Who should be ashamed?

As the Olympics have started, I'm spending a lot of time watching Channel Nine. For those of you that don't know, Channel Nine is absolutely appalling! It's right-wing, conservative, homophobic, racist trash. But... I am actually really interested in watching the Olympic coverage. At least of the swimming. Yes, I did spend my morning yelling at the TV and talking to myself, but seriously, my love of swimming is intense! I have much love for the Australian women's freestyle relay team.

Anyways, there is a weekly 'news' show on Channel Nine called A Current Affair, and they've been advertising a story about how teenage girls are going out in Melbourne with not a whole lot of clothing on. With tag lines like "Would you let your daughter go out looking like this?" and "Do you want to look like a hooker?"

This advertisement is causing me serious distress!!! There is so much wrong about it, I don't even know where to begin. It completely infuriates me. I started to critique it last night while my flatmate and I were sitting around watching the games, but that just left me feeling even more upset. As a flatmate, mine is great. But politically, we are worlds apart.

I commented that it was a total load of bullshit to claim that parents have any control over what their adult children wear out, and she replied that if these girls were taught some self-respect then they wouldn't dress so trashy. I replied that if men were taught to actually respect women it wouldn't be an issue what women wear. This is an emotional issue for me, and so I left it at that. But it's still bothering me, so I'm gonna blog it out!

What is it about women taking ownership over their sexuality that is so threatening and offensive that it has spawned this massive culture of shame? Why are women's bodies assumed to be available for consumption by others? Why do people - both men and women - feel that they have any sort of right to tell a woman how she should or should not look? How is it that our society feels it's appropriate to claim that women are wearing too little or too much clothing? Why does anyone take these social mores seriously when they simultaneously claim that wearing a headscarf or wearing a mini skirt are disrespectful of women's sexuality? Why isn't it blatantly obvious that it is this attitude - and not the clothes women choose to wear - that is offensive?

This is something that I have been exploring both personally and academically for, oh, a decade now, and I'm still struggling to find any satisfactory answers. I think this is a really complicated issue! There is such a strong belief that sex is this mega-valuable thing that if it's just given up, makes it cheap. The problem with this though, is that it only makes it cheap for women! Men can have as much sex as early as they want and there's no claim that anything about them loses value.

The thing that bothers me the most about this is how women oppress each other through the language of slut shaming. Judgements pass so quickly and uncritically that when it happens, I wonder if women are even aware of how much damage they are doing to others and to themselves. I'm shocked that it happens at all, but I'm especially shocked at how often it happens amongst women-identified types in the queer community. Our lives are organised around a sexual 'otherness' and yet there can still be so much disrespect for those who do not follow normative conventions about women's sexuality!

Sex is something that is meant to make people feel good - physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc. So I guess that makes it an easy tool to make people feel completely horrible about themselves. It's interesting, thinking about the sexual double standard, and how women are often made to feel bad for having sex.  From my interviews with heterosexual men I learned men have a lot of insecurities and anxieties about sex too. The difference is that men are encouraged to have more sex to deal with their issues, and women are encouraged to have less.

For my own part, I try to challenge assumptions about sluttiness. While reclaiming the word 'slut' is fraught with problems that I don't even want to pretend to be able to meaningfully be able to discuss, I feel like I can at least reclaim my own sexual agency, and if I'm lucky, help a few other women do the same! I don't think anyone should be made to feel badly about acting upon their sexual desire with a consenting partner. But even more than that, I actually think that people - and especially women - should be made to feel good about doing so.

Anyways, I could talk about slut shaming forever, and there very well might be more posts on this in the future. But I'll leave it at that for now. So go forth and fuck, but for fuck's sake, be nice to each other out there!!!

Move Bitch, Get Out The Way

If you're a regular at the pool (any pool) you're probably familiar with lane rage. If not, it's road rage without the cars. The rules of the lanes are really no different from the rules of the road, and lifeguards play the same role as cops. I guess the nice thing about being at the pool though is that if someone is being a douche, there actually is a lifeguard on hand that you can tell. Though, let's face it, it's so much more fun to deal with the conflict yourself.

