"Why / how are you single?!"

I'm a 30 year old middle class white male. Take away the unseen mental health issues and, really, I have nothing for society to pin me down on – except that I'm single.

I mean long-term single. Last time I was in a serious relationship John Howard was PM. I've yet to enjoy regular sex in a liberated Australia.

We are a misunderstood group, us happy singles. Yes, “happy singles”! So many people don’t seem to realise the two words can even go together. Society doesn’t just pin us down, but beats us repeatedly across the face with expectations that we take every opportunity to get out there and find a partner – just find somebody!

A work colleague today asked if I was going out tonight. When I said no, he asked, “But you’re single right?”

Well yeah, but also I can’t be fucked going out tonight to make awkward small talk (we’ve covered this, yeah?) and try to pick up. I have better things to do. And I don’t even know what they are yet, but they don’t involve leaving the house. 

So I’d like to wish all my single friends a happy Valentines Day.

The rest of you can get fucked – indeed many of you will, so don’t take it to heart.

Don’t get me wrong, I do want to be in a serious relationship again – sooner rather than later preferably. But I’ve learnt a lot in my five years of singledom, which has been peppered with all kinds of – if not regular – dates and dalliances. Most importantly, I learnt I had to want to be in a relationship rather than need to be in one. That took a while. I spent many years seeing it as some kind of panacea to my mental health issues, which was harmful to potential relationships and prevented me helping myself for too long.

That whole “You have to love yourself before you can love someone else” thing always seemed like pithy, clichéd bullshit to me. Why couldn’t I love someone else while hating myself? It makes perfect sense if I see most people as better than me, right?! Well sure, but it’ll destroy a relationship.

I’ve focused the last couple of years on exploring my own happiness (not a euphemism) and passions. And, despite increasing concern of friends looking to set me up, I really have never been happier. Truly. After all, during my six-year relationship I was horribly anxious and depressed (not because of her!).

Relationships and love amazing, wonderful, energising things. But I refuse to be desperate for it – it’s not conducive to happiness, it’s unattractive and it’s counter-productive, and each of these things feed into each other.

If I had a dollar for every time someone has expressed bemusement at my ongoing sabbatical I could buy roses (at Valentines prices) for ALL the women today – I’m not blowing smoke up my own arse, but I am a catch ladies.

It’s a well intentioned, heartfelt and flattering sentiment, and yes I do appreciate friends keeping an eye out for a potential mate, but I do get a little tired of them being far more stressed about it than I am. It’s a little presumptuous and dismissive of my mindset, not to mention the fact someone can find happiness in a different way to you.

Marriage is held up as this ultimate goal of life, yet so many people are unhappy. And yes, I would like to get married – sorry, no, I would like to be with someone I want to marry. But it often just plays into another one of these all-consuming social expectations of what relationships are.

If and when I get married, I won’t buy into this “better half” bullshit. The most functional couple I know are two fully independent individuals choosing to spend the most important aspects of their life together. Outside observers have expressed curiosity to me that it is "a bit odd", and bemusement that they would spend regular nights out apart, even travel separately. Well apart from what the fuck business is it of yours anyway, why should a couple be tethered and tied. If you want to do the same thing, fantastic; if you don’t and drag each other around you just fuel frustration. Maintaining individual identity and passions is so important in my opinion; otherwise you lose what attracted you to each other in the first place.

I won’t succumb to the expectations of others when I know what makes me happy - I've spent the best part of 30 years figuring it out and it ain't been easy, so I deserve a little self-determination, thanks.

If I have a problem in this area aside from my sometimes crippling introversion, it is that I know exactly what I'm after. I've felt it – fleetingly – before. I’ve felt that amazing feeling of somebody who just understands you in an absurd way and challenges you and inspires you. It’s a blessing and a curse. I struggle to commit myself to any relationship that doesn’t meet that benchmark.

But I’m happy with my life as it is at the moment. Happier than a lot of people who today are sending flowers, going out for romantic dinners and writing on each others Facebook walls; not as happy as some of the genuine couples doing things their way – the ones I admire, and, I admit, do get a little bit jealous of sometimes.

What matters is I have lots to keep me occupied, interested in and excited by life at the moment, including a wide group of great – close friends who are male and female, single and attached, who are my inspiration, my support, my entertainment, my reason to live. They can’t give me everything a relationship would, but they come pretty close.

Happy Valentines Day to them. 

Book review - "A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory"

Over the Australia Day long weekend I read and reviewed A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory, for Right Now.

The book which discusses the consultation process undertaken by the Federal Government in Aboriginal communities ahead of introducing it's Stronger Futures legislation and paints pretty appalling and disenchanting picture.

It won't be an election issue, but while our politicians engage in petty stunts for media attention, everyone is ignoring some of the most disadvantaged and disempowered people in our country.

  
"A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory"


Almost 70 years ago Albert Camus wrote that “goodwill can cause almost as much damage as ill-will if it is not enlightened” -  a sentiment it seems that could well apply to the Australian government’s approach to Indigenous affairs.

Reading A Decision to Discriminate: Aboriginal Disempowerment in the Northern Territory, published by Concerned Australians, leaves you with the troubling impression that the Gillard Government’s Stronger Futures legislation – which followed on from the Howard Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) and drifted quietly through Parliament in early 2012 – was at worst a continuation of arrogant and destructive disempowerment, and at best an act of wilful naivety in what is deemed by government and media to be an issue of minimal importance.

Read more...

Berlin

Slightly edited version of internal ramblings jotted down while sitting with a beer at the Weihenstephaner Restaurant, Hackescher Markt, immediately after a five-hour walking tour of Berlin on Tuesday 9 October 2012.

Berlin is exploding my mind.

Ich bin ein Berliner!

I arrived Sunday evening, am staying on the north-east fringe of town - and a large town it is - and didn't really feel it yesterday. All I did yesterday though, was visit the nice but relatively pitiful Oktoberfest set up in Alexanderplatz (comparison aside, it's actually kinda cool) and went up the TV Tower where I finally started to get my bearings. You can study maps all you like but it's not until you've been in and around the city for at least a day or two that it starts to make sense. And perhaps even then, without contextual knowledge of history and culture, this place wouldn't be so flash. Yesterday I walked right past Lustgarten, barely giving it a glance.

