[Miscellany]

The most damaging thing about Tony Abbott's comments describing his colleague (candidate for Lindsay, Fiona Scott) is a good choice for the job because she is young, feisty and has sex appeal, is not that it's so very misogynistic (though, just to be clear... I do think it is appalling) but more importantly that it's a reductive way to regard all women.

Generally speaking, it may be flattering to be referred to as having sex appeal but it is completely inappropriate for someone to do so when describing someone's professional capacity.  The value on women is already too often measured in our sex appeal.  Not only is it shallow to describe someone's best qualities as being part of their looks but also we must note that sex appeal has a shelf life.  Therefore when that runs out (and it inevitably will) then what of her qualifications to fulfill her role then?  If there are no qualifications so important as her ability to turn men on when that runs out we must assume that she will no longer be useful.   More alarmingly, what if you are a woman without any sex appeal?  God forbid I suppose you'd have to rely on your sheer tenacity, drive, smarts, experience, clear thinking, idealism and compassion to make it as a politician... not that any of this matters if you are a woman in our future PM's eyes.  Apparently, judging by the "oh he was just being nice, lighten up" supporters of T.Abbott nothing of substance about women matters in a LOT of people's eyes.

I understand that's not what Mr. Abbott said but it's not what he said that motivates me to write this it's what lives between the lines of what he said.  Ultimately, when you reduce a woman's qualities to sex then that is what you are expecting from her.  What of her abilities as a political candidate?  Surely, it's taken a lot of other qualities for her to get to where she is yet the sum of her achievements through his eyes is so inconsequential that he cannot even think of what they are!

As for Mark Latham.  What an arsehole.

Labels: dirty femmo, political musings, rant, silly rabbit, yes I am taking politics

posted by M at 11:44 pm 7 comments

It's been a funny old contemplative weekend.  I caught up with an old friend on Friday night.  K is resplendent in the later stages of her pregnancy and I am torn with being so happy for her and with noticing my own utter lack in this department.  Soon I will be the only one in that particular friendship group sans child.  This is not exactly a welcome concept, mostly due to the fact that our conversations already revolve around poop and children and never around those philosophical and political arguments that we used to have and I wonder how much more baby centered they can become.  It scares me for the state of our friendship, how much longer can I sustain not ever being asked how I am?  Maybe soon I'll be able to slip away in the middle of a conversation and steal into the gin cupboard and no one will even notice.  Even the crazy little voice inside my head is now telling me I need new friends that are at the same stage in life as I am that is (spinsters and lunatics). 

K and I were still able to have a rational conversation on the account of the child still being in utero so we made the most of it by me moaning about my job and her looking at me pityingly and K discussing her fears about giving birth and me (unwisely) advising her to take all the drugs available (preferably at once).  The birth thing sounds rather hard, scary and horrible but I can't pity it.  It's a beautiful miracle and she is so fortunate to have the love in her life that has afforded this experience for her.  I am trying to think of the fortunate things in my life.  I keep coming up with 'at least I'm not homeless' or 'I never have to compromise over the remote control', which is absolutely true but also kind of sad if that is the best I can do.

EM whom I had dinner with last night is in my predicament but she has made peace with her childless, spinster state.  I don't even know how you would begin to do that.  I'm the opposite.  Case in point - this is the photo I'm staring at right now as I type this.  It lives on the wall of my study.



It's beautiful, no?  It's a vision of (my) stupid, ridiculous hope and although I love looking at it I hate that I harbor these hopes still.  It only makes it harder to move on with my life.

Despite that difference between EM and I, we are of one mind when it comes to the plight of the single lady in her 30s.  I like having friends who completely understand what it is like not to want to go to weddings alone and lament on the unfairness of always giving the gift but never being the recipient of any.  Also this:




Anyway we are now living in post-feminist glory (apparently) and a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle (or so I've heard) but my God, when will the wilderness years be over?  I don't give a shit about being independent or see taking the garbage out as a 'win' in the division of labour.  I don't see being single as freeing at all.  In fact I think you are more restricted as a single person.  I can't quit my job and 'find myself'.  Who exactly is going to pay the mortgage when I do that?  If I get sick, there is a series of complicated measures I have to go through in order to get through it.  There's no depending on someone to pick up the slack when things go wrong.  I am not so much fearing being eaten by Alsatians as I am planning it now.

As for breeding.  I can almost literally hear the tick-tocking of that old biological clock ringing in my ears and I realise that this is it.  Halle Berry may be able to get away with having a baby in her late 40s but I won't be able to.  It's now or never and this scares me because... well now is ...NOW.  I have thought about this a bit and I have my own set of morals here about the subject but is it selfish to 'go it alone?'   I'm not counting it out completely, but let's just say I'm not making any appointments to the clinic either...

I'm not even sure what the point of this entry is.  I was going to write about the beauty in the passage of time as symbolised in seeing Before Midnight with K but um... I guess not.  Sorry about that.

Labels: babies, dirty femmo, friends, girls and women, messy women, rant, singletons, there is no life after babies for the mothers in the equation but maybe they don't mind so much anyway, what women want, women

posted by M at 10:28 pm 11 comments

Is Feminism Dead?

It's a question that gets asked every so often, usually on a slow news day, or when a problem comes up that no one has the answer to (I know, let's blame feminism!) or when someone releases a new book on the subject. It's the question that was asked in today's Weekend Australian and the subject debated at tonight's forum From Friedan to Feministas - as part of the Melbourne Writer's Festival.

Is Feminism Dead?

Well, I don't know. I've heard asked so many times over the last 10 years (it's been over 10 years now that the famous article in Time came out) that I have to wonder whether feminism truly has 9 lives? It's dead, then it's alive and kicking and responsible for all the world's ills and then remarkably it's dead again and then...uh oh someone brings up maternity leave in politics and suddenly there it is - feminism - pounding down single buildings with its gigantic (hairy, un-pedicured, lesbian, dirty man-hating - no doubt-) foot and causing all the trouble again. Either it's dead or alive, let's decide on one and leave it at that.

Indeed if we really do pronounce it dead - who the hell killed it?

Was it the Paris Hilton wannabe internet porn stars? Is it the misplaced Spice Girls fans? Is it the "I take pole dancing lessons because it's a great way to keep fit" darlings of the night club scene? Is it the women who don't want to call themselves a feminist because they're "not lesbians and don't hate men" as if asserting somehow that all feminists are this. Is it the deliberate media bashing that feminism garners? Is it single mothers? Happily married mothers who decide not to work? Politicians? Prostitutes? Male opinions on blogs? Is it life after university? Is it the new feminists? Are they too different from the old feminists? What is it that pulled the trigger?

If feminism is dead, what killed it?

At tonight's forum, five women (Emily Maguire, Monica Dux, Catharine Lumby and Susan Maushart) from diverse social, political backgrounds came together to discuss the topic of feminism: Namely - Where are we now? What does it mean for us today? And quite frankly five different and dizzying opinions were put forth. From the rarely discussed silent prejudice against single mothers in the workforce who not only find it difficult in the work force but have also given up their superannuation to look after their children. What happens to them at 65? To "feminism is everywhere" - it's all around us. It's anything but dead - it's alive and kicking. It's still inspiring. It's still happening and though it's more diverse, it's still strong. To an assertion that we should give up the name as it is meaningless and an antagonist for negative opinion. And funnily, though she is often cited as an unrealistic role model - Barbie circa 1963 is the epitome of the modern woman today - bleach blonde, fake tan, fake boobs, brazillian wax, too thin, single and working.

Is feminism dead. Is it too exclusive? Too academic? Too middle class?

One brave woman asked about the elephant in the room. What about the men? Is feminism relevant for them - and if so, how? It was an important question that unfortunately came right at the end. You'd think that yes - considering we're all inextricably engaged - men and women - with each other. Considering men father daughters, marry women, fall in love, care for in a platonic way and all are born from one (and too often, these days anyway - are solely raised by them). Well you think it would be relevant. But is it?

Is feminism dead and buried under the onslaught of differing opinions that never meet in the middle?

It was difficult to keep track of all the opinions and indeed while I was wary of some speakers (Catharine Lumby mostly) by and large there were many opinions from all women on the panel that I agreed with. It really brought home the diversity of the feminist opinion. Is there a unified goal or purpose? Perhaps, no. But does it make it an irrelevant movement that has reached it's end? Judging by the audience (yes there were men, only a few - but they were there) there are many who identify as one, even if we all don't quite agree with their opinions exactly. I think at the heart of it all - feminists are aware that all is not quite right and want to see change that drives our society forward into a more harmonious place. A more equal place. That's the way I read it anyway. Indeed, the way we humans live is not quite right for many people, many groups are marginalised by society - and indeed feminists fight not only for women but for pretty much all the groups that are maginalised because all of them are interconnected in some way with feminism. That's how broad it is.

