[Miscellany]

* 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

Something interesting is happening in the Big Brother house (yes of COURSE it's interesting!) - the boys have all gotten together and created the "Spa Mafia" - a men's group based on bitching about others, getting away from the girls and being a "real bloke", (whatever the fuck that means). The thing is, though the group is a "men's group" it has a notable absence:




For those not watching Travis is the guy who has a high pitched voice, wears heart shaped sunnies, is a self-confessed virgin, sets off every gay-dar within 100km radius off and yet insists he is straight.

The poor guy has been COPPING it from the blokes (and Brigitte) left right and centre. He's not a member of the Spa Mafia because they just can't trust him not to run off and tell the girls about all their secret business. On the flip-side, half the "Mafia" have admitted they don't trust Dave (the cult escaping fireman) either - but hey, there he is - creating his own bubbles in the spa with the rest of them. Very interesting.

Practically every day since they entered the house, people (mostly the other guys) have reacted with aggression towards Travis. His sexuality has been questioned straight out. He has been told to his face by a few of the guys that they would not associate with him in the outside world. His choice of fashion has been bagged both behind his back and to his face - and the guys have really seemed angry when they ask him why he would "wear something like that" (ie: his heart sunnies and hat). I've found it a little disturbing to watch actually. Who cares what he's wearing? Why do they hate him so much? He seems like an nice person who doesn't go out of his way to annoy others. He's just a guy. He's just a person like anyone else. It annoys the crap out of me that they would judge him based only on his looks. It's pathetic. Yes, that kind of thing is pathetic coming from anyone. I wouldn't associate with you because of the way you dress/weight/sexuality/attractiveness is pretty much the same as I wouldn't associate with you because you're Aboriginal/Asian/Italian/Indian/Sudanese in my book. It's so judgmental and a horrible attitude to have about someone else.

Last year when Zak (flaming gay, God love him) was in the house there was an initial reaction but no real aggression towards him. Did the housemates accept him more because he was gay? Is it because "gay" is a label that suggests a point of "difference" from the other men and something from which they could distance themselves from? He wasn't offensive because he was not like the rest of them. Personally I also find this attitude ridiculous but that's how I saw it being played out last year. This year however, we have this guy who has many of the mannerisms of being gay and yet he insists he is not. Maybe that is dangerous because it's subversive - because if he's not gay and he's ALSO not acting like the other blokes then ... what does that mean for the other straight men? It puts that whole idea of "real men" into question, doesn't it?

For the record my gay-dar is going off uncontrollably whenever he comes onto the screen however maybe he isn't gay at all, maybe he hasn't really explored that side of himself, maybe being deeply religious has something to do with rejecting potential gay tendencies (if there are any). In any case though, if in Travis' mind he doesn't believe he is gay then that's good enough for me. Who cares if he is or isn't? I MEAN WHO THE FUCK CARES? Jesus Christ! It's not like he's going to cop a feel of the men in the shower one morning is it? And yet, first night in, we have some of the other guys saying that they refuse to sleep next to any of the other men in the house ..god knows why, maybe they think that if your leg accidentally touches another man's leg then you get the gay disease or some shit.

So, in the BB house it's been all this AND keeping Travis out of the "Spa Mafia" - just because quite frankly (and this is what it's coming down to) they do not see Travis as a real man - as one of them. Why don't they see him as a real man? Well, because he wears heart shaped sunglasses and has a high pitched voice and doesn't admit he's gay. And yet, being homophobic, racist, sexist, shallow dickheads with more muscles than brains is okay because that's what they would define as characteristics worthy of qualifying entry into the "real mens" club.

WHAT THE FUCK? I can't believe these kinds of attitudes still exist.

What do YOU think makes a real man?
I'm all for being judgmental about people based on their attitude to life, based on their attitude towards others, based on their morals or values or how mean they are - but why are we so judgmental about other people based on their "look" (chosen or otherwise)? Is it okay for us to be like this?

Labels: big brother, crap reality tele, gender stuff, generalisations, gentlemen, mean men, mean women, musings, questions, TV, wonderings

posted by M at 4:23 pm 16 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

Around the time when I got into PJ Harvey there was a lot of talk in the media about "women in rock". Wow, like the final frontier had been crossed ...or something. The suffragettes had infiltrated the sacred guitar scene - lord, apparently getting the vote wasn't enough they just HAD to go the axe too.

A lot of these so called women in rock talked about being role models for young girls who had few female guitarists to look up to. Of course, they were right. You can find women there in the rock scene. They are there. It's just that they aren't necessarily always where you can see them. It's not so much a lack of women in the music business but that not a lot of fame was ever attributed to women who wrote their own stuff, played their own instruments and did their own thing and all without a stylist - unless of course these women were already stunning in their own right. Image is harder to control in an "artist" than in a "product" and for women there has always been this compromise between the two when it comes to fame. Even for those that start out as artists, soon we see the product emerge in a little fashion tip here or there, a good colourist and finally losing about 20 pounds (whether she needed it or not) and a boob job just because she was "doing it for herself". One doesn't see a whole lot of meatloaf women or Alice cooper women in the mainstream and yet, they exist - believe me.

