Activism: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009

Currently there is a senate inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009

From Australian Marriage Equality:

The Bill seeks to amend the federal Marriage Act so that same-sex partners are able to marry in Australia, and to recognise same-sex marriages legally entered into overseas.

The inquiry will be conducted by the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. No date has yet been set for a close of submissions, so we suggest you make your submission as soon as possible. The inquiry is due to report by 26 November 2009.

In 2004, an inquiry into the Howard Government’s ban on same-sex marriage received more submissions than any other Senate inquiry in history; 13,000 against same-sex marriage and 3000 in favour. Please join us in ensuring that the balance of submissions to the 2009 inquiry more accurately reflects majority community support for equality.

Anyone can make a submission, not just those in a same-sex relationship. It is also very important for our politicians to hear from family, friends, work colleagues and other supporters of our community.

Australian Marriage Equality have a niffy form set up so that you can send in a submission, and it is found here. I urge you to get political and support this important bill.  I wrote and sent in my submission before I had a poke around the the site which offers some great suggestions for what to submit. I had the following to say (my own words not bolded):

Dear Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee,

This is my submission to your inquiry into marriage equality. I fully endorse the submission made by Australian Marriage Equality in favour of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009.

As our parliamentary representatives you are entrusted by us to act on the will of the people.  In light of polling which shows that a majority of Australians are pro marriage for same-sex couples I feel that it is wrong to withhold the privilege of marriage from any section of the community.  Particularly as the government now recognises and taxes as a couple same-sex partnerships, it seems to me to be churlish and bigoted to deny same-sex couples the status that is accorded wedded heterosexual unions.

Historically marriage was extremely patriarchal and based on an economic agreement between a groom and the bride’s father, the bride being exchanged between them like chattel.  Long gone are the days when women were considered to be the property of men.  Marriage used to have little to do with love and was undertaken for pragmatic reasons such as economic survival.  Marriage in (post)modernity is considered to be a union based on love, and the ideology supporting marriage has evolved from those unenlightened times when women were only valued for their reproductive capacities.  With the development of contraceptives, and changes in our socio-economic system, the production of progeny is no longer a defining characteristic of marriage.

Previously only men were given legal rights within marriage  – he represented the family, her rights were subsumed by his under the process of coverture.  Feminist agitation has removed most traces of coverture from marriage and men and women are now equal within marriage.  Both parties to the marriage have the right to vote and to represent the family economically.  Thus, the patriarchal family model, with the male who headed the household and represented it economically and legally, no longer exists.  There is now no longer any reason why the parties to marriage now have to be of a different gender.

As a married heterosexual women I do not believe that my relationship should be accorded status and privilege that is denied to other loving relationships on the basis of long gone past held beliefs and rejected ideology.

 

I finally got something from my Christmas wish list!

So today I acquired a Honda Cub 90, which was the second thing on my fantasy wish list.  I’m going to use it to get my motorcycle license and slowly work up to the Cafe racer style bike of my dreams (in all that spare time I’ve got -Ha! ) Anyhow in the meantime this is my new theme song.

(Except I’ll be the one at the front of the bike, not gyrating most irresponsibly off the back like those women in the clip whose antics I totally don’t endorse).

 

Humourous musical interlude

Subtitle: You tube clip of the whatever arbitrary time frame I’m going with, lets say, month

I know this song very well from my childhood but funnily enough I never saw the the video clip until now. This version  is, not to put too fine a point on it, fracking hilarious.  After seeing this version, the real one kinda creeps me out.

Enjoy this fabulous exploration of the use of visual motifs in video clips.

 

Captain! I’m detecting spoiler activity off the port bow!!

Star trekkin’ across the blogiverse

So I went and saw Star trek last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Spoiler warning! [OMG! OMG! I don't want to read the spoilers - click here, be distracted by cute cat picture]

Firstly, let me preface this by saying that I enjoyed this movie so much that I’m seriously thinking about seeing it again at the movies. Something that I’ve never done before, ever.

I loved the way that they incorporated stuff from the existing Star Trek universe and original series (for example, Captain Pike was the name of the original Captain in the first pilot episode, and the original series included the green woman) and all the characters stayed roughly true to Gene Roddenberry’s vision (and Gene got posthumous character writing credits) but through the use of a niffy story line involving time travel, the events weren’t constrained by the existing Star Trek time line.  Nice (and, I’m inclined to think, frees the franchise up for future movies).  So bearing in mind that I loved it, I’ve got a bit of a beef about it.