Is feminism dead? What a hostile question! What a sensationalist question and example of lazy journalism. Like anything else, maybe it depends on who you ask, of course.
I'd like to see more bravery happening from women when it comes to feminism, but does that mean it's dead?

And if it is, what the hell does a girl with a blog and a voice and a job and a brain and who is not going to be duped by public opinion to the contrary about what a feminist is. Who believes that all things are not equal ...yet. Who feels there is room for change for both genders. Who understands that not all choices are created equal and the claim that "everyone has a choice" is one of the biggest myths that pervades our consciousness. If feminism is dead. What does that girl call herself?

Labels: dirty femmo, girls and women, melbourne musings, real women, what men want, what women want

posted by M at 9:01 pm 6 comments

* Why do people hate people with red hair so much? I'm afraid that reddy boys get the worst end of the stick for some reason. Every single preggo chick I've known has at some point expressed a wish for it 'not to be a ranga'. I've even heard 'shall drown it if it is' (which made me laugh, sorry). I don't really see what all the fuss is about as I am a card carrying member of the Eric Stolz fan club (and have gone down that road myself via a dye bottle or two) however I have been assured that giving birth to a red one is something worth worrying about. Hell, my friend E discovered that her beloved has a bit of red in the beard and is now worried that all her anti-red tirades will come back to haunt her through her future children who she claims will be doomed to red hair and freckles - all coming from a gene that is about as far away from her own family as you can imagine. L (the husband) gets it every now and again in the form of anti-red/you have a defective gene emotional outbursts.

What is it about carrot top boys that entice ridicule, anger, distaste, fear and loathing? Why is it okay to have a ginger minge if you're a girl but not if you're a boy?

* Was bored and so I got into the car and drove the Eastlink the other day (what an exciting life I lead, I hear you think!). Now the Eastlink is this newly opened stretch of freeway that "links up" Melbourne's outer Eastern suburbs with roads leading directly into the city. It's a tollway and since it just opened we get a free trial. The road itself is okay. It's a visually textured stretch of road - which means that there's a lot of different "stuff" to look at a long the way. There's about a million pieces of sculpture and lots of brightly coloured barricades to stare at (of course this is just highly annoying if you're the one doing the driving). Having said all that I'm left with the feeling that while the road is fine to drive on I wonder whether all those stops along the new freeway are really places best left unlinked instead. Have we opened portals to other dimensions we really shouldn't have? I got to the end and realised I didn't really want to be there. Maybe it (only?) works better when you're heading into the city?

Has anyone driven it? What did you think of the artwork? Did "hotel" do it for you?

*I'm getting right into Big Brother UK at the moment (In all fairness I've given up on ours and only watch Big Mouth now). I don't know exactly what it is about their BB that I like so much but I think it has something to do with the fact that they actually DO have a variety of ages in there (rather than one old tart and everyone else barely out of the womb like we do) and their Big Brother is less about "twists" and more about laying the foundations for more real interactions than we have. Interestingly I'm finding that while we as a whole (audience and housemates) are more polite (not including Brigitte) than the Brits (they actually boo their housemates!) us Aussies fail big time in two important areas: our attitude towards race and women (and yes, if you're suddenly thinking but the Brits aren't so great at those things either then you're actually getting my point!).

I've written and re-written this paragraph about a million times and yet it never seems to come out right so I'll just say this. The "bloke-speak" in the Australian version of BB is out of control BAD - both in verbalisation but also the general attitude too. A couple of years ago I wrote this and I have to say my thoughts on the matter haven't changed one bit even though no actual "turkey slapping" has been going on in the Oz house this year.

Labels: art, babies, big brother, blokes, crap reality tele, dirty femmo, gender stuff, questions, ranga, TV, wonderings

posted by M at 1:30 am 22 comments

I've watched the show on and off for the last few weeks and it's not bad. Basically How to Look Good Naked takes a new woman every episode who hates her own body (with a gut wrenching passion) and shows her how to love it, just as it is - perhaps with a little bit of frosting by way of a better bra/hair do but essentially without an extreme makeover. Pretty good idea, huh?*

There are so many women who hate their bodies. I have never met one woman in my life who is completely at ease with her body. I don't even know OF any women who are completely at ease with their body actually. I do however know size 6 (I think that's size 0 in the US) women who complain they are fat, who live at the gym, who think their legs are fat. It's wrong. Perhaps one might be more accepting of their own body after years of dieting or after the extreme makeover like you see on the those TV shows but as a whole we women are very good at hating our bodies. I think the stats the show talks about is that 4 out of every 5 American women hate their body and people who we see in magazines are skinnier than 98% of us. It's really no wonder we have a problem with normality when what we compare ourselves to is completely unrealistic?

Know anyone with an eating disorder?
Ever had one yourself?

I'm guessing there would be a lot of yes answers to that - it's sad.

I think the biggest problem with all this is that hating your body means that:
1) you don't get out there and live your life.
2) you are more vulnerable to feeling less worthy than a magazine cover that has been airbrushed.
3) you feel like shit.
If 4 out of 5 women feels like that then wow, how easy would it be to keep us girls down? Pretty fucking easy. It's always easier to make people with low self worth feel even worse about themselves.

Easily my favourite part of the show is when the girl in question is asked to slot herself into a line of near naked ladies - in accordance to the size she thinks she is. Every woman's self image so far has been of herself being larger than she is. They slot themselves into the larger side. That says a lot about self perception.



Even if the girls were being modest during this and don't see themselves as large (even though they put themselves down the larger end of the line) it says a lot about how we women represent and view ourselves. If 4 out of every 5 women feel like crap because they're not good enough for some reason or another then 4 out of every 5 women are not big noting themselves, even when they do deserve it. I'm reminded of this:

Research in Linda Babcock’s 2004 book Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, found that 93 per cent of female graduates from a US university simply accepted the starting salaries they were offered in their first job, while more than half of the male graduates tried to negotiate up.

Is it any wonder this happens? 4 out of 5 women can't even look at themselves in the mirror, do you really think these same women are going to ask for a pay rise? Um, no. I'm not saying this is all due to hating our bodies but I do think that yes, it's all tied in with a greater feeling of unworthiness for us. Who knows where it really comes from originally (do we go back to Eve?), and who knows why we willingly adhere to it so readily by buying into the beauty myth time and again but yes, it exists, yes it's very real, yes it affects our everyday lives.

Probably though the biggest question I have coming out of the show How to Look Good Naked though is why it takes a gay man to tell us women to love ourselves? You'd think a woman would be willing to tell us because we should love ourselves, or perhaps the straight men who are supposed to love us for who we are could let us know. No? Not going to happen any time soon huh? Interesting.

In the meanwhile - while we all scramble to get our acts together. Thank you, Carson (and Gok Wan - also openly gay and hosted the original series) <3


* Honestly I've heard some people argue that this kind of show is horrible simply because we shouldn't let people believe that they are beautiful when they so obviously are not (ie: they are too fat and since fat is not beautiful by society's standrads then they shouldn't be allowed to love themselves because if they loved themselves then they wouldn't lose weight). This kind of argument disgusts me to no end.

On to music - Their first album Lesser Matters has been on constant rotation in my car over the last few weeks. I can't tell you how much I am loving this band lately. This song is particular makes me want to run through a valley of golden wild flowers for some reason. I have strange fantasies.

Where Damage Isn't Already Done - The Radio Dept.

Labels: bodies, crap reality tele, dirty femmo, messy women, questions, real women, the price of beauty, TV, women, wonderings

posted by M at 10:09 pm 16 comments

A couple of months ago when I wrote a post about the (lack of) visibility of the penis in contemporary mainstream cinema I never thought that it would be so soon between drinks (so to speak) and I could again be subjected to the same enjoyable spectacle. Yes folks, penis spotting is alive an well in the Sex and the City movie currently doing the rounds at the cinemas.