Anyway, it was the mid-late 90s and I was in a phase of musical discovery and was especially looking for artists which impressed me with their music rather than their lipstick. I was feeling a bit rebellious. Okay, sure maybe for women it will always be about both, but in my mind if there's a bazillion (butt ugly) male musicians out there who garner reverence for their talent, I don't see why there can't be the same for women. And yet, there are still only a handful of these women out there and I wonder if it's because women are out there but are overlooked because they aren't pretty enough to market or whether they AREN'T out there because ROCK isn't pretty enough for THEM. The later scares the shit out of me actually.

But anyway, I spent a lot of time in those mid 90s years in record stores, often picking up new albums at whim to give them a try. Maybe I liked the look of the cover, or had vaguely heard of the artist but of none of the songs, or maybe it was a one off recommendation... Whatever the reason, it was a fun way to spend my disposable cash.

I picked up Dry by PJ Harvey one golden afternoon after a rather long day at uni. I brought it home and listened to it without skipping one track. It was dark, deep, desperate, soulful and red, red raw - which was how men tended to serve their rock, but not women - not so much anyway. It was almost ugly and I just loved it for that. The album art itself *is* ugly, sickly - PJ's dry raw lips framed by a greenish zombie like chin and cheek - which by the way is in direct contrast to her Down By the Water video clip, where she is pristine and beautiful. I do love me some PJ Harvey beautiful or not but for me, it will always be about the album Dry.

I love, love, love this song.

Oh My Lover - PJ Harvey
(...not for the faint hearted)

Labels: gender stuff, girls and women, messy women, musical monday

posted by M at 12:09 am 12 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

Today I went to do my civic duty by voting I witnessed something so horrific that 4 hours later I'm still not sure I'm over it. There was NO sausage sizzle at the polling booth. Cake stall; yes. Sausage Sizzle; NO. How can they call themselves a polling booth if they don't offer a lovely burnt to perfection with a choice of tomato sauce with or without onions sausage sizzle? I don't understand how they sleep at night. I'm just disappointed and upset by the whole thing and feel it is all very unAustralian. Even if I personally am not partaking in the sausage fest then I like to know that others in my electorate have the option to chow down if they want. Cake stall: Who wants a flipping cake stall? There's no enjoyment in a fruitcake...not like a nice hot sausage between a slice of tip top bread dripping with sauce and creating a sense of community spirit when you all stand around and laugh at the cronies handing out the vote Liberal pamphlets.

I know that the school I work at is having a sausage sizzle because I had to paint the bloody sign informing the general public of the event, so it confuses me that my local isn't having one. Who are these barbarians?

So, yes - it's election day. We have a choice between an ear wax eater and a man who has never invited his own deputy over for tea in the last 10+ years of working together. Fuck all other policies - I mean the fact Howard is war mongering, semi-retired, cricket loving, upper middle class serving man who enjoys being sodomized by the US Prez has a lot to do with it too - but the dinner thing well, I think that's just disgraceful. Mrs Howard has come out and said that she and the hon. Johnny haven't invited Pete and wife over for tea because they don't ever have foursomes at their home for dinner parties. Yes, this was the official bullshit excuse. It's not like they have to be best friends or anything but I assumed that there would be some bond to speak of since they are running the country together. After all, if the Libs stay in power the reigns will be handed over to Pete in a minute. Good to know there's a lot of communication going on between them behind closed doors so a smooth transition happens. No thanks, I voted for ear wax guy instead. At least we know his ears are clean enough to listen...well, they are NOW.

EDIT - convo I had with my bro earlier.