(MOTH* gets frustrated at me, can’t I just enjoy things without having a feminist rant.  I don’t think this particular rant is all that feminist.  As a human being, and movie/TV show viewer this is something I’m getting sick of).

Why, why, why, do writers feel that the ultimate of emotional hooks to hang your drama off is  the pregnant wife?  Over used plot device much, but particularly in this movie.  One pregnant/birthing mother who is the motivation for Kirk’s father to sacrifice himself is not enough.  No the baddie of the piece had his own pregnant wife whose death provides the motivation for his evil twisted plans of death and destruction.  So movie watchers are not expected to believe that the chance to save 800 people in 12 minutes would be enough of a sacrifice for Kirk senior?  Or the destruction of his entire home planet is not enough motivation for Nero?  No images of pregnant women have to been incorporated for bonus extra emotional impact.  Well movie writers I’ve had enough.  I’m tired of it.  Be original will you.  Be clever and offer something different.

Maybe I’m just bitter cos the opening sequence had me tearing (as in water in my eyes, not ripping my ticket) up even though as I’m watching it, I’m thinking “this is complete bullshit! -  if all that chaos was happening around you while you are in labour, your labour would probably cease as your elevated stress levels would dampen the hormonal signals that control the process”.  They do that so often in movies, incorporate a completely implausible birth scenario just so some bloke can be the hero.  Tired of it!

Bonus points for those that can list in the comments other movies or TV shows that include a ridiculous birthing.

*MOTH – Man of the House.

 

Compromise

This is the post where I give a review of the movie currently on high rotation in the DVD player and where I discuss some of the tricky aspects of being a feminist mother trying to raise her kids amidst a culture chock a block full of toxic, pernicious pornified *over-marketed crap.  So much of what is marketed at kids, at girls in particular, is not particularly healthy.  (While the vast majority of the stuff that is marketed as being for children is extremely gender bifurcated, I think that girls stuff can tend to be worse because there’s a sexual/sexualised element tendency in girls toys -  such as these dolls).

A very good friend of mine lent me this movie for my five year old girl to watch, she also wanted to know what I thought of it.  She had purchased in a fit of desperation, in a search for something, anything, that her girls would like that wasn’t princesses.  She was fed up with Princesses.  She just wanted something where the role of the protagonist involved something more than securing her prince.  And that how she ended up with Disney’s latest offering, Tinkerbell.  In comparison to what her girls had been watching, she loved it.  “Tinkerbell’s a Tinker!  She has a trade! She does something, she works with her hands! Here! Watch it!  Kindergarten Girl will love it! You’ll love it! It’s great!”

Indeed, Kindergarten Girl does love it.  The way her face glowed when the movie started was beautiful to behold.  Her eyes lit up as the music started, when there’s that castle with the starry backdrop.  Disney does do magic sooo well.  And yes it is a lovely movie.  The characters are sassy, funny, and erudite ( one even uses the word ‘elucidate’ ).  The music is beautiful and the animation gorgeous.  No princes in sight.  The plot revolves about the ‘being happy with who you are’ bit that seems all the rage in kids/teens movies these days (although in this case, like an awful lot of movies, the character learning self acceptance just happens to be the best at some particular thing and ends up the hero of the day – does this message help us mere mortals learn self acceptance I wonder?)

I do like it, but of course I have, shall I say, reservations about the movie.  I am not enamoured of Tinkerbell’s sexy, svelte look.  Big eyes, hips and curvy figure encased in a short dress.  In fact, the scene where she gives herself a make-over and emerges in her green outfit to have one of her male friends be so dazzled by her look that he fails to recognise her, and her other male friend has his glasses pop out in shock, is my least favourite.  Is it really necessary to fixate on her appearance?  The other aspect of the movie that doesn’t grab me, is the plot device that revolves around the jealous, bitchy character.  To my mind, its stereotypical teenage behaviour being modelled to little girls.  I don’t know, maybe I’m just being picky, as there is lots to like about the movie, especially the knowing references to the Peter Pan story.

