy about the "nanny state" which impinges our "freedom" by smoking bans or restrictions on ads for junk food. And what important freedoms they are - being free to ruin your health and kill yourself whenever you chose, and pay a small fortune to the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry for the privilege of being able to do so. Children having the liberty to be bombarded with ads for things that are bad for them, and enabling another multi-billion dollar industry to make more money.
The fact that Berg wants to argue against smoking or advertising bans is not objectionable per se - he's entitled to his opinion. What is objectionable is the use of the language of "freedom" in such an inappropriate way. Freedom is a powerful term. It has a history steeped in struggles against tyranny and oppression. It is associated with defending human dignity, civil liberties and economic opportunities.
While being able to smoke wherever one likes may be a "freedom", it is quite a different sort of freedom. It is a freedom only in a sense that we are all free to strip naked, paint our bodies indigo and jump head first off the nearest sky-scraper. We are "free" to do it, but it is a really bad idea. It is certainly not a right to be defended, it is not a freedom in the sense of civil liberties. It does not offend human dignity to prevent a person from behaving in such a manner.
Smoking or watching junk food ads is in the same category. The "freedom" that is infringed by bans on these activities is not any meaningful individual freedom.
But even if one were to adopt a very wide notion of freedom, where the freedom to smoke can be considered a legitimate right, Berg's argument would still be doomed to failure. Because if freedom to smoke is to be viewed widely, freedom not to smoke must have at least an equivalent breadth.
As the US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas put it "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin." A person's right to smoke can be unlimited only if it remains a strictly self-regarding activity. As soon as it becomes other-regarding action it must be limited so as not to impinge of the freedoms of others.
So the freedom of non-smoking bar or restaurant patrons not to inhale harmful second-hand smoke will limit the smoker's freedom to kill himself at that particular venue. I won't even go into more complex assessments of freedom (eg. one person's freedom not to contribute to or be otherwise impacted by the healthcare of someone who deliberately harms himself by smoking). The point is that if Berg wants to talk about freedom, he cannot take a one sided view. He must consider the interactions between different types of freedom.
Smoking is no more and no less than an addictive, harmful habit. Any person can choose to do it, but that does not mean that it can be legitimately elevated to the status of a freedom worth defending.
October 29th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Health and Welfare |
one comment
As one might expect, in the leadership debate, Howard made a few claims about the IR "reforms". Lets examine the veracity of some of these claims, remembering of course that one does not need to tell an outright lie to be untruthful. For example, when Howard was asked whether, under his WorkChoices laws employees could be deprived of all their redundancy entitlements, he didn't tell an outright lie - he did not say "no". He also didn't tell the truth (ie "yes they can be and the so-called fairness test won't help them"), instead he launched into an irrelevant tirade about some old reforms to preserve entitlements of employees whose employer went into liquidation.
So what about some of the less obvious untruths? Let's take Howard's statement that Australia has the second highest minimum wage in the developed world. There are several ways that one could measure how high the minimum wage is. A raw dollar value is not particularly useful as the dollar will have different purchasing power in different countries. Wage adjusted for purchasing power ("purchasing power parity") is a better measure, as is percentage of average income.
Let's take a look at the OECD figures of minimum wage as a percentage of average income:
The first thing that is obvious is that in 2000 Australian minimum wage was indeed the second highest in the OECD. In 2006, this was no longer the case. While, at about 53% of the average wage, Australia's minimum wage is higher than the OECD average, it now ranks fifth, with NZ and Hungary following closely behind it. Another thing that cannot escape notice is that Australia is one of only 5 countries where the minimum wage has fallen vis a vis the average wage, and one of only 3 countries where this fall was quite significant. The other two countries are US (whose IR system Howard seems keen to emulate) and Mexico.
Lets look at the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) adjusted wage:
It is the same story - Australia was second, or maybe even first, in 2000, but slipped to fourth place by 2006. Minimum wages have been getting lower, not higher under Howard government.
If Howard had been truthful he should have said "in 2000 Australia had the second highest minimum wage in the OECD, however the last six years of my government saw a fall in the minimum wage, putting further pressure on low income families". But perhaps Howard wasn't trying to mislead - perhaps, as has been his habit, he was looking wistfully to the past rather than facing the present and planning for the future.
And while we are on the subject of the IR untruths. During the debate Howard told the nation that he believed unions had a legitimate role to play. This may have been comforting to those of us who don't think a teenager looking for her first job can effectively bargain with an employer, if it wasn't for Hockey saying completely the opposite just a few days earlier. In an interview on AM radio on the 18th of October Hockey stated that the role of unions in Australia is "essentially over". It is not quite clear whether it is meant to be a statement of fact or of Howard government aspiration, but it does not sit easily with Howard's statement in the Leadership debate.
October 22nd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Industrial relations, Unions, Australian election, Minimum wage |
2 comments
Well, it was certainly exciting watching the leadership debate, worm-free though it was. I must say that on the whole, I think Howard blew it big time - it is doubtful that he'll want a repeat closer to the election. Howard confirmed one of the most damaging perceptions of him and his government - stuck in the past, retrospective, with no new ideas. None of the policies he put forward did anything to displace that impression. His emphasis was on preservation, maintenance and restoration. The vision of the "future" of education was to restore "education standards" (bit hard to do, if you keep cutting funding), fix the mistake made 30 years ago of abolishing technical schools (what a novel idea!) and restore our teaching of history. There was nothing prospective about his plan.