bro - so hey, I think this girl thought I was stalking her.
me - um...whaaa?
bro - yeah, it was the other day when I was meeting you for dinner and I got off the bus at a different spot from where I usually do so I could walk to the restaurant.
me - okay...
bro - anyway, I think this girl thought I was following her.
me - *laughing* riiight, did she stare at you or something?
bro - yeah, she was looking over her shoulder at me while I was walking behind her. She was really freaked out.
me - no shit *laughing*.
bro - it's not funny! I don't want to be a stalker
me - *laughing even harder* whatever. So what happened?
bro - she ran.
me - RAN? Like....ran?
bro - yeah, the thing is I tried to walk slower so that it wouldn't freak her out and then I thought I'd cross the road so I was away from her but at the last second she crossed too - so it looked like I was following her across the road. She saw me do it and then she ran.
me - oh my god, that's tragic. You stalking bastard, you have fucked her shit up good.
bro - why does she have to be so paranoid?
me - are you fucking kidding me? You have no idea what it's like to be a girl walking down a deserted street alone? If I hear heavy footsteps behind me I always grab my keys and hold them between my fingers, ready to punch. I always walk faster. I can't believe you don't know this!
bro - yeah, but that's just you.
me - bullshit, you fuck.
bro - but I'm not a stalker! I'm not doing anything wrong.
me - duh, you're just there, that's enough. She doesn't know you. She doesn't care who you are. You're just some guy walking down a totally deserted street behind her. It's not like it was in the middle of Collins St or something. You're asking her to trust you to walk behind her when in the real world women walking alone down a deserted street might be rape victims. Especially around THAT area. Why would she trust YOU?
bro - I didn't ask her to trust me! I just don't want her to freak out.
me - yeah, well maybe in a society where men don't prey on women she could walk down the street without freaking out.
bro - yeah, I know that this is an issue but...
me - sure, you *know* it's an issue but it's not something you actually ever have to deal with. It's not part of your reality of walking alone. It's part of her reality. Okay, you will rarely see a woman actually RUN but they're probably thinking 'hm..this could be dodgy, or 'oh shit' somewhere in their heads. Just because women don't always show their fear doesn't mean they aren't scared. She might have had an experience with an attacker or maybe her friend did.
bro - yeah well, I'm just saying I'm not a stalker.
me - well stop stalking people then.
bro - you suck.
me - yeah, bring it up at the next meeting of the men's alliance when you're talking about ruling the world hahahaha.
bro - haha, you're an idiot. But seriously, now I have a problem
me - what's that?
bro - I take her bus everyday. So every day from now on I have to deal with her thinking that I'm stalking her.
me - hahaha, that rules. Are you going to be like "hey I noticed you thought I was stalking you the other day but I just wanted you to know that I'm really normal".
bro - haha, noooo
me - go on, it would be cool. See if she reports you.
bro - I can't believe I have to deal with this shit now. I did nothing wrong.
me - yeah yeah whatever, no sympathy for stalkers.

Labels: bro, conversations, disgust, election day, gender stuff, girls and women, petty, political musings, rape, sausage sizzle, yes I am taking politics, Yoko woman

posted by M at 12:55 pm 22 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

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

* I had a strange blogger dream last night. It involved a mass blogger meet up, but felt more like High school. I liked High School in so far that I was totally happy doing my dance and drama, hanging out with my friends, singing show tunes in class and laughing a lot.. a hell of a lot (obviously I wasn't one of the popular elite). Apart from that I pretty much hated everyone else in High School and much like Erica Yurken from my one of my favourite childhood novels Hating Alison Ashley, I was always in the sick bay with a made up illness of some sort hoping to get out of 6th period Science with Mr K (he wore canary yellow).

The blogger meet up reminded me a little of my 10 year High School reunion (yes, unfortunately I did go...). I recognised some people, I think I recognised others and some I had no idea about. The whole thing was rather awkwardly surreal and I felt a little out of place. Which is incidentally how I alway feel - so at least that wasn't new. Just when things were looking very sad indeed Helena Bonham Carter turned up and sat right next to me. I'm not sure if she has a blog or not but it was marvelous of her anyway. She kelp scrunching her curls and looked a little flustered and distracted though - which funnily enough is exactly how I feel at the moment.

* The movie project is due tomorrow. Today, the new Dawson Leary was instructed to chain himself to the computer and edit the thing until it was done (day...what? 8 of editing?). Of course I was stuck in the AR with a bunch of homicidal children also known as my grade 3 art class (yes, yes okay fine I was the homicidal one) who for some reason were all concentrated on two girls in the grade squabbling with each other.

I got rather sick of the back and forth "but she said..." stuff and in a moment of utter frustration exclaimed to the whole grade in a loud and rather hysterical voice OH FOR GOODNESS SAKE (would love to swear for once), AS A MATTER Of INTEREST PUT UP YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE ANNOYED BY * and * ARGUING? Every single child in the grade put up their hand including one of the said squabblers (amusing). Then I put up my hand and so did the parent helper who had come in to do a yarn spinning demonstration (haha). The other squabbler and only person with their hand down looked mortified. I stopped the Art lesson right there and we talked about ways to avoid getting into arguments. It was the first time in a while for that grade that everyone worked cooperatively to come up with a solution (amazing how 'if you don't get along maybe don't sit together' is such a simple solution and and yet so effective). I'm not sure if highlighting that the whole class basically thought these two girls were idiots was the right way to go in teacher-land but sometimes kids need a dose of reality. They were being idiots.