Funnily enough it wasn't really the penis itself that interested me this time, more that the so called traditional male gaze of the camera had been flipped and twisted for a second into an almost unheard of female gaze. It was a bit of a shock to me that I became so aware of the switch in the first place. I had just assumed that a movie about women and basically made for women would be filmed primarily with a female gaze - god knows the subject matter would probably bore any heterosexual man to a slow and painful death -but I assumed wrong. It seems that the female gaze remains as highly elusive in popular mainstream cinema as it ever was and I don't think this phenomenon is due to any kind of big conspiracy either - it just is that way, god knows why but it just is. The fact is that a female perspective in cinema may exist in so far as subject matter and characterisation is concerned but not in terms of cinematography. Does it even matter? I don't know - does it? Women look at women's bodies all the time - the difference is that while we will, can and do appreciate the female form this is not necessarily a sexually laden gaze - does the male gaze of the camera lens take this concept fully into consideration or is it just all knowing and omnipresent like God? It is all gazes, it is the only gaze, it is supreme and all accommodating? And if this is the case why did I get the shock of my life when I finally recognised the female camera gaze? Hm, why indeed?

The scene in question was the a shower scene where man-crazy Samantha pervs on her neighbour as he takes a naked outdoor shower (as you do in California apparently). The camera moves slowly and lovingly over the man's body, focusing on his heavily defined and muscular back and perfect bum and right down to his strong, tanned and not too hairy legs before it travels back up again to it's final destination - the money shot. If I ever needed a moment to tell me what women see when they are having a good perv that was it. I had become so accustomed to viewing cinema through the filter of the male gaze (camera) that I had to think twice in order to recognise my own. It felt foreign to see something filmed so entirely from the point of view of a woman that I completely disengaged from watching the movie. I remember thinking "oh, now that's interesting" - but it wasn't his body, it was the camera that I found interesting. Also the sudden representation of a female filter by which to watch a movie, one I had naively assumed I had always viewed movies with, was just so strange. The fact that I had just realised then just how strange it was unnerved me - the movie while being female-centric was filmed primarily in classic male gaze form. The point being of course not that this was done in order to exclude women, just the opposite the point is that we, women, are most comfortable in viewing cinema (all art?) in this way. The question of course then is why?

When I have theorised the male gaze of the camera in the past it is always with reference to old movies of the Hitchcockian era (and of course Laura Mulvey) where scopophilia really was a male dominated art form. I'd assumed due to various changes in movie subject matter, the rise of female directors and indeed the societal changes due to the women's movement that cinema had changed too. Ahem - perhaps not.

It's funny that it took *this* particular movie based on a series so obsessed with highlighting the *look we've come so far because now we can have sex like men* cliche, to drum the point home. We women are comfortable seeing ourselves through the point of view of how men see us - and perhaps this is highlighted in many of the female-centric things we partake in
(beauty myth etc) and I don't know that we'd even want to change that if we had the chance anyway. The question for me still is, why? I still can't answer it - it's ingrained there somewhere between why we will willingly pay for the pleasure of ripping the hair out of our most sensitive places and why GW Bush was ever re-elected. Questions I guess that answering will open a can of worms so big it can never be contained. Maybe we need that, I don't know but I do think it's highly fucked up that the so called female camera gaze existed for a grand total of 10 seconds in a movie based on women and made for women. Food for thought.

On another note, almost every (straight) guy I know loathes these women, the series, the whole premise of the show etc. Is it hated because it's subversive or because it's bullshit? I've said it before but when something is hated then it's always because a few buttons are in the process of being well and truly pushed.

What say you? Are there any movies you can recommend that show the female gaze in action? Remember female subject matter/characterisation do not necessarily mean a female gaze..

Sex and the City - do you hate it/them? Why?


And now my musical choice today comes of my female gaze quite happily looking through the filter of the male gaze. Go figure! Here we have the Duck Man performing probably my favourite of all songs I've ever discovered through watching a movie - Otis Redding's Try a Little Tenderness. A scene I love so much I shared it with my university film class as "a favourite" and a song I love so much I rang Gold FM to request it and was sternly told that "we don't play *that*". Hmph! Here are my two favourite things, movies and music combined. Okay, three favourites: Duckie.
...Apparently he has strong lips. Bless!

Try A Little Tenderness - Otis Redding.

Labels: bodies, cinema, dirty femmo, film theory, gaze, men, movies, musical monday, objectification, scopophilia, sex, women

posted by M at 9:36 pm 25 comments

Being a non-babied up person living in a world where it seems like everyone has spawned has afforded me the opportunity to observe things without being too emotionally involved. I have my pet peeves with how mums and dads behave just like I have my pet peeves by how ordinary everyday people behave. In fact, one might argue that I have a lot of pet peeves. Oh well, I'm peevey - you really got a problem with that?

A little issue has arisen lately in baby-land and I have to say, it's given me more peeves than ever thought possible. I'm talking about how people react to the weight of babies. Now I realise that weight is probably the most important way that one can distinguish how healthy a baby is but I'm not talking about that. It's the language that people use.

My friend S's little miracle (really, he actually is - spend first couple of months at the Children's hospital and really was touch and go for a while there) has been growing in leaps and bounds since he was released from the hospital. Really he is one of the cutest babies in the world. He's one of those babies that strangers will boldly approach and want to hold. Things started off a little rough for the poor guy but now he's doing well. In fact when people see him how they ALWAYS comment about what a big boy he is, and how chubby he is getting and ...hey maybe mum should be putting him on a little feeding restriction. The thing is little N is not like those big babies you see on Phil Donohue where the baby is actually half the size of mum at 1 year of age and looks basically like an adult in diapers (though, I might be confusing this with a whoooole other episode of Donohue). Little N is in fact precisely in the 50th percentile for his weight. He's the epitome of normality. He's not 1 percent below or above he's just right. Meanwhile mothers of babies born on the 15th percentile are commenting about what a chubbster N is - not in a nice way either - in an I'm slightly worried about your baby way - patronising, utterly patronising. Like as if being born thin and still thin is somehow better than than being normal and healthy.

The reason why it's a peeve of mine is that I can see where this is leading. We already have this preoccupation with children's weight and the so-called obesity crisis in children. I wish I could link to an entry that "pubby" wrote about this issue but he's taken his blog offline - but he also asked whether these figures were sincere because he hadn't noticed that suddenly all these kids were supposedly fat. I work with kids. I see kids everyday and there is probably 1 per class who is overweight. IF THAT. I don't have any this year at all. In fact I'm looking at all the children I know who started school this year and there is not ONE who would even be considered chubby - that's almost 100 new children! Figures point to something like 40% of children being fat but from what I've seen it's actually about 5% which is called a NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of fat folks. Maybe it's 10% in some areas...yes, more concerning but still, hardly an epidemic! I don't know if figures are being inflated or whether the way we measure fat is right off the scale (pun intended) but if it's an epidemic then I don't bloody see it at all.

The point is the weight obsession starts with babies. All these mothers (let's face it, mostly mums) are obsessed with talking about the weight of their own children but not only that, I sense some smugness and defensiveness about weight, depending on where on the percentile the baby falls. Once I commented on how F's baby J had grown into a big boy. I hadn't seen him in about 3 months and he was like a new child. So what, he got big! Big deal, it's great, it's called growing. But I got flicked with the end of the wrath stick quick smart by F who snapped that actually he's only on the 30th percentile now and not big at all. Ohhhhh kay, sorry didn't think I was suggesting that your baby was a sumo wrestler but hey, whatever.

Incidentally why is it so wrong to say that a female baby is a "big strong girl". Ever try saying that one? It's like you're saying "hey I've just noticed that your daughter is a big fat dyke. I can see that she's a breath away from letting her body hair get to unflattering lengths and start listening to angry girl rock" I thought, growing was supposed to be a good thing! Maybe not in girls.

In other news concerning dirty femmo stuff, I was intrigued by a column in Sunday's Age by Angela Pippos "What's Wrong with Being a Fashionista Feminist Anyway?" where she addresses just how diverse feminists are in this era. She also says

I'm a feminist. Was that so hard?
It's really not a big deal. I simply believe that women should be given the same opportunities as men. Throw me in in the river and see if I float. It's hardly radical but, in my experience, any mention of the "f" word in male company can bring on a type of behaviour often seen in a David Attenborough documentary, followed by a sudden attack of mundane questioning".