Maybe it's not so much fun if you're one of those people who don't like confrontations... Personally, I'm quite happy to tell people to get fucked, even if I know I'm clearly in the wrong. So, this morning, after being kicked in the head by some idiot who either has no idea how to merge or no concept of how one particular skill set can apply to different situations, I decided to develop an easy to follow flow chart to help people determine if my lane is the correct one for them to be in.

Get The Fuck Outta My Lane: A Helpful Guide

Can you swim?

NO → GTFOML, you belong in the Aqua Play lane

YES

↓

Do you understand about lane ettiquette?

NO → GTFOML, go be an asshole elsewhere
YES
↓

Do I think you're a hottie?
YES → Welcome to my lane!
NO
↓
Are you only in the pool because you're dating someone who's actually fit?

YES → GTFOML!

NO
↓
Are you only swimming breast stroke?
NO → Go to next question
YES → Are you putting your head under the water?

↓
NO → That's glorified dog paddling, GTFOML!
YES
↓
Are you swimming butterfly?
YES → GTFOML and anyone else's! Leave that for when you've got the lane to yourself!
NO
↓
Are you swimming at a significantly different speed than me?
NO → Go to next question

YES → Is the appropriate slow/fast lane really busy?
↓
NO → Then GTFOML!!!
YES → You can stay provided you're not being a jerk about the speed difference
↓
Does your entering my lane bring the total of people swimming in it to 3 or more?
NO → You can stay, stagger yourself appropriately
YES
↓
Are you wearing part or all of a snorkelling mask?
YES → GTFO the pool, creep!

NO
↓
Does your swim wear involve ruffles?
YES → Clearly you're not serious about swimming, GTFOML
NO
↓
Are you being an asshole in some other way?
YES → GTFOML!

NO
↓
Congratulations, and welcome to my lane!
I'm sure we'll have a pleasant swim together and nobody will get punched, kicked, or gratuitiously splashed in the face.

A New World Order

This is going to be a long, ranty, opinionated blog. You have been forewarned!

It's been a big week in the world! A Royal Wedding in the UK; Obama kills Osama in the US; Canada elects it's first majority dictatorship government in nearly a decade; and Australia... well, Australia had the Logies, the season premiere of MasterChef 3, and the Biggest Loser finale. And yup, I'm gonna give you my opinions on 'em all!

The Royal Wedding

So I only watched about 5 minutes of this, though I did watch the made-for-TV-movie about how they met. Which, *barf!* To call their story a modern day fairytale romance is such a load of crap. Though, my flatmate pointed out that people are perhaps taking the whole 'marrying a prince' thing very literally when they talk about fairytale romances. And to me, a commoner marrying into royalty does not a fairytale romance make! I don't see how any fairytale romance, modern or not, involves the prince sleeping around and not even having the guts to make a clean break with his love interest. I admit that the entirety of my knowledge about the royal couple comes from watching said barf-worthy movie, but, in my defense, I have to assume that this movie was made to put their story in the best possible light...and he still fucked around on her in it.

As for the wedding itself, I have to agree with the elderly woman at the post office the other morning: it was pretty. I thought Kate and Wills both looked gorgeous, and the dress was lovely. (I'm not a fan of long trains, but considering it was a Royal Wedding, I'll allow it. Especially as it was not ridiculously long, though I did think Pippa looked ridiculous carting the train around.) I thought the couple looked genuinely happy, and while I will not support the use of the term 'fairytale' to describe their relationships, I certainly do hope that they are in fact happy. And also, I was very glad to see that Mrs. Middleton looks nothing like the actress who portrayed her (who'd had so much botox and face lifts that she barely resembled a human being anymore).

Now, you're probably wondering why I'm even talking about this, considering a) I really don't give a rat's ass about the royal family (Prince Phillip's existence was purely abstract for me until a couple of years ago) and b) I strongly dislike weddings, regardless of who's they are.