Today I did a walking tour. It was five hours of cultural and historical sights and information. A barrage of thought-provoking information bites, one after another for five hours. It was full on. Possibly the best paid tourist experience I've had. Today, back at Lustgarten with a little knowledge, the same space affected me deeply.

Yesterday I wondered whether Berlin would meet my expectations. Today I declare it my favourite of all the cities I've visited! One I could really see myself spending an extended period of time in. I love Germany overall, but this city has so much to offer.

New York makes you feel like you are at the centre of the world, Berlin feels like the centre of modern human history. New York's appeal is largely built on ego. Berlin's is based on culture, counter-culture, history, revolution, misery, and tough lessons that they've taken head on. My country could learn a lot about dealing with shameful history from Berlin and Germany generally.

There is such contrast and diversity in the history and place of this city. So much to think about.

How would modern Australia treat 'wall jumping' asylum seekers?

One place, one city that has been a leader in tolerance, was home to the greatest intolerance and human rights abuses of living memory, was bombed to pieces, ripped in half as part of a conflict not it's own, and came out the other side - finally - as one of the most vibrant, accepting and open cities on the planet.

The Mayor is openly homosexual - surely one of very few in the world - in a city where homosexuals were executed 70 years ago. My tour guide was an Israeli artist who moved to Berlin because it allowed her greater freedom of expression than her homeland. The same Berlin that was the capital of a country that executed six million Jews is now more accepting of some of them than Israel. Shocking, amazing, disappointing, fantastic.

Were the decades of pain and suffering necessary to make the city what it is? No doubt tourism thrives on atrocious historical events, but not culture, right? Why have the people of Berlin progressed so rapidly on respect for others while we in the lucky country languish in the struggle to shift - to open - supressed conservative minds. Perhaps drastic events are necessary for rapid change - sometimes for the worse, as post-World War I Berlin showed - but surely we can progress without suffering. Why does it often take a wall to drive people to seek to move beyond the ground its on.

This man. Is my hero

Berlin is what it is - something great - because of its past. Who's to say what it might otherwise have been? Or more the point, it is the city it is because of how the people of Berlin responded to their circumstances: accepting the past, learning from it and moving forward.

At one point on the walking tour we stopped by a memorial for a man who tried to assassinate Hitler in 1939. The guide wondered aloud, "if he has assassinated Hitler, maybe we would have avoided these atrocities."

It was a pertinent, thought-provoking and troubling. An ordinary man, an attempted murderer, presented as a hero. Yes, I felt a ping of admiration for him. He could have saved millions of lives and spared decades of misery for Germans, particularly of the east. Or maybe it would have made little difference. The Nazis were more than Hitler. Maybe things would have escalated. Maybe all hell would have broken lose. Assassinations tend to start more wars than they end. Who knows?

I'm opposed to the death penalty and certainly people taking justice into their own hands, so it was difficult to reconcile my feelings. If he'd been successful, maybe we'd view him differently - after all, Hitler would have died with far less blood on his hands and no one would ever have known the lengths to which he was prepared to go for his vision and to win the war.

As I said, I felt some admiration towards and sympathy for this man - admittedly given the full and subsequent context of Hitler's life - and disappointment that he had failed like so many others did, before I realised I was perhaps being hypocritical and now I'm not really sure.

Truth is it's complex. I dare say he was a decent man with well-intentioned - even admirable and courageous - motives who tried to do something that was morally questionable. I think questioning the morality of such action is the only way to promote and maintain a civil society. Can you bring back civility with uncivil action? Or is it better to die standing by your values no matter what? It's easy to stand by your morals when you're not the one doing the dying I guess.

That was just one of many complex questions Berlin has thrown at me today

No city has ever made me think so much about the complexities in humanity. Complexities too often glossed over or shoved into a convenient pigeon-hole.

Here the contrasts and complexities are - more than anywhere I've ever been - set free and promoted. By government, but mostly, and somewhat passively, through art.

I get it now. I understand why so many artists come here.

This city makes you think, question, explore - if you're willing to take the journey.

JFK was right, we're all Berliners (not doughnuts), it's the world's city of human struggle. This place has seen it all and has something to teach every person on the planet.

Indigenous Exceptionalism - MWF review

Article written for Right Now, and appears on the website with other human rights reviews here.


Is ‘race’ is an inherently negative word and is it time we stopped using it?

‘Racism’ has been a useful term for defining and addressing undesirable attitudes and conduct, but race – a term devised by European explorers – is often a simplistic, generalised method of identification that relies on physical appearance, rather than nationality, culture, ancestry or any meaningful feature of identity. We are, after all, members of a single human race, comprised of millions of ethnicities.

Professor Marcia Langton, Chair of Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, was part of an expert panel set up by the federal government to look into recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Australian Constitution. In a Melbourne Writers Festival address, titled Indigenous Exceptionalism, she discussed race and the need to remove reference to it in the Constitution.

Until 1967, the Constitution allowed the parliament to legislate in the interests of “the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.

Following the referendum of 1967 the words “other than the aboriginal race in any State” were removed.

However, the lingering reference to ‘race’ remains problematic, and the panel’s recommendations, handed down in January this year, included removing it, as well as acknowledging Indigenous Australians as the first peoples of Australia and the aspiration for cultural maintenance, including languages.

Professor Langton called recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution “a large, fraught topic full of legal, as well as moral, challenges.”

She called race an out-dated, crude concept – historically used to justify colonialism by portraying non-white peoples as inferior – and one that is “such a discredited biological and social construct that its citation in a democratic constitution is undesirable.”

“Defining Aboriginal people as a race, as the Constitution does,” she said “sets up the conditions for Indigenous people to be treated, not just as different, but exceptional and, moreover, inherently incapable of joining the Australian polity and society.”

“In the slowly building campaign for constitutional recognition of Indigenous people, it is vital that we broaden the understanding that the constitutional tradition of treating Aborigines as a race must be replaced with the idea of first peoples,” Professor Langton said.

The problem of race is evident in comments such as those by Andrew Bolt, who was found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in 2011, for implying that some fair-skinned Aboriginals were not true Aboriginals. Such perceptions are based on appearance rather than lineage and ties to place and culture.