She goes on to list a few examples of questioning she is immediately dealt by affronted men "Do you expect men to open doors for you?" "Do you want a man to pay for dinner on a first date?" etc. You know the typical questions asked of femnos that makes everyone want to stab their eyes out. What really interests me about her column is the underlying question for me about feminism. Why is it still a dirty word? Yes, I'm being serious. In all my years of being a feminist I've never met one who hates men. I've never met one who burns her bra. I've never met one who spends all night planing to picket the local men's club or any of the other stereotypes that are prescribed to so called ..here is comes "feminazis". Do I know lesbian femmos? Of course. Does that mean ALL feminists are gay? Do I know femmos who are frustrated by the status quo and frustrated by some perceptions perpetrated by men. Hell yes, does that mean that they are frustrated with men in general? Pssssh, I don't think so. I hate that type of generalising of feminists that happens but actually has little grounds in reality.

I don't know about you but when I hear the old "you're a man hater" (often comes in a feminist type entry) and it's been written here on this journal as well me reading it on so many other feminist blogs that I've lost count - I often think that the person writing it either has shit for brains, doesn't actually KNOW any feminists or rather...doesn't KNOW any women AT ALL or that maybe..just maybe THEY don't really like women all that much themselves, or feel threatened by them expressing an opinion - whatever. The fact that I *am* a feminist and I don't actually know ANY feminists who hate men NOR do I hate them myself sort of makes me wonder why on earth that's a phrase that is so easily thrown around by others when confronted with someone who claims to be a feminist? I mean I always hear about these so-called feminists who are supposed to hate men, usually it comes in the form of "yeah I know a feminist who hates men" but you know..it's sort of like an urban myth to me. Have you heard the one about the lady with the boil on her face that exploded and 50 tiny spiders came out? Yeah, that common. If anything feminists have so much problem in appearing a unified group with unifying beliefs in the first place that *men* aren't even the issue. It's women and what women think that is more of an issue.

Perhaps it's that feminist discourse is centered around the fact that things are not quite right in the world of woman. That there are certain issues that affect our gender and those issues maybe be life threatening or indeed socially confining to women. Maybe there's some resentment too, that women get the focus for this type of discourse? The fact that they are discussed might be a little too confronting for some people and confused with hate - when really it's not about hate at all, it's about getting answers and asking WHY does this happen to women? Is that a wrong question to ask? I certainly don't think so. It does NOT negate the FACT that things happen to men too and that is an important point. That in fact we are all individuals who have shit happen to us at some stage or another and that there are issues for men that are just as concerning that in fact SHOULD be discussed too. They should be discussed by the same people that are complaining that are sick of hearing about women's issues and say that yeah, men have issues too can't you see that? Well, dude, discuss away! Indeed, asking why the world is a certain way is not about hating anyone. It's about trying to get answers about how things are and perhaps start discourse that will affect change. One can only hope anyway.

I know that discussions about rape, prostitution, maternity leave and domestic violence gets a lot of backs up, especially with men but the fact of the matter is that these things DO happen and they DO happen mostly to women and the fact that we make up more than half the population means that it's something that everyone should be worried about. These are things that SHOULD be discussed widely and without refrain. It happens and the fact that it happens disturbingly often to one gender over another is a cause for feminist discourse. Live with it! I've read so many "anti-feminist" blogs (mostly written by anonymous people with anonymous comments - just goes to show doesn't it?) that will reference one article where a woman has beaten her husband in a show of domestic violence. Yes it happens and this is horrible. I don't want to diminish that - but the anti-feminist blogger will then say (and this happens in almost 100 percent of all anti-feminist bloggers) something along the lines of "and now you see why I refuse to get involved with all women. Women are evil etc etc". This is in direct opposition to most feminist blogs which takes issue on women's issues in society and how that affects us and in fact are a celebration of female achievement in the arts and culture. They are positive places that actually reserve any condensation of men to specific examples ie: THIS MAN said something not quite right about women. THIS MAN is wrong. Whereas the anti-feminist blogs that I've read are all about generalising one act to mean *all* women and being defensive about it too. Perhaps I've yet to come across a anti-feminist blog that is about being male positive instead of female negative. I'm know that there are some feminist blogs that really ARE venomous about a lot of things too, including men but definitely not the popular ones. The popular feminist blogs are generally very political places that invite discussion by men and indeed a lot of them have a dedicated male following too.

For the record I have read many male written gender positive blogs that have nothing to do with anti-feminism - they don't shy away from bringing up issues that are specific to men either! They are great and there should be more of them. They write about male and female issues with sex, violence and everything in between and they are so great because they don't fall into that age old trap of 'what I admire about women is their breasts, bum, legs, they look beautiful, they smell beautiful' - which is quite typical in what DOES tend to get written about women from a male perspective. I mean that kind of blog is great and all but male blogs that go beyond that REALLY need to be applauded for being so great - and they're not great because I agree with them, because I don't always, they're great because they are truthful without falling into "all feminists are bitches" type rhetoric.

Considering that not all feminists are the same, nor do any of the old stereotypes stand up why is it that the F-word is still a dirty one?

Anyway, on to Musical Monday in this haphazard post of mine. Of course, let's just complete the entry with a reference to Kat Bjelland; an artist I'm pretty much so in awe of I can't quite figure out the right words. She looks like an angel but has the voice of a terrifying demon. That's the best I can come up with. In the early days she cavorted around with Courtney Love and Jennifer Finch experimenting in a couple of bands before all went their separate ways and all became highly influential artists in their own right, with their own bands. I sigh here as I make the distinction and say they were 'female centered' bands - grrl rock if you will. Why? Oh because I've featured many, many bands who have all male members and sing about manly things but never distinguished them by saying 'all male' or 'male centered'. It's funny how these distinctions work in rock for women as opposed to men but there you have it.

Babes in Toyland had been around for a good many years before I got into them. I was completely taken with Kat Bjelland and in particular her rock operatic meets screaming banshee type singing voice.

She was a cheerleader in high school by the way.

A cheerleader AND a dirty femmo too. Oh my god, is your mind about to explode? Yes, it's true, us dirty femmos aren't just one type of person. I guess, that was my whole point. Mother's can be feminists. Hot girls can be feminists. Women who love men can be feminists. Scientists can be feminists. Radio personalities can be feminists. Men can be feminists. Cheerleaders can be feminists. It's not just one type of person. And for the record I've read many a comment implying that those people mentioned above CAN'T be feminists - like mum's can't be feminists. ha! Well I'm linking right here to a GREAT entry by a femmo mum who outlines some great points about how to raise your daughter a feminist and you know what? The initial question about 'how do I raise my daughter a feminist?' came from a bloke. How's that for breaking down a few barriers. Yes folks, it's not actually about man hating. Sorry to disappoint - on with the music.

Bruise Violet - Babes In Toyland (apparently not about Courtney Love..but I doubt it! lol).



Sweet 69 - Babes in Toyland

Labels: babies, dirty femmo, girls and women, messy women, musical monday, real women, vicious women, what women want, why, why do people get so touchy when it comes to talking about these things?, women

posted by M at 4:45 pm 23 comments

A few months ago I saw the Tarantino movie Death Proof and it got me thinking. For the record, I am a fan of his work - mostly for his brilliant use of quick dialogue but also for the blur that exists in his depicting a concrete era. I like the fact that Pulp Fiction is 50s influenced however also very much a contemporary look at the culture at the time. It's like all of his work, not quite retro, not quite a homage but very much flavourful of a genre or era without being overpowered by it. I also happen to think he has flawless taste in music and so, no matter the film I know that the soundtrack will be a killer.

I remember though when PF came out. Tarantino got a lot of flack for
a) language.
b) violence.
c) lack of strong female characters in his work.

Personally I think all three were bogus complaints all based in truth of course, but bogus nevertheless. I enjoyed the language and violence and if a man can't make a boy centered movie with a bit of grit then I don't want to know him. Yes, he uses excessive language and yes some of the scenes in all of his movies are disgusting. So what? Deal with it.

Tarantino was a smart cookie though, he saw how popular his character Mrs Mia Wallace (from PF) was among both ladies and gents that he addressed his lack of strong female leads quick smart and made one of the most kickarse lady movies ever - Kill Bill vol 1 and 2. Death Proof once again looks at female leads, however, he also adds in a strong male character to mix it up: Stuntman Mike.

The movie Death Proof has two parts within the movie - and this is going to be full of spoilers folks... The first part - three girls who think they are "badass" take to the road, visit a bar meet Stuntman Mike and end up dead. The second part - another group of girls, take to the road, visit a diner, meet Stuntman Mike and kick the shit out of him.