I am talking about it, essentially, because everyone is talking about it and I don't really understand why anyone is talking about it beyond the points I made above. I have a very hard time understanding what relevance the royals have in today's society, beyond being figureheads of power and a different kind of celebrity. But the thing I like about the royal couple is, apparently they feel (to some extent) the same way. And it's for that reason that I find them intriguing. It seems to me that all this formality and stuffiness (and qadrillions of dollars spent on the wedding) has a lot more to do with the Queen than the couple. Eventually, the Queen will cark it, and it seems to me that when she does, the role of the royals will greatly change. That's the thing about a lot of things in the world today; eventually the old farts will cark it, and us young folks can finally get to work on making some meaningful changes! (I have very little patience for the elderly; I am not going to pretend otherwise.)

Since I'm talking about weddings and marriage, I'd like to pause for a second and clarify my stance on the issue. I know many of you see me as anti-marriage, and for a long time I'd say I was. But, as I've come to terms with my sexuality and found myself living in a country which denies me certain rights based on my sexuality, marriage is something I've done a lot more thinking about. I think that the institution of marriage is incredibly problematic. I also think the institution of education is incredibly problematic, so I can assure you that doesn't mean I'm against it. I just think it's very, very flawed. Historically, marriage's roots lie in property transactions, namely, ownership of a woman transferred from her father to her husband. From this framework, same-sex marriage is nonsensical. That isn't why there is so much bullshit about not allowing it (after all, women and men are now considered equals, or so we're told) but it is an argument for reworking what, exactly, the institution of marriage represents.

Honestly, I am torn about weddings and marriage. I am both appalled by them and want them for myself. Kinda. Of course I want a relationship which is stable and secure enough to be what a marriage is meant to be. But I really do hate weddings. They are these celebrations that are meant to be about the couple, but they so rarely actually are. So much energy is spent into appeasing other people's expectations about what the day should be, and it's bullshit! What the day should be is absolutely 110% about the couple, and if their great aunt Dotti doesn't like it, she can get fucked! So while yes, under duress I could tell you exactly what I would want for my own wedding, the thought of actually organising a wedding puts me into a cold sweat. Because there's no way for me to do it without someone getting hurt. Tempting though it is to say 'screw it' and not ever bother with this whole wedding/marriage business, if I find myself in a relationship with that strong of a bond, well, I think that's something I'd want to share and celebrate. Yeah, yeah, it's on my mind a lot.

Moving right along...

Obama kills Osama

This one is a really tricky issue for me, because, on the one hand, I don't support the death penalty. But on the other hand, what exactly do you do with a war criminal? Saddam Hussein was caught, put on trial, and sentenced to death. And while the sentencing does not sit easy with me, the fact that there was a trial does make a big difference to me. Osama bin Laden did not get a trial. And here's the thing: America has declared war on all these regimes of terror (yeah, yeah, "They started it!") and is constantly going on to the people in these countries where America is fighting terror that they are doing it to bring them freedom and democracy. Well, America, isn't a fair trial for all part of freedom and democracy?

It seems highly unlikely that the order Obama issued was to make every effort to capture Osama alive. There is something exceedingly creepy about a government issuing the order to kill someone. And it's not really any less creepy for a government to order the killing of someone outside of their own governance.

So I've been thinking: what gives someone the right to kill someone else? There are only two situations that I can personally consider to be OK (and I'm leaving abortion out of this, if you want to make a case of it, then basically, there are three situations that I can personally consider to be OK). The first is self-defense. If someone has decided to threaten my life, I have the right to fight for my survival. If this means taking the attacker's life, so be it. For those of you who are in some way pro-war, I think self-defence covers the only type of killing which should occur in a war.