Professor Langton actually shares Bolt’s cynicism towards some claims to Aboriginality by people seeking access to special treatment. The difference is, however, that her criticism is not based on skin tone but abuses of special treatment by those who cannot be described as disadvantaged, and those who claim Aboriginality on paper to claim benefit, but not in public.

Where temporary special assistance is required, she argued, the test for assistance must be economic disadvantage not Aboriginal ancestry. Aboriginality does not automatically equate to economic disadvantage and Professor Langton believes the entitlement mentality that has developed is poisoning Aboriginal society just as much as it is poisoning Australian attitudes towards Indigenous people.

The challenge ahead is addressing “the poorly understood friction between bringing Indigenous Australians firmly into the national polity and, on the other hand, maintaining their exceptional status as inextricably different.”

Despite her strong stance, Professor Langton believes a referendum should not be rushed, citing Australia’s record of rejecting constitutional change and the potentially harmful outcomes a negative result would have. Not only does she fear defeat would prevent the change being made in her lifetime, but she believes it would also lead to disappointment and bitterness among the Indigenous community, and Australia being seen internationally as racist.

Whether you agree with her views or not, Professor Langton is a formidable speaker and one of those wonderfully fascinating and considered people who seem impossible to pin down on the traditional political spectrum, making it all the more difficult to dismiss her argument’s challenge to one’s own perceptions. On such an important issue, even if a symbolic one, it is important for us all to keep an open mind and consider our own perceptions.

What's more harmful - Xanax or Channel 7's coverage of mental health?

I'm angry with you, Channel 7. Yesterday I ran my first half-marathon and was on a high. I wanted to write about it - the pain, the achievement, the music, the reasons for and against doing it again. But then I watched Sunday Night's alarmist story on the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. A drug I take.

I don't like being angry, so I'm furious that this trash tabloid journalism made me mad.

I knew as soon as I saw the promo it would rile me and I'd tweet frustratedly, but I couldn't ignore it. I guess Channel 7 will count that as a win.

The premise was, basically, Xanax is more addictive than Heroin, it destroys lives and should be banned. Oh, and traces of it were found in the blood of Heath Ledger, Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson when they died! (Well yes, among various other things, but let's not mention that)

It was an irresistable hook and seemed to shock a few people judging by responses on Twitter. Fear-based outrage sells almost as well as sex. The more - dare I say - irrational responses to the show's question of whether Xanax should be banned were comments like: "yep! aniety (sic) can be helped if people were allowed to relax and people showed care and concern more.", "Xanax is scary! Doctors should be held responsible for giving out a drug that is known to be more addictive that heroin", and my favourite "yes! We lost Michael Jackson from it".

Fortunately, just as many tweeters defended rational consideration of the issue, many of whom had actually dealt with anxiety. It was a pleasant irony for us to be the (at least relatively) rational ones.

The misleading emotional use of dead celebrities, was just the first giveaway of a rubbish story. At no point did it address the dangers of mixing drugs without medical advice, which happened in each of those cases. I suppose truthful (respectful?) representation of those tragic deaths, rather than insinuating one drug's responsibility, would lessen the emotional affect of mentioning them.

They also spoke of side-effects like blackouts in absolute terms as though they happen to everyone who takes it. I've never had a blackout in four years on a relatively high dosage. Maybe I'm on the placebo.

Not only was there no test of the premise (just run with it), there was no acknowledement of the many lives Xanax has undoubtedly saved from suicide, or helped get back on track from various levels of anxiety. Nope, not even considered. Has that actually happened ever? You wouldn't have thought so.

There's no doubt we need to monitor the use of medications. And I don't doubt the genuine suffering those interviewed have experienced. Some drugs are addictive and can have serious side-effects, which is why you need to take them responsibly under professional advice (and I'm not suggesting these people didn't).

But if you are going to call for a ban on a product that manages the suffereing of severe anxiety, you should at least explore some alternative treatments. The report didn't even look properly at why people are prescribed Xanax, other than bandying about the word anxiety.

How many people today will be fearful of the drug and consider stopping usage (a very dangerous course of action)? How many will resist advice from doctors to take it as a result of this unbalanced reporting, possibly preventing recovery? How many unqualified people will advise family or friends to stop taking this "horrendous drug", out of concern but based on ill-informed fear? That could be dangerous.

This was not a story for public interest or information, but a grab for ratings.This kind of sensationalist reporting just fuels hysteria or makes thinking people dismissive, it serves no real purpose. Which is sad, whether or not there is any validity in the concerns raised.

I am not here to defend Xanax. It's worked for me, but I had a period of trial-and-error with other anti-depressants first. I value how it helped me recover from a pretty dark period and start to manage severe anxiety, but feel like cognitive therapies and activities like yoga and running have been the things that really changed the way I think. So I'm hopeful of coming off it sooner than later. I never really liked the idea of a drug that affected my brain, though it hasn't stopped me consuming alcohol.

We should look at the role of medication in various areas. I personally tend to agree that we live in an age of over-prescription, but I'm not an expert, and many people need these drugs to live a normal life.

As a comsumer, I want the media and government to hold the pharmaceutical industry to account. Just as much as I want to see responsible reporting on mental health that doesn't induce irrational fear or reinforce stigma. I don't want to see reporting that prevents people getting the help they need.

Xanax is potent. It works fast. Am I addicted? Well I've never craved it (like I crave yoga after a few days) and I'd deal better going without it for a day than Facebook or Twitter, but if I miss a few doses I do experience physiological side-effects that are not fun, as well as an increase in anxiety. Is it more addictive than Heroin? I don't know, I've never had reason to take Heroin. I do know that when I come off Xanax, it will be very slowly and under the supervision of my GP and psychologist.

I'd rather see Channels 7 and 9 banned from covering mental health issues until they can drag themselves from reporting on extremes and cover them in a fair, considered way, than have Xanax banned. They've demonstrated that they either do not care or do not understand the serious and complex nature of mental illness.

Nobody will avoid depression or anxiety as a result of last night's shameful current affairs story. Hopefully not too many are thrown into mental chaos by it.

But well done Sunday Night, you have set us back some way. I hope you made some money from it.

The best advice is: be sensible. That goes for people taking Xanax as well as media talking about it.