What was different? And just how did the second lot of girls outsmart and out kick Stuntman Mike? I mean, this guy had his sadist act down. He has a death proof car folks and he was not afraid to use it to kill women of his choosing.

Let's just have a little look see at wider society and women. One could argue in this era of post-feminism we have two kinds of women - women who don't take any shit and women who do. Of course, the reality is that there are many kinds of women, all individual - but this is a MOVIE guys, let's be serious - plus, we're looking at generalities here and in terms of a generality this would be right. Shit takers and shit givers. One could argue the same for men as well. People. People are shit takers or shit givers.

The shit takers in this movie would be seen in the first part of the movie. They are the hot, sexy girls who flirt with any man that moves. Why? Well just because they can folks, just because they can. For the record, no man complains about this fact. Who doesn't want a hot girl dressing sexy and flirting with them? Hell, did I mention they are hot? The guys are lining up to buy them drinks and the girls accept the drinks, give the boys a little sugar by way of kisses and flirting and then leave. Hell, that's their prerogative, girls don't have to put out if they don't want to do they? These girls in part one, in no uncertain terms know what they want. They are not stepford wives. They are not on a hunt for a husband. They are not gold diggers or any of that. They have careers and their own minds. This is very important to the plot because in no way are we to think of these girls as traditionally "weak".

Things for these girls seem pretty peachy. Everyone thinks they are a lovely, and they are. In the land of successful females they go very far. The thing is though, even though they seem so in control of their lives they are not. All men's interactions with these girls are only based on sex. The men buy drinks for them because they want sex. The girls promise lap dances for a certain password from men. In fact they are much more crude than the men in the film - they would see themselves as the type of women who are empowered by their sexuality. Watching the movie, you get that impression too. Their "careers" (or just the way they live their lives) are based around sex, or being sexy. Now, sex is a powerful tool and it has been theorised ad nauseum that sex is the most powerful tool that a woman can have in this world. I'm inclined to agree that it IS but I also happen to think that this SUCKS. It means that our options are quite limited if we want to be successful doesn't it? Here's what I think about these kinds of women: women who use sex to their advantage in dealings with men (by sex I mean flirting, being sexy to get what they want etc) are not the kind of women I like. I think they are selling all of us short and quite frankly demeaning themselves. HOWEVER, I do think that women who do use sex as power get very far. Mostly because our society rewards this kind of behaviour from women, rather than from men.

So why then do these women die if they have all the power? Well because like all people with only one source of power they are easy targets. These are the girls who are watched and while there is power in being 'beheld' there is absolutely no autonomy. All their power is based in sex and so when you take that away - ie: you're not interested in their sex then you render them completely powerless and useless. They don't matter any more. They are nothing. And Stuntman Mike, he's a sadist from way back, he doesn't care about the sex - only the cruelty that comes with exploiting that. They have no power when it comes to him and rightly so; they all die. Now you see why I think those girls who base all their power in sex sell the rest of us short. They don't really prosper in dire situations - and life itself is one dire situation after another really.

Enter part 2; 14 months after the part 1 girls have been brutally murdered by Stuntman Mike. Life has changed dramatically in this time. The opening shot, of a cheerleader makes you think that these are going to be yet another bunch of archetypal females that make male fantasies churn, and yet it is realised immediately that this is a big joke on us. These girls might be watched but they also do the looking, and the choosing. These girls are nothing like the ones that came before. It feels like one decade has gone by, socially speaking, rather than only a year. Enter our four main protagonists - again, all sexy/pretty girls who hang out in a male dominated world. They talk about their boyfriends, they talk about their jobs - but they pay their own way. These girls are lovely as well, but they just do their own thing. Their power is based somewhere outside the realm of sex, though it is apparent that they are not abstaining from sex, nor from men. They are just not concerned with flirting it up with randoms. Stuntman Mike notices them though and he's getting ready to kill again but something happens: The girls won't be bullied. He can't take away their sexual power by hating them, because their power isn't based in sex. They've got something different going on.
1) They stick together when it counts.
2) They make their own fun.
3) They are not afraid to get down and dirty.

This is extremely different from the girls in part 1. Both sets of girls have their own jobs and have lives and their own money. On the surface they are poster children for 'new woman' - but as always it's the inside that counts. The part two girls aren't basing their power in sex. They don't need their sexuality reaffirmed everywhere they go. And so, when Stuntman Mike approaches them, they aren't scared into a corner by him, nor are they titillated or charmed like the part 1 girls were. Sure the circumstances were different in part 2, but in the end the part 2 girls were not to be beaten down and killed. They got back on the horse and chased the man down and then beat him until he died. As in, with their bare hands. I have to make the distinction that they're not targeting normal everyday guys - they aren't the perpetrators of violence but they can turn it on when someone else starts it - I love that.

In the second part, the twist is that the girls win. Which comes as a surprise because actually no one expects that to happen - it's so rare in a movie of this sort (slasher/car movie - incidentally movies I grew up watching - especially car movies which I had major nightmares about). These women also stick together and this is an important point. When women base their power in sex then you can easily tear them apart - you don't even have to try. This is because when you have a group of women who all base their power in the reaffirmation of their sexuality and you add one man into the mix then that group of women will immediately begin tearing each other down in order to get to the man. I've seen it a million times before with girlfriends. In the case of the movie you have the part one girls arguing about whether to take the guys home with them, even though they all agreed not to. And you also have them exchange rivalries with each other over men. This isn't good when you're trying to make it out alive. The part two girls stick together and don't have any interest in being rivals at all. It's why they come out alive.

I guess what I'm saying is, and Tarantino touches on it to, that there are girls who look to men to reaffirm their sexuality and those girls are always going to be beaten down because not only does that not last forever but also there will always be people who will want to exploit that. Hell society exploits that all the time. It may be a HUGE power source to be perpetually sexy - but it's also one of the EASIEST to exploit and manipulate. A girl who is thought of only as a sum of body parts (only praised because she has a great arse or great legs or whatever it is that is admired at the time) is easily cut down into body parts when it comes down to it. She's never whole, she's just legs, or neck, or lips etc. That kind of blows. If a girl only has that going for her then she doesn't really have all that much at all and if that's all she's admired for then it says little about those doing the admiring. You see these kinds of girls everywhere, in life and in blog-land too funnily enough. Sometimes words are enough without pictures even. Everything comes back to sex - or rather to the odd comment or entry that screams; 'remember, I'm sexy!'. Couple that with being ultra competitive with other women and you have someone who is easily dismantled, humiliated and left alone without backup. Not a good position to be in when being hunted down (aka, life)

Girls, keep your girlfriends close and your interests varied. Girlfriends will back your shit up with the chips are down and if you're not afraid to smudge the mascara a bit then you can kick some major arse! Don't worry, you can always keep a makeup compact in your purse, for the touch up afterwards.

Should girls kick arses or are they better off just using sex to get what they want? Is not using sex too utopian for the society we live in - do women HAVE to use their sexuality to their advantage in order to get ahead, not just in work but in life, generally speaking?
How do men use their sexuality to get what THEY want - and why doesn't anyone ever call them on it?

Labels: dirty femmo, gender stuff, generalisations, hang it up daddy, men, movies, pop culture, women

posted by M at 1:22 am 24 comments

 # posted by M @ 1:22 am

Man #1: Funny thing about women. If you don't make big a pitch for them they get mad. If you do...they get mad. How can you win?

Man #2: You can't - they're not playing for the same stakes.

Where the Boys Are (1960).

I was watching this old 1960s classic about women, men sex and Fort Lauderdale during Spring Break. While the women grapple with whether they should or shouldn't..go all the way. The men are busy trying to convince them that there's only one option. After all cats it's the 1960s, what are we antiquated or something? Get with it!

The problem with all this perfectly outlined by the dialogue above is that men and women in 1960 aren't playing for the same stakes. The stakes being - virtue, love and marriage versus lust, fun and immediacy. Both wonderful in their own way - just very different. It makes for interesting viewing. The boys are trying to persuade the girls to give it up and the girls are trying to convince the boys to give up something too: their bachelorhood. It seems that they'll never quite get it together - either the boys need a little convincing or the girls do.

So a lot has changed, right?

Just a few short years later the sexual revolution was in full swing. Girls didn't have to wait for marriage in order to explore their sexuality anymore. Indeed, women were exploring a lot of things, including being the bread winner as well as cooking that bread and exploring for the first time a decision about the bun in the oven .

One didn't have to get married anymore to do anything they wanted, but that didn't mean that people didn't get married young. It still happened. In fact most women I know from that era DID get married, very very young - this is despite their "options".