The second is something that went out of fashion a long time ago: the honourable duel. I think that if two people, of their own free will, challenge each other to a fight to the death, both fully knowing and accepting that they could die if they fight, then why not? I must say that if these duels existed, it would have to be completely acceptable for a person to refuse the challenge. It would only be acceptable if both people were fully and freely consenting. I also think that these duel could not be fully and freely consented to 'in the heat of the moment'. If a challenge was laid, perhaps some sort of a state permit would then need to be sought, to ensure both parties were entering into the duel of their own free will. I wonder what society would be like if this was allowed? If there was no dishonour in turning down a challenge? I think that maybe such a society could be a pretty great place to live.

Which brings me to a society that is not such a great place to live...

Canada Elects Harper into a Majority Government

Why? Why oh why would you do this Canada? I just don't understand. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, and in case you somehow haven't already figured it out, I am staunchly anti-Conservative. This is a party that scares people into voting for them, then ignores the needs of their electorate. They are despicable.

Now, I'm going to do a bit of a quick and dirty cross comparison of Canadian and Australian politics so that everyone can be up to speed. This is not 100% accurate, but gives you a bit of a comparison point.

Canada                        Australia
Conservatives              Liberals
Liberals                       Labor
NDP                           Greens
Stephen Harper           John Howard
Stockwell Day             Tony Abbott*
Jean Chretien               What Kevin Rudd could have been
Minority government    Coalition government

*Tony Abbott is the leader of the Liberal party, who are currently in opposition. So I suppose, Canada, it could be worse. Stockwell Day and Tony Abbott are fucking idiots. The only attempt at saying something positive about Harper and Howard that I can make is that they are not on Day and Abbott's level of sheer fucking idiocy.

For the majority of my years as a voter, Canada has been governed by minority governments. This, I thought, was pretty nifty. It meant that there was a lot of debate, that the electorate could more effectively lobby, and that if the government was deemed to be shit, an election could be called. And guess why we just had an election? Because Stephen Harper's government (which seems to be what he's re-branding the Conservative party as) was deemed to be shit! His budget was deemed unfit and his government fell. Or so it was supposed to. But for some fucked up reason, instead of kicking him to the curb where he belongs, or even just electing him in with a minority government (which actually, given the split probably would not have happened), we've given him a majority government. And thus, are stuck with him doing as he pleases for the next four years.

The last time Canada had a majority government was when Jean Chretien was in power. When it became clear to Chretien that he was on the way out, he signed the Kyoto protocol and legalised same-sex marriage, because he could. Because his party (Liberals) had the power to do it. We have now given the Conservatives the power to do as they please. What will Harper do? Well, considering what he's already done the future ain't looking too bright!

My whole life, being from Alberta (which is basically the breeding ground of all things Conservative - Harper's electorate is one over from mine, and there were always billboards of his ugly face everywhere whenever he had some political success), I've heard a lot of bullshit about how any party which is not the Conservatives is 'Bad for Canada'. Given that Alberta is so terrified of change that they have not known anything but Conservative rule for god knows how long, I shouldn't really be surprised. Having at some point in my life stepped outside of the fold and experienced life in other parts of the country and world, I am quite confident that should the Conservative stronghold crumble, the world will not end.

I don't know if I can possibly express just how angry this attitude about the Conservative party makes me. Especially given that I am very hard pressed to think of what, exactly, it is that the Conservatives have ever done that has actually been good for Canada. I mean, unless we're just talking about the super-rich bits, cuz, yeah, the Conservatives are great for them!!

So, just UGH! Canada, I am disappointed in you. The only good thing that came out of this election was that the NDP is now the official opposition party, by a landslide! I hope that over the next four years their actions will convince more Canadians that they are a party worth supporting.

Which brings us to Australia and the TV

The Biggest Loser has come to an end, just in time for MasterChef to start up again. It's the perpetual wheel of consumption. Take the weight off, put the weight on, take the weight off, put the weight on... I wonder if MasterChef will ever launch it's own line of frozen dinners like Biggest Loser has?

Cynicism aside, I did really enjoy this season. Lara got down to 66kg I believe, hopefully it hasn't cost her her mental health. Emma won (and has copied my haircut...ARGH) which is kinda great because she actually lost most of her weight outside of the Biggest Loser camp. But can I just say...Emma is meant to be the hot twin, but Meg, Meg is completely gorgeous! Emma's doesn't even come close.