Marriage is so gay

Marriage is so gay.

It's interesting that we struggle so much to bring the words 'gay' and 'marriage' together, given how much the word 'gay' and concept of marriage have both changed over time.

So many words have already been spent on this topic, but still the debate goes round in circles. It's damn frustrating because there doesn't seem to be a single argument against equal marriage that isn't misguided, prejudicial and/or fear-based.

Marriage has changed significantly over thousands of years as society evolved, and it ought to reflect our social values and human rights. Currently, it does not.

Why do I, as a heterosexual. care so much? Not just because many of the far-fetched arguments are an abuse of creativity, but also because of my interest in mental health.

By denying equal marriage we are essentially saying non-heterosexual relationships are inferior, less legitimate and/or less natural, which reinforces prejudice. Young people, in particular, are vulnerable to mental health consequences, including suicide. And it is completely unnecessary.

By embracing equal marriage we would embrace tolerance and maybe encourage greater acceptance and understanding across the community. Rather than being a threat to impressionable children, legalising same-sex marriage may just help some of them feel accepted and comfortable in who they are - possibly saving lives.

I like equal marriage and Jen Hawkins

Like many other issues of progress (such as Australia becoming a republic) that are bogged down in the irrational fear of change, equal marriage will happen eventually and already has popular support, so we're wasting time by getting bogged down in a nonsense debate.

Let's just do it and move on, as a more tolerant nation, to other issues. Even the angry bigots left behind can enjoy relief, no longer having to hear about it.

Taking just a quick look at the most common arguments highlights that it is fear, rather than values, that underpin them:

Marriage is about starting a family
That may partly explain why the ritual originated thousands of years ago, but it's clearly not a key criteria any longer, given the number - and our acceptance - of married heterosexual couples who cannot have, or do not want, children.

A child needs a mother and a father

To my mind this is the only argument that deserves to be taken seriously; and I think it does, because as shit as it is to tell a gay couple they are an inferior parenting option, I can see the flicker of logic through the dense fog of bigotry.

In fact, I agree that ideally a child has a mother and a father - in circumstances where all else was exactly equal - simply because men and women are different and I think it's a good thing to be exposed to life lessons from both sides of the human race. 

But all things are rarely, if ever, equal. Not all  fathers are 'manly men', not all mothers are 'traditionally effeminate'. We're all different, but that's a strength. The parents will not be the only influences in the child's life. And there are too many other variables that could indicate how good a parent someone will be - health, education, wealth, ability to care for the child and spend time with them, etc - to discriminate on sexuality. Many children have only one parent - surely a second is beneficial regardless of gender?

Anyone who saw Penny Wong speak about her family on QandA would be hard pressed to credibly argue that her child will have an inferior upbringing to the children of Joe Hockey, who had just insinuated as such in his defence of the 'traditional' family - whatever that is. 

It's a moot point anyway when discussing same-sex marriage because same-sex couples, such as Senator Wong and her partner, can already adopt and raise children. Although perhaps not for much longer in Queensland.

The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just what it is
Well, unless you believe Adam and Eve were the first married couple, you would probably accept the anthropological view that marriage has been around in some form for at least 4000 years.

It has changed dramatically over the centuries, as it should as we as a society change. Initially it was about protecting blood lines and had nothing to do with love. Ancient Hebrew law required a widow to marry her deceased husband's brother.

In fact, we wouldn't even be breaking new ground by allowing same-sex marriage - the Romans were doing it in the 4th century. So who's definition exactly are we going by?

This argument is nothing more than a cop-out from a fearful, closed mind, refusing to have their view of the world challenged.

They can have a Civil Union, why isn't that good enough?
Because it is condescending and says reinforces negative perceptions of homosexuality.

The Bible says...

Ok, no. 

The Bible says a lot of shit. It advocates stoning a woman to death if she falsely claims to be a virgin when she marries. Few Christians - hopefully none - would hold this view now because society has progressed.

Also, we live in a secular society where marriage is presided over primarily by government. 

Jesus never condemned homosexuality, but did preach tolerance and love. 

The Church are welcome to hold onto prejudice, but in secular society we have to champion non-discrimination.

If we legalise marriage between homosexuals, what's to stop people wanting to marry their daughters, brothers or pets? Or all of them!

Now the conservative is just yelling gibberish while blocking their ears to stop the infectious truth.

The slippery slope. Letting homosexuals marry will open the door to the all sorts of unions and the breakdown of society. Au contraire. By legalising same-sex marriage we continue to put misguided injustices behind us.

This argument is the true measure of fear. The fanciful, irrelevant 'what if's. It's not even an argument against same-sex marriage itself anymore. I'm familiar with the anxiety-inducing effect of baseless 'what if's; letting them go is liberating experience.

And, not that it really needs addressing, but the fear is baseless. Not only is there no actual push for the right to marry within family, including the pet, but there are sound reasons not to allow it. Simply, the illegality of incest and bestiality is firmly grounded in biological and ethical reasoning. So no, that won't be happening.

As for polygamy, that's more of a grey area but there's no reason to believe group marriages would be legalised in our lifetime. It's an entirely different situation. Maybe someday it will be legal, who knows what society will be like in a few hundred years (if we make it that long), but massive shifts would need to take place first, and it would need popular support, so who cares if that happens one day? Hell, we can't even get legal same-sex marriage with majority community support.


From the first marriages thousands of years ago, the purpose and meaning of the ritual has changed dramatically. We should define for what marriage means for us as Australians in 2012. I think most people would say it's primarily about the love and commitment between a couple. That's good progress from the original purpose, I think, so embrace it. Although, we can't really stop people who don't love each other from doing it too.

Same-sex couples are fighting to have their love recognised equally. Jesus taught love and tolerance, yet supposed followers of his, like the Australian Christian Lobby are fighting against both. I know which side I want to be on, and which side Jesus would probably support.

Heterosexuals haven't been doing a great job of respecting marriage in recent decades, so who are we to deny homosexuals a chance?

It's a chance to celebrate more love, and God knows we need as much in the world as we can get these days.

You can dance if you want to (in the street)

You're sitting in your car on the way home from work, frustrated by traffic and stuck at a red light because the dickhead that just squeezed in front of you stopped for the orange light. And across the intersection there's some guy with a massive grin wearing headphones, flailing his arms about and shaking his hips.