Nowadays girls give it up big time and some even proclaim (and personally I hate this saying) that they can "have sex like a man". Waiting to get married until after one fulfills their personal dreams is something that happens more often. In fact every single woman I know who has gotten married in the last..oh say 20 years (since I started noticing that people actually got married) has had not only a career but earning on par or beyond their husbands. Yes things have certainly changed since 1960.

You'd think though, that things had changed so much that marriage would have been made redundant. Certainly one doesn't "need" to get married like one did in the old days. However, marriage is vibrantly alive. The truth of the matter is that people are still running down the isle, one, two even three times isn't uncommon. Just because we're breaking up more often hasn't actually affected the marriage game. Let's not forget that those who decide not to make it legal are still engaging in married like behaviour - making a home, having children, monogamy - defacto. While the cost of a ring has been spared, in the eyes of the law these people are as good as married, so the point still stands. Marriage is not dead. Far from it.

Has the concept of men being trapped by marriage (by women) changed though? Surely, since remember we don't *have* to get married anymore but you know what? No, it hasn't. If men needed to be convinced back in the 60s then they still have to be convinced now.

Has the concept of the fallen woman versus the healthy bachelor changed? Well, yes and no. Men who sleep around are still thought of as playboys which hasn't changed much since the 60s. Women who sleep around certainly aren't considered fallen anymore. However, there is a rather nasty stigma attached to women who decide to have frequent sexual liaisons with numerous men - and indeed women who specifically decide not to turn the sex into a relationship.

So things in that regard have changed in some ways but not in all ways.

The stakes you'd think would be evened out. But at the core of it all there's still that old struggle between wanting to get married versus (and we all know one) - the commitment-phobe. And there's still the struggle in cultural opinion of the slut versus the bachelor.

It's been 48 years since the 1960s dawned and in 48 years of enormous social, political and technological change. We have all the earmarks of change happening around us ... but when it comes down to the big things what has actually changed? I keep coming up with nothing significant except ...underwear. Women's underwear has definitely changed.

Labels: dirty femmo, gender stuff, men, movies, pop culture, women

posted by M at 10:12 pm 19 comments

* Currently rather sick, in manner of throwing up a lot and limited to bed and tele watching but too sick and bothered to properly look for the remote. This means I'm stuck on whatever channel it is that has ready steady cook on it (no, changing channel by getting up is not really something I want to do when fear of bile rising up haunts me). It's rather unfair to be subjected to watching RSC when I can't actually eat anything at the moment. Also rather unfortunate that I'm missing all the parties I actually WANT to go to but am well for the ones that I would rather avoid. How in the hell does that work? Also rather shitty that have fallen sick at time when I have no sick "leave without doc certificates" left. This means I have to pay 60 odd bucks for a trip to the doctor if I want to get paid, better yet the doctor is booked up until after this blasted illness will have already ravaged me and shall be back to normal. I always find it's better not to ask for a medical certificate when you're nice and healthy. Oh ya, I really was sick Doc. Pluz give me two days off for last week!! I iz telling da truth, honest! It's either that scenario or get docked two days of pay. At this point I'm just too bothered to care and that maybe having less pay this week will stop me from splurging over the Christmas season. I knew that I was born under an unlucky sign. Stupid tummy bug.

* Last Sunday afternoon I decided quite suddenly to get Xmas shopping done in one day. Yes, you read right I didn't even get up early in the morning. I just turned up willy nilly mid afternoon thinking righto, now who do I need to buy for? Looking back probably not one of my better plans. Might have worked best if I had a list or ...well my wits about me. I forgot to buy about 5 presents and now I have to make time in-between spews to go back. I have spend a rather gargantuan sum of money all fueled by my philosophy of I'd rather buy this perfect present than spend the rest of the day looking for something similar but cheaper. On the whole I do think that if you get me for your Kris Kringle/Secret Santa gift you've hit a spot of good luck. If, however you happen to be me, you're in the shitter.

* Am absolutely appalled almost beyond words by this

Nine males who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.

Once again I'm just disgusted by the way that rape against women is handled in this country (I'm not even going to attempt to discuss 3rd and 2nd world atrocities against women). This is by far not the first time I've written about how overwhelming evidence was ignored in a rape trial on this journal and I can tell it won't be the last. Next we are going to be handing out medals to people who violently rape women. By the way Ms Judge (yes, it was a woman) a 10 year old can't agree to shit, no matter how much you rationalise it - yes even in QLD. For fucks sake. How can this still be happening? How can rapists still be getting off? Put your daughters in hiding, that's all I can say. :(

Labels: christmas, dirty femmo, gender stuff, money, rape, sick

posted by M at 9:17 pm 17 comments

Maybe I'm too Australian (and too much of a dirty femmo) to really ever understand but there's something I just don't get about Halloween: What the fuck is up with all these girls dressing up like skanks? Slutty kitten, Slutty nun, slutty playboy bunny, Slutty zombie, Skanky McFishnets and a short slutty skirt, Slutty librarian, Slutty vampiress etc.

This is what I understand about Halloween as provided to me in info from American movies and blogs.
1) kids go trick or treating
2) men dressing up as something gross or funny
3) Normal women by day find the biggest cliche of a skank they can in pop culture or otherwise and then use the excuse of Halloween to 'go to town' on that cliche or worse turn something that has nothing to do with sexy into something completely sexy (sexy zombie)
4) Booze.

I am reminded of that scene in Mean Girls when Lohan turns up at her first Halloween party as ...a scary bride of Frankenstein - but quickly realises that girls don't dress up as something scary on Halloween even though one SHOULD (because that's what it's about, duh) - they go as sluts instead. Am I nuffy for finding this more than mildly disturbing? Girls can't even go the 'scary holiday' without being sexy.

Becuase we don't celebrate Halloween here I can't even look at people I know and evaluate whether they have self esteem issues in order to be doing this (though one could argue that most girls do have self esteem issues). Perhaps it's a cultural thing - girls do this because girls "should be" sexy and men are "allowed" to be funny and goofy instead.

Since I am more of a funny and goofy kind of girl, it confuses and irritates me to know that I'm breaking some kind of weird unspoken gender rule by being funny and quirky or a big dag instead of being Jessica Rabbit. Especially since I'm just being myself. News flash kids, I don't wake up sexy. News flash kids, most women don't.

I find it sort of weird that girls are always "supposed" to be sexy in order to be found attractive by men when really ask any girl how she feels when she's on her period or after a long day at work, or during her lunch break or while completing any kind of menial task, or cleaning up her child's vomit, or scrubbing the toilet, or cooking dinner not for a dinner party but for a family filled with cranky or crying kids - does she feel sexy? Um I'd bank on no. How often does one do those everyday things I ask? Well about 99% (made up stat) of one's day is taken up with shitty menial tasks so I'm guessing that most of any person's day is not dedicated to feeling sexy - it's just dedicated to bloody well not killing someone before lunchtime! How does the image of that everyday 'normal' woman compare with this weird sort of "always available" image of woman that permeates our subconscious and culture and indeed how does that fit with the skanky slut dress up on Halloween?

I understand it's sexy, it's fun, men like it - and women want to impress men. But seriously, why is it all I ever read and see about Halloween is the skanky outfit for women?

Girls please get some creativity.
Go as Jan Brady for once. Get some head gear on.
Or how about an ACTUAL Catholic school girl. Total goody goodie with pimples, a hairy upper lip (a la "Superstar")?

Are girls allowed to be funny, or is skanky our only choice?

Labels: dirty femmo, gender stuff, halloween, men, skanks, women

posted by M at 12:27 am 41 comments

What with all the political hoopla going on in Oz-land at the moment I thought I'd turn my attention to politics in music. By some strange coincidence this afternoon I was listening to drive time radio where Aussie musician Ben Lee was being interviewed about this very thing. Maybe he's not the best authority but he's young, he's outspoken and he's a musician - okay maybe he IS the best authority. He said that art and politics were inextricably linked, but that good political music will first and foremost appeal to the compassion within people and that people who have compassion in their hearts WILL vote accordingly: They WILL vote to aid education and health, they WILL vote for measures to help the environment, they WILL NOT vote for war etc - Compassionate people will vote for compassionate causes. It's a loaded statement but you know, I can't fault it. It's true, our real responsibilities are in building a future that goes beyond us - trusting that will happen is the hard bit - trusting that pouring money into money pits such as education and health will have good results is hard. Accepting that losing money will eventually help us be better people, smarter people, healthier people is difficult but is it worth it?. For me, no question, yes, yes, yes and I don't quite understand any other way to build a stable future to tell you the truth.