Anyway, being stuck in the AR with a bunch of children meant that I could not keep an eye on Dawson Leary II and the movie editing. So when I turned up to the lab and saw him working on the DIRECTORS CUT of our 3 minute movie (including bloopers and outtakes and a credit reel, gangsta style) I went ballistic! Meanwhile the actual movie wasn't yet finished and I had big problems with a missing consent of release form (which by the way is still missing and by the way the fate of our movie depends on me finding it). So the film is still not finished and we are down a consent of release form. I have no way of actually supervising these children AND teach a grade at the same time AND actually get the tape to the co-ordinator all by tomorrow so the only thing left for me to do is have a complete nervous breakdown. Dawson Leary II, saw me hitting my head against the table today and said Oh Miss F, you and *producer* both stress too much! Doooooooooooontworryaboutit!. Serenity now! How do I get myself into these things?

* I had my review with Prin yesterday afternoon. I prepared like a champion (which means not starting the thinking process until about midnight the night before, pulling an all nighter and working through my lunch break and planning hour the next day) and we had a fine chat about next year. If she doesn't change her mind (anything goes with Prin) then I shall be back in the classroom next year with a day out of the room every week to supervise a Media Art extension group. This is very exciting and should keep me interested and challenged next year - and also answers the aforementioned question: How do I get myself into these things? Sigh. Surely Dawson Leary III will be a winner.

* It's amazing just how many people are searching for that blasted Maddison Gabriel on the net and coming up with my journal. Wouldn't it be great if they WEREN'T looking for child porn and instead were motivated by a distaste of the fashion and beauty industry and the unrealistic pressures it puts on women? Wouldn't it be fabulous if every one of them said 'hey, you know - this sucks and so I'm going to be outspoken about this too'? That would be great. God, I hope they're not looking for porn.

Labels: blogs, dirty femmo, friends, gender stuff, girls and women, media, miscellany, models, movies, school, stressed teachers, teacher dramas, Yoko woman

posted by M at 10:43 pm 16 comments

* Matthew Newton beats his girlfriend, is arrested for it, IS actually guilty and ..oops no sentence. Wow, doesn't that just make me feel oh so confident in our justice system when a known offender is let off the hook because apparently 'the media has already given him a serve. For Fucks Sake - a serve would be getting a beating from someone named Bubba while doing time in a cosy cell for two. What Matty got from the media was at best an endorsement for his next movie and at worst ruffle of the (floppy) hair. And hey, isn't this outcome a real win for all those women who have thought twice about reporting physical and sexual abuse to the police because you know..they get off anyway. No reason to keep on thinking that now, is there?

Question: is a lynch mob the best way to deal with matters that never actually get handled properly legally?

* One of my oldest friends has just announced her pregnancy. It's all very good news since she has really been clucky for a while now. It's nice that I get to be Auntie M again but I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by just how many of my friends are breeding right now. It's getting scary. Guappo my fake adopted Somalian baby just isn't cutting it anymore. I was talking to #1 the other day and I let it slip that I felt like I didn't belong any more. She was devastated that I felt that way but I couldn't believe I even SAID it. UGH! It's a dumb thing to say. It's not really about me, is it? I hate it when I make people feel unnecessarily bad for something that is pretty much out of their control. sigh.

* I had this whole post planned about a discussion I had heard on the radio about how women LIVE their men whereas men just live their lives. They weren't saying that women feel more than men etc - but instead just saying that when it comes to everyday life women live their men (not necessarily FOR their men - live them. It's different). I can't be bothered recapping the discussion so I'm just going to ask a question that I've always wondered..

Girls when it comes to men, do you do the remembering of the birthdays (ie: you remember your husband's* mother's birthday) and/or do you buy presents for your husband to give to the women/kids/little nieces/nephews in his life? I *know* that 99% of all my friends partake in these kinds of shenanigans (the other 1% just nag their man until they are forced to do it WITH them, ahah). Hell, I actually do it now, even in the tumbleweed years (TM) - I will either buy Ma a present from both Bro and I and wrap it and write the card OR I will kick him in the guts until he comes with me (rare). It's dumb and I'm not going to ever do it again. I have to say I very rarely hear about it happening the other way around.

Why the hell DOES this happen? They can handle so many things, like leading the world, so it's not like there is any excuse for them ever forgetting a birthday/anniversary or anything. So why then when they get to couple-land (or even just having a woman remotely nearby) it's like CA CHING I don't have to go shopping ANYMORE woo! (Or even better "yes ohhhhhhhhhhh kay, I'll go but you just KNOW I'm going to end up buying my sister's 3 year old girl a power saw from Bunnings")

Men are you guilty of the old 'you get the present darl'? Or do you buy your wife/gf/etc present for HER mum and wrap it and write the card from both of you?

Is this a gender thing, or is it a lazy thing?

*doesn't have to be a husband..

Labels: gender stuff, questions, trio, tumbleweed years, wonderings

posted by M at 8:52 pm 23 comments