The 'Kew Dancing Man'

And you just think, 'What .. the .. ffuuu...'

You would, right? I'm pretty sure I did the first time I saw 'Kew Dancing Man', Robin Madden doin' his thang. I'd hazard a guess most people's reaction to seeing him for the first time was bemusement, if not amusement. People don't do that; it's not normal!

It's a pretty brave move to dance at a busy intersection where many passers-by will wonder what the hell is wrong with you. But what the hell is wrong with us?!

Most people dance, yeah? If you don't, you should. It's good for your mind, body and soul. We dance in groups at music venues and celebrations, and some of us dance in the privacy of our lounge rooms (I assume other people do too), but once you dance alone and someone sees you, you stand to be mocked.

Imagine how onlookers, or even the police, would respond if someone started dancing inexplicably (who needs a reason?!) on the corner of Swanston and Flinders Streets.

WHY? I want answers goddammit!

Why do we feel unsettled - even threatened - by people who behave 'unusually' in public places (even if the same behaviour in a private space is perfectly normal) and feel the need to bring it down with mockery or worse?

Anyway, the second time you saw him, you generally, genuinely smiled - if not, go looking for your heart. He became a much-loved local celebrity even for blow-ins like me who worked up the road at the local Dan Murphy's for a couple of years. I never met him, but we loved his presence.

He was just a happy guy making people smile and enjoying himself. More of it please, society.

Sadly, he passed away late last month, but it was amazing to see the reaction and number of people talking about him on social media, as well as coverage in mainstream media. This is the kinda soul we ought to celebrate.

He probably brought smiles to the faces of many thousands of people. Just by dancing. That simple. A lot of 'successful' people will go to their grave with a fat bank account having achieved far less.


So let us not judge anyone who dances in the street or acts in a manner that is seemingly a little unusual to our own experience. Who the hell are we to do so?

Goddammit, there should be more dancing in the street. It is perfectly normal, it is good for the body, good for the mind, makes you and people around you smile ... I get strange looks just singing to myself walking down the street sometimes. What, these people don't sing? Meh, their loss (yeah, I wish I was that comfortable with unwarranted judgement!)

Why are people so quick to judge harmless breaches of the rigid, anti-social 'code of conduct in public places' that's become prevalent, particularly in the city? Imagine a tram - over 50 people squeezed into a confined space and nobody talks. Now that's bizarre social behaviour - a sociology study in waiting.

But I think the Kew Dancing Man proved that, if you're brave enough to break down these barriers, people love you for it. Social norms are made to be broken. May his legacy live on! Dance, dance, dance!

And remember:

'If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and DANCE and sing!'

('Always Look On The Bright Side of Life', Monty Python)

Valuing the thinkers in politcal discussion

I liked this article by Mike Carlton.

I posted it on a friend's Facebook wall. A conservative-voting, but more-progressive-thinking-than-he'd-like-to-admit friend. One who has been (un)fairly critical of some of the 'scandals' surrounding the government in the last 18 months. I like to tell him he has a progressive inside waiting to burst out once he comes out of denial, which he doesn't appreciate it, but we agree on a lot of things when you get past the slimy surface of political discussion.

I liked the article because, while hardly policy-heavy, it looked beyond the surface (or headline) level judgements of the government, and noted that Julia Gillard's has actually been, at the very least a good economic manager - the media's primary measurement of government for at least the last 15 years, since reform went out of fashion. Also it has successfully implemented a good deal of legislation despite the hung parliament.

My friend dismissed it because Carlton isn't known to be balanced in his views. 'Come on!' I thought, 'that's it?? No criticism of the logic or arguements?' I just responded with a smiley face because, while we can have a strangely respectful political discussion, Facebook walls are dangerous ground for such discourse. Any nut can get involved and turn things sour, so I keep the politics to a minimum there, and save it for Twitter. I'll pursue him about it over a beer soon. I think he'll sheepishly concede a few points, so I should be mature about it in the spirit of appreciating open-mindedness.

Got me thinking though - have we just become barrackers again? The old ways of voting along family lines crumbled long ago. Although I do remember an 18 year-old arriving at a polling booth with his father, where I was handing out How-To-Vote cards for the Greens (for a friend!). His Dad instructed him to avoid us and take one from the Liberals and Family First representatives. As he walked past behind his Dad I quietly offered him one. 'Nah, I better not,' he replied. And they say we live in a democracy!

Yet swingers are the rise my friends, cynical enough about politics not to pledge their ongoing support to anyone. But just as we got wise, the mainstream media got particularly dumb. We switch more, but based on what? Policy? Scaremongering? Scandals? The Prime Minister's wardrobe?

Whatever the reasons, lots of people still tend to make up their mind about something and then stick to it. That's not to say it won't change - clearly views do change - but it takes time. Admitting you were wrong is not seen as noble but weak, inconsistent and/or an indication of unreliability, which is utterly counter-intuitive.

Was the I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change experiment anything more than a waste of time, money and carbon emissions? Did anyone change their mind? Certainly not those involved in the show. And a massive 47% of voters in the online poll said they would never change their mind. Never. Regardless of what information comes to light. No scientist that takes themselves seriously would say that, and no human ever should. Those people may as well walk away from the debate, regardless of which side they are on, their closed-minded opinion has lost its legitimacy. I only hope many passionate Climate Change believers misguidedly voted 'No' they would never change their mind because they feared a 'Yes' result would look like a win for the skeptics. It's not. It's a (frighteningly marginal) win for reason. Anyway, chances are - and changes in the perception of Climate Change indicate - that many more than this number would actually change their mind, they just obviously don't like to admit it for fear of weakening their argument.

For the record, I believe in human-induced Climate Change, do not expect to change my mind and think environmental protection is crucial either way, but I voted 'Yes' (I would change my mind). I hope I would.

We chastise politicians who do as weakness or liars - even if you meant what you said (and the media will insist on a promise) but changed due to unforseen circumstances.