And that concludes my long winded, ranty blog.

Socks Code of Conduct

OK, so I know that this is weird and pedantic and all that, BUT! I have a real issue with socks. I don't know why, but I do. And it's not just one of those crazy quirks that I can apply to myself and not judge others by the same standards. Oooh no! I judge people by their socks. I know it's stupid, but when someone tells me they willfully break my sock rules, I reassess why this person is in my life.

I'm writing about this today because I have quite accidentally broken one of my sock rules, and I didn't realize it until it was much too late! I did not mean to leave the house in the socks I am wearing, and now that I have realized this, I will be self conscious for the rest of the day.

So what, exactly, are my sock hang-ups? Well!

1. Mismatching socks - I get distressed if I'm wearing two mismatched black socks, I cannot imagine how someone could go through life wearing completely different coloured socks.
2. Dirty socks - Some things can be worn more than once before they need a wash, but not socks. I would rather go without socks than have to re-wear a dirty pair. Though in a similar pinch, I will re-wear dirty underwear.
3. Toe socks - This is just a whole world of wrong and I don't know how to deal with people who wear these. Also, toe rings. There is never an acceptable time to wear toe rings.

OK, so it might just be those 3, but they do truly repulse me. Honestly, I prefer to go without socks, but that is not always the weather appropriate option.

My breech of conduct today has to do with Rule #2. You see, it's been getting chilly at night and my body has a tendancy to stop supplying my toes with any blood when I'm cold, resulting in my having blue toes during winter. I have realized that this can be prevented if I wear socks to bed (I used to have a rule expressly forbidding this, but needs must I dropped it). Normally I sleep in really thick wool socks that I would not be able to wear a shoe over, and hence, never leave the house in my bedtime socks. But lately I've been using a pair of just regular wool socks, which I do wear in my shoes during winter. And this morning, I forgot to change my socks. Now my feet are overly warm and I feel like an embarassment to society.

In un-sock related news... I've got my new computer. It probably would be quite exciting, except I reached my download limit on my internet at the same time, so I haven't actually been able to properly set up my new computer. Also, I didn't want to have to buy a new computer, so I wasn't super thrilled about it anyways. It's a netbook, which is another reason I'm not super thrilled. But, it is super light and tiny, and so it will be handy for working on the go. I'm sure I'll come around to it in time.

Too polite? Or too much of a wimp?

For my PhD, I've been interviewing young people about their dating experiences in this modern digital world. It has been most educational. I have gotten some great tips from these kids, along with some shockers, but since I'm all old and wise I can tell the difference (unfortunately for them, I can't tell them the difference). It would be incredibly inappropriate of me to talk in detail about my interviews on here, so I won't. I'll just say that as a single woman who is currently on the dating scene, I am very much situated within my research! Often as I'm going over my interviews I am struck by how much relevance what the person is saying has to my own life. And sometimes it makes me want to scream!

Like the interview I am looking at today. The woman says that she is 'too polite' to tell someone she isn't interested in them, and so instead just ignores them. .... GAH!

When it comes to dating, I don't think there is anything that pisses me off more than this attitude that it is somehow impolite to tell someone you're not interested in them. No. It is fucking RUDE to not let them know. And this seems to be a social disease that is epidemic amongst women.

Why are people so afraid of hurting someone else's feelings? I understand that it is awkward to have the conversation with someone, but for fucks sake, give the other person some credit! This is just something that I find really inexcusable. Like, if I ruled the world, the punishment for not being upfront with someone about your feelings towards them would be to allow the other person to punch you in the face as hard as they could. And yes, I admit, I would be getting a few black eyes from this law, but I stand by it!

More hurt is caused by ignoring the issue than by addressing it directly. So if you think it's impolite to tell someone how you really feel, I say you're a wimp and watch out for justice fists.