Anyway, I digress - there are people who will disagree with politics and art mixing but I'm not one of them. I like my art a tad controversial - not all my art of course - some of it I love purely for it's aesthetic value. Obviously disco gives me nothing in terms of thought but damn those dance beats get me every time. Other music I love purely because it brings up a question or challenges the way things are. I think music is an extremely powerful platform to which people can use to have their say. Have a look at gospel and old slave music and the importance it has in those cultures. What about how the Aboriginal people told their history through art and music? It's powerful. Looking through history you'd be hard pressed to find a time when politics and music were not linked in some way. Classical music is often likened to specific political figures. There were many war propoganda songs in the early 20th Century and then as time went on we grew into folk, punk and anarchist, riot grrl, grunge and music which generally had a social conscience. It's always been around.

The question keeps getting asked though: Are musicians qualified to make political statements?

Well, it seems to me we're stepping down a tretcherous road if we're saying that only certain kinds of people get to speak their mind while others have to shut up. So yes, IMO they are qualified. They are qualified simply because they are human, they live in society and they have an opinion. By that token I think that anyone with a voice is qualified to have their say - even the people I (or you) don't agree with. Hell, I might disagree quite strongly and loudly but that's the point in a society that advocates free speech - you're allowed to do that, it's encouraged even. Guess what? Life isn't one big tea party where everyone chews like they have a secret and smiles sweetly over Turkish Delight. Life is messy and political and more importantly in our own hands. I really do believe that people not standing up for their beliefs and the beliefs of others who have no voice has resulted in a society that is too scared to change. Change is important for (r)evolution and if no one is saying anything then you can bet we're all going to be stuck in a rut for a while yet. It amazes me, the amount of people who do not advocate passivity in their personal life but are extremely passive when it comes to speaking out on political matters. Things don't change on their own, we have to change them.

So yes, I do think that musicians are qualified to have their say - they also speak to an audience that the politicians and academics do not - that is youth. Youth are oft forgotten when it comes to politics - swept under the carpet because they are too young to vote and spend and there fore not seen as important to include in the debate. I beg to differ - they are the most important resource we have. They'll also be running the nursing homes we'll be living in, so you know..we'd better be nice.

The other reason why I enjoy the odd political song is that musicians are artists and there is integrity in standing by the art you create that goes far beyond it being "just a job". Why can I listen to a piece of music and find it more relevant than some kind of political debate on the television? Well, because said artist has put their heart and soul into the things I listen to. No I don't give the same consideration to music that is mass produced, fuck no, that has little soul. I might like elements of that kind of music but not the message. So unless an artist is being held under the thumb of an overly inflated conservative record label (or are created BY a label) they can say whatever the fuck they want. I LOVE that. There's a reason we don't trust politicians - they never say what they mean - ever. They also lie to get votes. Musicians don't have to do this - not if they're writing their own music (ie: not Milli Vanilli). There's enough variety in the music industry to sustain the boy bands who say nothing AS WELL AS the Dixie Chicks, who haven't stopped talking for years now and that's good. There's something for everyone. I know that when I listen to a piece of music I'm listening to an opinion that I can either take or leave - I don't have to like it and if I don't I can go elsewhere - but if someone takes the time to say it then good on them.

However, what happens when musicians move into politics? Do they maintain their political integrity?

Peter Garrett - Aussie muso turned politician can be used as an example. I can't think of any other mainstream musician apart from perhaps Bob Dylan in the early days and Eddie Vedder during the grunge era who have been more outspoken and explicit in their political ideologies. Whether you agree with their political musings or not, Midnight Oil were an amazing band and an Australian institution - you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree with that. I was excited when Peter Garrett first announced his political candidacy because I thought he would immediately stir things up - but this wasn't to be. Politics means existing inside a box where one has to conduct themselves in a certain way. We live in an era of political conservatism - even the liberal left aren't as left leaning as they used to be. People are scared to say what they think and unfortunately (maybe ironically) it's the politicians who have to zip it most of all.

Rock musicians don't live by these constricting rules, they can be as liberal or conservative as they like. They can even live a rather unclean type of lifestyle and still say what they want. Maybe we take what they say with a grain of salt but that's okay too - context does matter. I'd be less likely to agree with someone who was coked out for most of their career than someone who was clean but anyway the point is both musician and politician have a ready audience. Who would you rather listen to though? Liar, activist or artist? Peter Garrett may be pushing his agenda through other avenues now - there's a lot to be said for the act of subversion - moving with the mainstream while slowly chipping a secret tunnel and I support that too - but I have to say: I miss the old Peter Garrett, wonky dancing and all.

Not all musical artists are explicit though - not everyone is a Billy Bragg or Bikini Kill. Musical artists have been lending themselves to causes for many years now in the form of, Live 8, Live Aid, Rock the Vote, Free Tibet, RAIN, Race Rights, the surf rider foundation, live earth, United Farm Workers, earth first, animal rights, Sweet Relief, Home Alive and so many more. They are out there, even if they don't hold interviews that project an explicit point of view.

Following are a few of my favourite songs which have a political edge. What are your favourite political songs and why (if any)?

Masters of War - Bob Dylan (This song is an explicit reminder of exactly how war works: Top down - and who loses: the plebs. The song was written in the early 60s and every single word is still relevant today. Scary.).

stand out lyrics:

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain





The Message - Grandmaster Flash and the furious five (This is an important song and has been much referenced by other artists through the years. Deals with the struggles of being black in a ghetto neighbourhood in the US. Something tells me not that much has changed).

standout lyrics:
Bill collectors they ring my phone
And scare my wife when I'm not home
Got a bum education, double-digit inflation
Cant take the train to the job, theres a strike
At the station
Me on King Kong standin' on my back
Can't stop to turn around, broke my sacroiliac
Midrange, migraine, cancered membrane
Sometimes I think I'm going insane, I swear I might
Hijack a plane!

Don't push me, cause I'm close to the edge
I'm trying not to loose my head



21st Century Digital Boy - Bad Religion (Social commentary on consumerist society that has no soul - with particular regard to how baby boomers have fucked things up for their Gen X/Y offspring. You know...typical Bad Religion music :P)

Stand out lyrics:
Cuz I'm a 21st century digital boy
I don't know how to live but I've got a lot of toys
My daddy's a lazy middle class intellectual
My mommy's on valium, so ineffectual





Blue Sky Mine - Midnight Oil (Miners and visitors to CSR mines in WA exposed to lethal levels of Blue Asbestos. The company continued to act negligently even after health warnings - people are still dying today and many will continue to die in the future from fatal illnesses as a direct result of this exposure. The song gave voice to many people who didn't - and still don't - have a voice).

stand out lyrics:

The candy store paupers lie to the share holders
They're crossing their fingers they pay the truth makers
The balance sheet is breaking up the sky
So I'm caught at the junction still waiting for medicine
The sweat of my brow keeps on feeding the engine
Hope the crumbs in my pocket can keep me for another night
And if the blue sky mining company wont come to my rescue
If the sugar refining company wont save me
Who's gonna save me?

Blue Sky Mine - Midnight Oil

Dear God - XTC (It's been described as an Atheist's anthem. It's an incredibly brave song - and also a wonderful piece of music in its own right).

stand out lyrics
Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too

Dear God - XTC

Double Dare Ya - Bikini Kill (Kathleen Hanna was pretty much responsible for the riot grrl feminist movement of the 90s. She started her zines and band as a reaction to the rampant sexism going on in punk music at the time. Ian MacKaye (punk god) was supportive of this venture and engineered some of BK's stuff. Kathleen Hanna is hated and loved at the same time, which seems to happen a lot to women who speak out. She screams, she swears and for a while there she wore a ski mask during her performances so you couldn't even see her face. She does not beat around the bush - she's very outspoken and thank fuck for that. How often do you see girls really rocking it like boys, potty mouth and all? Not in the mainstream that's for sure. There's a lot of girls in skimpy bikini type outfits though - hence - Bikini Kill. Definitely not pretty music).

stand out lyrics:
Hey girlfriend
I got a proposition goes something like this:
Dare ya to do what you want
Dare ya to be who you will
Dare ya to cry right outloud
"You get so emotional baby"

Double dare ya, double dare ya, double dare ya
Girl fuckin friend yeah

Double Dare Ya - Bikini Kill

Labels: dirty femmo, musical monday, political musings, pop culture, voice, why do people get so touchy when it comes to talking about these things?

posted by M at 12:47 am 23 comments

I didn't post a Musical Monday last week. It was a busy time at school, I was exhausted and most importantly I couldn't think of how I wanted to phrase my post. I still can't to tell you the truth, but I won't let that stop me this week. This is a long one.