So back to Carlton and his fellow opinion piece writers, and the judgement of balance. By definition, no opinion writer is 'balanced'. They are writing their opinion. Some are more considered than others and address both sides of an issue, but all have their own values and beliefs and column inches are meant to be the space to test their ideas, and challenge the reader. Although some prefer to attract an audience by whipping up fear and frenzy.

My favourite column writers - and I would include Mike Carlton along with people like George Megalogenis and Ross Gittins - put their case intelligently and sensibly. I like Carlton because of the pinch of intelligent humour that probably riles the 'opposition'. Megalogenis is the most 'neutral', but I suspect conservatives view him as a leftie. I'd add David Marr to the list but then my apparent left-leaning view of the world becomes even starker and I can be dismissed as well!

But I'm exhausted by the old view of left and right. It's fucking outdated and childish, far too basic within a complex economic, social and environmental policy discourse. Politics is not sport where you pick your team and stick with it, your view of heroes, villians and umpiring decisions often defined by who your team is. My values define my vote, not the other way around.

And yes, I'm more likely to read articles by people who I respect, who, in turn, are likely to share my values - or have they helped shape them? I don't read Fairfax more than News Ltd press because I'm a progressive, I read it because it takes the news a little more seriously. Not enough, but more. I like MediaWatch because it exposes just how much of a mess the whole lot (commercial media) are. Again, my disappointment in the commercial media's general inability to maintain it's credibility probably shoves me into the leftie camp. So be it.

I'll read and respect columnists that take a serious view of politics, with an interest in the good of the community rather than bitter ranting, sensationalisation, old-school point-scoring or shallow reporting of polls and popularity. Michelle Grattan, for instance, seems to me to be neutral, but has little of substance to say.

I don't care who they vote for as long as they're rational, reasoned and encourage - rather than undermine - mature discussion. We should read articles of merit by people who share and challenge our values, question them equally and form a judgement. It's not easy though.

An informed electorate is the antithesis of party or ideological loyalty though. We all need to be able to think it all through and feel free to express a polite, engaging opinion without fear of being wrong. We're only human.

We should be proud to shag beneath our flag

Ooh! Let it burn!

So now we can't be intimate with a loved one beneath the Australian flag? I'm outraged!

If I was getting any at the moment it would be an honour to be covered by our national symbol; and I'm not even that fond of its design, if I may say so without being offensive.

If the real Julia Gillard - whichever one is real - was to drape herself in the flag in her intimate moments with the first bloke, I'd think that shows excessive patriotism, rather than disrespect - but that's the joke right? Was tonight's episode of At Home With Julia any worse than wearing an Australian flag bikini, which risks getting the wrong kind of salute on a summer’s day?

Well we can't joke about the flag it seems, according to certain members of parliament and the RSL. These pouty conservatives! First they seek to put the brakes on (same sex) love, now they decry (flagged) intimacy! How bleak their hearts?

What's in a flag anyway?

Is it really something sacrosanct that soldiers fight and die for - symbolic of a world divided? Well, no. I'd like to think it's more positive than that. It's meant to represent the people - as well as perhaps the character and values of those people - that soldiers sometimes fight and die for. Values like freedom, characteristics like poking fun at ourselves with good nature. Let's not insist on defining it by war and conflict, please.

John Forrest even called for tonight's episode of  At Home With Julia to be pulled... what was that about fighting to protect our freedoms?

Where was Mr Forrest during the Cronulla riots when the flag was being proudly brandished as to reaffirm an anglo vision of Australia while chants of "Fuck off, we're full" rang out? Thing is, as disgusting as that display was and as much as I await the inevitable day when the union jack is removed from our flag, those bogans had as much claim on the flag as any other Australian. It represents us all ... even if it does a fucking poor job.

People who invoke dead soldiers to back up their own opinions are being a little disrespectful, not to mention presumptuous, I'd think. Who's to say what any soldier's point of view is on the design of our colonial flag, let alone the use of it in a sitcom. Not me, not John Forrest, and I dare the the views are as varied as they are in the community.

So why do people get so precious about the flag? Sometimes moreso than the treatment of real, actual people?!

I haven't found At Home With Julia particularly funny, but far from offensive. It can't be pulled from air, just as we can't ban bogans from wearing the flag as a cape. And more offensive to the office of Prime Minister than a sitcom is the carry on by both sides of politics every day in Parliament.

I’m not gonna lie, I don’t much care for our current flag. I respect it as our flag, but it makes me cringe a little seeing that it carries the symbol of a colonial history that is now dwarfed not only by our significant indigenous history before it but the impact of the multiculturalism we've embraced since. And while I do I love singing along with Peter Garrett in Truganini – “I see the Union Jack in flames; LET IT BURN!” – but I’d never actually burn the flag that represents my country (right or wrong), flawed as it may be.

Of course, a new design is a massive ask of a designer. But I reckon, keep it simple; don't try to include everyone, just focus on something simple that can unite people of varying cultures who live together (ideally in harmony!) on the same land. Like Canada's!

A flag we can all be proud of. So proud we want to roll around naked in it!

Public transport, communal isolation

The tram is packed, 50 people or more. All silent. Societies most anti-social space is one of its most confined. We are together alone, plugged into iPods, scrolling through Facebook or Twitter or playing games on iPhones.

Welcome to the digital society - technology that brings together people from opposite sides of the world, yet pushes apart people sharing a seat on public transport.

Together alone, commuters sit and stand in silence. Put these same people into the MCG after a match-winning goal and it wouldn't be unusual to high-five or embrace one another, yet here to engage in conversation could be deemed creepy and weird.

A man on the footpath along Flinders Street is singing, maybe he's drunk, maybe not. People glare without daring to engage him; shocked, amused and amazed. Initially, I fall in line judging the crazy man before realising, no, good on him! More of this I say! It's public space. We all sing and dance - admit it - so why not in the street if you're feeling it?

Sad, depressing tram ride. I look at people, all within ourselves; the attractive, the forlorn, the exhausted, the caffeinated, the attractive again. Isn't this public transport? At least car drivers interact with each other - with the wave of a hand, toot of a horn, flick of the finger or projection of an expletive.

I've sat in pubs with five people that had much more discussion. Perhaps if this tram had a bar we might be a little more social? After all, none of us are behind the wheel.