On the history point, his "vision" of restoring the teaching of history was not one of development of analytical and critical thinking about history or of ways to make the study of history more appealing to students - it was to renew the "pride" in Australian history and in who we are - it is a good recipe for nationalism, but not a great one for learning from our past.
His vision on the economy was more tax cuts and that's it. The universal remedy to rising interest rates, rising food prices, rising education costs, decreasing housing affordability and increasing inflation! I'm sure a few hundred bucks will go a long way to alleviating the burden of an extra $10K in interest repayments on a $300K mortgage thanks to the interest rate rises in the last term of the Howard government.
Rudd performed better, although his emphasis on himself, constantly saying "I" rather than "we" (given that he is a spokesperson for the Labor party and a shadow front bench) was a bit disconcerting. Howard on the other hand placed a lot of emphasis on his new team strategy (which would have been more comforting if the various members of that team didn't stab each other in the back on regular basis).
I hope to do a couple more posts on what emerged from the debate, but it is hard to avoid the overall impression that the only thing that Howard was prepared to offer in terms of the future of Australia are more tax cuts (which are likely to increase inflationary pressures and most of which are, unfortunately, supported by Rudd), a rabid fear of unions and a lot of boasting of past achievements (not all of which can be attributed to good governance). There's going to be a lot of disappointment in the Liberal party circles tonight.
October 21st, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Rudd and Labor, Australian election |
one comment
It is almost amusing that every time an election rolls about, the government promises substantial tax cuts. I wonder whether, if elections were held every year, we'd pay no tax at all. Wouldn't that be an attractive prospect? Perhaps not. If Oliver Wendell Holmes was right to say that taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, then the pre-election tax cut bribes may not be such a positive thing.
Attractive though the idea of having more cash in your pocket is, tax cuts come at a price. The 2007-2008 budget foreshadowed a $10 billion surplus. The government is now promising $34 billion in tax cuts. Assuming that the government doesn't intend to push the budget into a $24 billion deficit, where will the money for tax cuts come from? Sure, the government may save a few billion by wasting less money on advertising itself, but that will hardly cover the outstanding amount. In order to give the tax cuts and balance the budget the government will have to make cuts to services - health, education, aged care, child care, welfare. The enrichment of the individual (and more specifically, the wealthy individual who pays more tax) comes at the expense of impoverishment of society. The Howard government is once again showing its inability to think of the forest rather than the trees. It is concerned only with rewarding, or rather bribing, the individuals within society, without caring about how these individuals will be harmed through impoverishment of society as a whole. A few extra bucks in your pocket is great, until you can't afford to pay for basic health or dental care, until your kids can't afford tertiary education or your elderly parents can't get a half-decent standard of living on welfare. When your "social wage" declines more than the benefit you got from tax cuts, you lose out.
Milton Friedman (a neo-liberal economist and definitely not my favourite theorist!) says that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Similarly, there is no such thing as a free tax cut. We pay for the tax cuts that impoverish society and degrade essential services. We pay when our government is more concerned with electoral advantage than with the services it is supposed to be providing to the electorate. We pay when we fail to consider the future because we just want a few more bucks in our pocket in the present.
October 17th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Australian election, Tax |
no comments
I must confess that, the less cynical part of me supports Howard's plan to make it compulsory for year 9 and 10 students to study at least 150 hours of Australian history. It is a bit disturbing to see the perception among school children that, simply because history does not appear relevant to a particular career paths, it is a waste of time. It is important to know our past in order to put our present and future in context, to learn about where we come from so as to know where we may be going. It may be cliched to say "those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it", but those who don't know or care about the past can hardly be relied upon to build a future.
In fact I think that both history and civics/politics should be compulsory throughout secondary school. Not because it is important for getting a particular job, but because it is important for functioning as a citizen within our society. So why does the more cynical part of me have a problem with Howard's plan?
Perhaps it is the fact that, once again, he is using compulsion, (ab)using the fiscal strength of the Commonwealth to force the State governments to do it his way. Tying school funding to getting his own way with the school curricula appears to be yet another example of Howard's "attack the states" election strategy. However, there is a more fundamental problem. Throughout his rule, Howard has been persistently manipulating and changing the public discourse and mindset in ways that are disturbing, to say the least, making his view of the world the only "legitimate" view. He has done it subtly, persistently and very successfully. Those who object to dehumanisation of refugees are bleeding heart liberals who want to see Australia overrun, those who remember that our history includes massacring indigenous people, stealing children from their families and taking indigenous land are black armband historians, those who speak against Howard's policies are the lunatic fringe.
In light of this, it is difficult to believe that Howard would not impose his prejudices on the history curriculum that he wants to control. Ensuring that children across Australia learn history the way he wants them to learn it and ultimately perceive the world the way he wants them to perceive it. Howard is the consummate politician - whatever he does, he must derive a benefit from. If the only benefit he's after is to pursue his war on states electoral strategy, so be it. But if the benefit is to control what children learn about our past and consequently the way that they perceive the future, then it is yet another reason why this government should go.
October 13th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Education, States |
one comment
RSS