Last week, I posted an entry about the child model Maddison Gabriel and mused about the fashion industry using someone who is not a woman to represent women on the catwalk. Obviously, I was pissed about it, with good reason I think. Then I finished up that post with a Tori Amos suggestion that those girls like Britney Spears, girls who had lost their way, bare crotch girls who behave badly, need a mother. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. By lately, I mean, my whole adult life.

The Maddion Gabriel thing from a week or so ago highlighted to me one thing with absolute certainty and that is that: the status quo does. Not. Work. For. Women. and anyone who thinks it does is completely berko. It doesn't work in the first world and it doesn't work in the 3rd world. I shouldn't have to spell out why it doesn't work but in case you need it have a look at violence on the streets, sex, religion, fashion, education, corporation, politics and capitalism for a taste of that why. I don't even think it works for men either, to tell you the truth - but if we're going to compare (and yes we are) then well, you're not seeing 12 year old boys being sexualised by the media. You wouldn't see men standing for that either - which is an important point. Us girls, in terms of media representation and politics allow ourselves to be degraded - and then some of us actively take part in that degradation. That's why you have someone like Maddison Gabriel saying that it's all she ever wanted to do. That old gem: "It's my choice".

People get confused a bit about the difference between women's choice and women making the only choice they can in a situation that is not quite the best. I get confused because some choices seem really dumb, also some choices are applauded and some are not. For instance, musically speaking why is it accepted and applauded for a woman to wear a skimpy bikini in a soft porn video clip while allowing some fat pig of a producer to write their songs for them and market them to young girls and horny boys in a way that has nothing to do with music at all. Whereas it's not quite the same for a curvaceous, outspoken lesbian woman to write her own lyrics that are political and demonstrative. The first will have a lot of success because she fits into the accepted role of female as valued by both men and women - the other will struggle both musically and socially. Which choice would you make, the easy road or the high (and harder) road? Taking the easy road propagates the myth - taking the high road changes things but ultimately means that you might be ostricised. Some choices are easier to make than others and some choices are made for those who don't have the guts to stand up and fight against them.

When I quoted that Tori Amos little ditty about Britney needing a mother, I wasn't really thinking about the tennis club attending, SUV driving (quick, key it!), latte drinking, hot MILFS of the Eastern suburbs. I was thinking about women paying attention to who we are, and where we have come from rather than what society wants us to be. We are rather important to the human race, us little ladies but unfortunately the story changed with Adam and Eve and we're all a bit lost now I fear, it's not just Britney. The story that women came of the rib is fiction, we never came of the rib, instead women carry BOTH male and female within us and so, perhaps rather than Adam's rib producing Eve it is actually Eve that produces Adam and in fact all of humanity. Not just a one trick pony mind you - it's happening right now somewhere. I'm of course talking about the Earth and universe itself which produces all (and personified by woman or mother) and which was once worshiped in its own right favoured only much, much later for another deity: God (personified by man or father).

I'm not going to turn this into religious bashing because this is purely social commentary but the point is - civilisations are built and ruined on the back of a story but stories change, the way we live now - our politics, our degradation or choices or whatever, is due basically to a fundamental shift away from the way we viewed those stories back then not because we are living in the way it should be or because it is the natural order of all things. Things change - the way of the world is not ever absolute. I'm saying this to make a rather pertinent point about stories (both his and hers) here - not to point fingers. We both have our stories and us women just happened to forget ours.

This is why when you have someone a little bit different making a big ruckus about the way things are and how they should change then you just have to listen because it's apparent that the way things are has only worked for so long because us girls have accepted it, owned it and are now producing it ourselves.

I truly think that the most effective form of control is not overt but that which has the consent of whom you're controlling. I mean, it's harder to control those that kick and scream and bite and are willing to die just to get away from that control than it is to control one who not only agrees but comes up with their own punishment.

Why then, do women partake in it? Is it because we're making the best of a bad situation? Is it because we've forgotten where we come from? Your guess is as good as mine.

But back to music. I wanted to go back to that idea of woman in skimpy bikini in a soft porn video clip singing songs that aren't her own versus a woman with an opinion and a musical instrument. One sells more than the other. One is loved more by men. One is revered more - but it's not because of her music. If Meatloaf sang that Umbrella song by Rhianna then he'd be laughed off stage - career over (okay it's already over). But the song is a hit, so obviously something is not adding up here! The song is not a hit because the song is fantastic, alas the song is the most annoying, overplayed piece of garbage I've heard in a long time. If a serious artist sang it while wearing jeans and boots and who didn't shave their pits and then gave an interview talking about gender politics then it wouldn't be a hit at all.

So what exactly is the function of these sexy women in music? It's not the music. It's the sex - and why indeed isn't the sex the same for male artists then? While JT might dance up a storm and [insert boy band here] might make the girls scream there isn't quite the same level of porn factor going on as is done with women in music. Men are sexy but the level of degradation isn't the same - not by a long shot and I won't hear one word that says otherwise. I've got nothing against sexing it up, but then again I think that there are a lot of things that are sexy apart from the greased up plastic boobs of the video clips of today. I'd like to "bring sexy back" in terms of musical ability or being able to convey emotion, or being outspoken or funny or strong and talented or something like that. I'd like to see sexy happen in a way that isn't about women doing whatever they are doing right now on video clips on Saturday morning on channel 10. That stuff, it's not only bullshit but it's harmful to our self image and we've had a long time of it and now it's time for everyone to realise that all of us being outraged by Maddison Gabriel being so young and being a model and sexy video clips on Saturday morning television are actually related. The culture is ripe for Maddison Gabriel type "stuff" - haven't you ever wondered about why?

So what do we do girls (and for anyone who cares about us)? Do you say something and risk being ostracised or do you just let it happen and partake in it? Or, do we find little avenues in the way we live now to carve new ways into the future?

Speaking of avenues in the way things are now. A few weeks ago while watching Australian Idol one of the contestants sang the song that I'm about to play for MM today. It's a great song. I mean GREAT! It's not quite Idol though. It's too confronting for idol - it was performed originally by a woman who weighs over 200 pounds, says what she thinks, is a lesbian and rather non-conformist and totally sexy. Obviously, Beth Ditto not going to make it big in today's mainstream Umbrella type musical climate. Obviously *that* particular Idol contestant was voted out the next week - not because of the context of the song and not because of Beth Ditto, I'd doubt that anyone even knows her, but because that performance itself was very different... It wasn't a great performance, granted - but it was just too different for Idol anyway. And that's the point - you can see how choices are sometimes made for us. If that contestant had performed a more conventional, sexier routine she might still be there this week, closer to her musical dream - but then I might not have heard the song. Funny how things like choices and control work.

Before I play the song I have to finish with this. Something that is actually at the core of all my beliefs in gender politics - men are women ..perhaps we should never, ever look at gender as a form of labeling - the world would be a far better place if we recognised that everyone is individual, no one is better than any other, everyone is scared, everyone is looking for a way to make their lives better, to love, to live or just to survive. Everyone is the same and different at the same time. A much better way to live - if only, huh?

The world unfortunately is drawn in gender lines no matter how you view it and there are still inequalities that need to be addressed and by God (or Adam's rib) I will have my say as should you, whether you agree or not.

So, on that and closer to the song. I came across a quote by Beth Ditto, lead vocalist for The Gossip on gender and difference.

"Women aren't cats, we aren't pets, we are just people trying to cross the freaking street to get an ice-cream cone."

I like it. Basically we're really not so different are we? Maybe the way we are viewed should be addressed now (instead of swept under that oh so reductive 'but it's their choice' statement you hear so often) so that girls who are still children now have a bit of a chance to realise that these badly behaved girls and soft porn video clip stars are actually not really what we want to be. Or are they? Our choice? Quite - let's make better ones.

Standing in the Way of control - The Gossip
(a song about Gay rights actually, but it works for most situations I think).

Labels: choices, denial, dirty femmo, femininity, gender stuff, media, men, musical monday, pop culture, women

posted by M at 1:00 pm 16 comments