"Gay Marriage Is Wrong!" and other absurdities

I don’t know about you, but I’m yet to hear one reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry; just one sensible, logical reason. This is something that would make a lot of people happy, so those opposing it must surely have a reason.

Is it about religion?
Even if you believe God does not approve of homosexuality, we live in a secular nation and marriage is a legal institution. We, as a society, drew up the legalities of marriage, and, like so much other legislation, we can amend it.

Is it about starting a family?
Ok, maybe it is ideal for a child to have a mother and a father. But if giving a child the ideal upbringing is the pre-condition to marriage then just about every straight person should be prevented from marrying as well – the poor, the old, the unhealthy. Not to mention myself – there’s every chance my offspring will inherit my predisposition to depression. Many others too, but such comparisons unfairly imply homosexuality is an imperfection.

Rather than ask what is an ideal situation for raising a child (and probably doesn’t exist), maybe we should ask what is the most important thing a parent or parents can give a child – I highly doubt sexual orientation is relevant here.

Is it about tradition?
Maybe. The people who feel threatened by this probably would have opposed giving indigenous Australians, or even women for that matter, the vote.

This important change will force people to change the way they see society; as far as I’m concerned, it would force them to catch up and see the reality of contemporary society. It will legally acknowledge loving relationships that we all know exist on the as being equal. Currently there is a class system of relationships; homosexuals are essentially treated like minors.

Is it about definition?
‘Because that’s what marriage is’ is a response I’ve received when asking why only a man and a woman should be allowed to marry. But you still haven’t told me WHY. Again, it’s a legal definition. We, as a society, defined it; we can change it. Even words change meaning all the time; ‘terrific’ used to mean ‘frightening’. Can we get Kevin Andrews saying he thinks gay marriage is terrific?

Is it about protecting society?
If you think allowing gay marriage will push us onto a slippery slope where eventually marriage is allowed between adults and underage children, people and animals, or more than two people, then you probably would never have supported homosexuality being legalised in the first place; because that would lead to the legal recognition of all these other relationships wouldn’t it? Oh, that’s right, it didn’t.

Is it about love?
Well I’d hope so. But I don’t know; some married couples don’t seem to show love very well. And some of the most vocal opponents to gay marriage aren’t showing much love.

Some people – straight people (*GASP*) – even use marriage occasionally for personal gain!

So why do they want to be able to marry. Maybe they don’t want to be seen as ‘they’ anymore, but be part of ‘us’ in relationship terms. Maybe they want to share in this splendid tradition, even if a few of us straight people have fucked around with it a bit.

I want to get married. Sure, I dream of it sometimes. But right now I can’t get married because I have no one to marry. If (when!) I meet a girl I want to marry (who wants to marry me as well), getting hitched will not be the most important thing. But it will be a significant celebration and symbol of our love and the status of a committed relationship.



Why does a straight guy care so much? Why have I had passionate arguments with family members about this, dismayed and frustrated by their stubborn views?

Because I don’t understand what the fucking problem is!?!

While some straight couples abuse marriage, there are many homosexual couples putting it up on the pedestal it deserves. They want to be a part of it, to celebrate their love and have it acknowledged on the same level as heterosexual couples. It’s inspiring to see people – gay and straight – passionately standing up for the expression and celebration of love, not fighting to suppress it.

One sensible, logical reason; that’s all I want. That or marriage equality.

My SlutWalk, Melbourne 2011

Yesterday I was one a few thousand people (according to The Age and my own eyes, or a few hundred if you believe the Herald Sun) that attended the Melbourne SlutWalk.

I am not a feminist. I am not a mysoginist. I am not a pervert. I am not a (hardcore/regular) activist (yet).

I am a male. I am in my 20s. I am easily aroused.

I have a number of close female friends, and that doesn't mean I want to have sex with them.

It would actually make my life easier if women did wear something that indicated straight up they're 'up for it' with me, because I sure as hell can't figure them out much of the time. But they don't. And that would probably really be quite a boring world. Nervous, uncertain flirting is all part of this sometimes tense, but mostly fun, social engagement between men and women.

Women have the right to express their sexuality. Currently that right is somewhat suppressed or demonised in a number of ways. Just because some men are more overt in their 'appreciation' of such displays does not mean the onus is on women to alter their behaviour in order to receive the respect they deserve.

Sexualisation in the media is an issue, yes. Using sex to sell, even buying into the sell, is very different to genuine expression of sexuality in a way in which you are comfortable.

I have friends who have been raped and have lingering emotional issues that may stay with them and colour their sexual experiences for the rest of their lives.

And, unfortunately, yes if you walk around the streets of any public space dressed in a way that emphasises your sexuality you are more likely to recieve attention, much of it unwanted.

But as much of the commercial media has failed to recognise this week (not least the Bolt/Morell media family), that is not the essential issue being debated here.

SlutWalk is about shifting harmful attitudes that shouldn't be accepted as just how it is. If some of the critics could have just engaged in the real issue - rather than focusing on the use of the word 'slut' or the potential consequences of what a women chooses to wear (as if they are a just 'the way it is and must always be') - then the discussion would be a truly construcutive one, with plenty of room for debate and varying opinion.

That said, other than the predictable suspects, the walk has received a suprising amount of positive - or at least, neutral - coverage, including in today's Age.

It wasn't as powerful an atmosphere as the SLAM rally - which took over the streets of Melbourne in February last year and was hands-down the most energising and inspiring rally I've attended - but it didn't need to be. Overall SlutWalk pushed a positive message against a largely cynical media, and the event had a really good, fun community vibe. It's harder to ignore or criticise people when they're smiling at you.

Having been initially concerned about the perceptions of a young, virile man attending on his own, I was actually surprised by the number of men. I saw a tweet lamenting a persistent reporting of how many men attended as if this was a pre-requisite for legitimacy. I think the attendance of men yesterday was important. It may be somewhat shallow reasoning, playing a media game, but the fact it was such a diverse crowd with people of all ages, sexualities, genders showed proved in imagery that this was not some stereotypically 'angry feminist' rally, but a community coming together to push for positive attitude change.

And some wonderful images there are. How could you dismiss such a delightful bunch of people as just the 'angry mob'?

I'm not a supporter of the feminists involved in SlutWalk, I'm part of the group calling for a change in attitude. So perhaps I am a feminist. The label is not important, the message is.

If people just stopped acting like dickheads then we'd all be able to have a little more fun in the ways we feel comfortable.

 

Language warning

cunt





Still here? Well obviously you are, so thanks - bear with me.

Did that offend you (you know, that word up top - go on, have another look)? People who were really disgusted are probably gone, but good riddance to them and their claustrophobic minds. If it did offend you in some way, why?

You see, it wasn't directed at you. It wasn't directed at anyone, or anything, for any purpose, with any meaning. It's just a word, sitting up there all alone, with absolutely no context whatsoever; so let's give it some.

Why would anyone start a blog like that? Simply, to demonstrate the power of words - of a single word. Is there any other word that can provoke such reaction without any context? I even tried to soften it up by refusing it its right to a capital 'C'. Because, to tell the truth, I'm even a little uncomfortable with it sitting up there as the opening word of this post.

Its origin is in vulgarity, and that's no doubt where it's impact comes from as a taboo word. However, like many words, its meaning and use has branched out and shifted over (many) years.

'Gay', 'queer', 'terrific' - these are all words that are now used in ways that bear little resemblance to their origins.

According to the undisputable Wikipedia (I do my research!):

Cunt is also used informally as a derogatory epithet in referring to a person of either sex, but this usage is relatively recent, dating back only as far as the late nineteenth century.[3] Reflecting different national usages, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines cunt as "an unpleasant or stupid person", whereas Merriam-Webster has a usage of the term as "usually disparaging & obscene: woman",[4] noting that it is used in the US as "an offensive way to refer to a woman";[5] the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man", however when used with a positive qualifier (good, funny, clever, etc.) in countries such as Britain, New Zealand and Australia, it conveys a positive sense of the object or person referred to.[6]

Yet it's impact remains. I, for one, think that's great! It gives us a unique, vague but powerful word. Even if a few people are needlessly pissed off by it - if they weren't it would probably lose its impact. So surely context, intent and tone are what provide it with its ability to offend.

I despise leaf-blowers and if I say ‘Any man holding a leaf-blower shows himself to be a lazy cunt’, the word gives the sentiment an absurd hyperbolic impact that is otherwise unachievable.

Same with 'fuck'. It the most flexible word, with almost endless uses - as hilariously illustrated in this famous recording. Its etymology seems to be largely tied to sexual intercourse. It's still used in that way, but less often than in the many other ways it can be employed. Today a friend emailed me a copy of a new 'bedtime story for parents' - in children's book style - called Go the Fuck to Sleep. It obviously deals with putting a child to sleep, but no right-minded person would for a second think the word 'fuck' was used with any relation to its original meaning, whatever that may be.

I rarely hear the 'cunt' used as a reference to female genitalia. Strangely, 'Vagina' is generally seen as the acceptable term for this part of female anatomy; its literal Latin translation is 'sheath or 'scabbard' - as in for a sword. To me, that seems pretty degrading. But words change, and few people are aware of Vagina's origin, using it with purity and innocence. It's been successfully reclaimed!

There is one word that seems to be less flexible, even though it has been largely reclaimed by those its been used against, that I can't bring myself to write or utter without feeling like I shouldn't. It starts with 'N'.

Maybe its because of the way I've heard it used - as a specific, targeted attack filled with toxic, baseless hate. Maybe because, even though it has been reclaimed by the African-American community, it hasn't yet established a meaning for general use. If I saw it used appropriately though, I wouldn't be offended regardless of who said it.

I think there are words that are far more insensitive than 'cunt' when used flippantly. 'Rape' for one.

If you were offended by my use of it, it's probably due to connotations you brought with you. Valid they may be, but wherever they come from, it's not me that's offended you.

My only intent was to test reaction. I'm even a little uncomfortable with it sitting up there – but I've used it four times now.

Cunt. Five!

Swear words are important. Fucking important. Sure, they're sometimes used tastelessly, for offence, to hide lack of imagination, or just to excess; but they can effectively communicate strong feeling and add shock or emphasis that makes a joke funny in a way 'acceptable' language can't always achieve. Sorry dad, but yes, some jokes are funny because of the inclusion of ‘fuck’. Not that the word is funny in itself (usually), but it can be a key ingredient to a good joke.

I do say 'cunt' sometimes, in the appropriate context and only among friends I know well who are comfortable with it (ok, I've used it while drunk to be a stirrer and I genuinely regret it).Oh, and now when talking to a bunch of blog readers I may or may not know.

Cunt, fuck, shit, bitch are all great words when used properly, even having artistic value – and we should claim them as legitimate for those uses.

So, what about ‘slut’? I wholeheartedly support the Slutwalk movement, yet had some doubts about the attempt to reclaim the word or empty it of its offensive content. I agree with the general aims of the event. The current common connotations associated with 'slut' should not be applied to a woman just because she expresses her sexuality through dress, behaviour or work, or because they enjoy sex. No woman is ever implicitly asking to be sexually assaulted, abused or harrassed by expressing themselves in this way.

But the word… it seems different to the reclamation and redefinition of 'queer', for example. I mean, that was such an absurd insult in the first place, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Whereas there are people - male and female, straight and gay - who are irresponsibly promiscuous, risking social and medical harm to themselves and others. If 'slut' has any legitimacy in its current form, perhaps this is where it lies. Can we reclaim it? Should we reclaim it? Would it really empower women to reclaim it, while some people continued to use it in a derogatory way?

Then I read this great article by Clem Bastow, one of the organisers of the Melbourne Slutwalk, and found it kind of enlightening.

I guess I felt differently about 'slut' because it has yet to be reclaimed. It's easier to appreciate the shift in a word, like 'queer', from this side - after the fact. I now think the reclaiming of ‘slut’ could be a part of a celebration and liberation of the positive aspects of sexuality – especially for women, whose sexuality is still socially suppressed in many ways. As Clem Bastow pointed out, it’s a process of change not an act of change.

Anyway, the word is just a minor aspect of Slutwalk, and should not get in the way of the bigger issue (it just tied in nicely to this post). What is important in the change Slutwalk seeks is education - so that we all learn to respect each other a little more through our attitudes, which shape how we use these words.

Society changes. So do words. Keep up or fuck off  :o)