That’s the thing with these movies, they are being marketed on two levels.  On the one hand they are designed to be appealing to kids.  On the other hand, they are designed to be enjoyed by adults also. If the adults enjoy a movie, they are much more likely to let the kids watch it, over and over, and over and over again.  If I don’t like a movie, I’m much more likely to try and convince suggest to my kids that they might like to watch something else.  So kids movies, and especially Disney’s, are full of adult jokes and sophisticated humour just so us parents will be willing accomplices in our kids obsessions.  And a whole world of merchandising purchase potential is opened up.

So compromise.  That’s what I do.  I let my kids watch stuff I have misgivings about for two reasons.  One, they are their own persons, their own little selves and I can’t control their personalities and tastes (of course I do try to rein in the unacceptable impulses that young kids are want to have, but overall I’m an influence not a dictator  – and I’ll not exposure them to stuff that I think is entirely inappropriate).  Two, I feel that I’m trying to strike that balance, the middle ground, where they are aware of the pop culture stuff around them  but not too embroiled in all of it.  I am attempting to rise environmentally aware kids, with a feminist conscience.  So, for me, that means trying not be sucked into consumeristic materialism but at the same time letting them explore their interests and follow where their imagination leads them.

* It is not the princess stuff, per se, that I object to, its the RELENTLESS marketing of ubiquitious products peddling a dubious version of compulsory femininity.  From here “Playing princess is not the issue,” argues Lyn Mikel Brown, an author, with Sharon Lamb, of “Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters From Marketers’ Schemes.” “The issue is 25,000 Princess products,” says Brown, a professor of education and human development at Colby College. “When one thing is so dominant, then it’s no longer a choice: it’s a mandate, cannibalizing all other forms of play. There’s the illusion of more choices out there for girls, but if you look around, you’ll see their choices are steadily narrowing.”

 

Celebrations, belated and otherwise

Well break out the champagne, congratulations are in order.

On the one hand I missed my blogoversary last week, oops.  On the other hand, this blog must be a similar age to the Down Under Feminist Carnival because this month is the bumper birthday edition! Yay!  The 12th Carnival is being hosted by Chally at Zero at the Bone.  Lots of good stuff there, so go read and enjoy.

Details of all previous carnivals can be found here, and a list of carnival contributors can be found here.

 

Thats me in the corner losing my religion

So as I said in my last post in relation to this story, ‘there goes the last lingering threats of my Catholicism’.  Of course the Catholic Church has a history of being criticised by feminists, but before writing the whole institution off as completely worthless, I should make it plain that it was through the Church that I came to my feminism.  I think that I mentioned elsewhere that I had a happy childhood, and my education in the local catholic schools was a big part of that, as was Sunday school and church.  Church lent a happy rhythm to the week, and I loved the ritual of the Catholic service.  I remember singing hymns loudly and proudly and when I made my first communion I was one of four students chosen to stand with the Priest explaining to the congregation why the service was like the Last Supper.  I enjoyed my faith, it was a source of comfort to have a belief in a God of love, to have a friend in Jesus.  I remember praying fervently as child during times of distress and when I was quite small I even toyed with the idea of becoming a nun (until a friend of mine laughed, but she would laugh -  she was the daughter of a Presbyterian Minister and they don’t believe in nuns).  I was such a devout little girl.  So what happened?  When did I start ‘losing my religion?’

During my teens I started to realise that life wasn’t as black and white as I had thought.  I was involved for a number of years with a youth group which gave me very clear insights into the human element of religion.  The power plays, the jockeying for leadership, the righteous judging of who was committed enough, I began to see that shared faith or a common belief isn’t enough to unite a disparate group.  Some of the group were committed young Catholics and were trying to help other teens with their faiths, others were committed young adults trying to meet other teens, most of us I suspect were both.  In that time I experienced deep spiritual moments and deep human hurts.  It was in this that I got a sense of how deeply humans can scar one another without even meaning to.  But that’s not why I lost my faith.

I’ve always felt that there is something deeply wrong with society’s treatment of women and there has long been a burning sense of justice in my heart.  Gender Studies at uni gave some formal understanding of the system of the patriarchy that we are swimming in, but I was still attracted to the Church, even though it was becoming increasingly clear that the Church was thoroughly patriarchal and not going to change anytime soon.  Women weren’t going to be ordained so why stay in a church that limited women’s expressions of faith in a way that it did not limit men’s?  I thought for a time that it would be ‘easier to burn the castle down from within’.  So I stayed in the Church, and got married in the Church.  The Catholic Church, to my mind, has a strong sense of social justice and this aspect of the Church is something I’ve always loved and has in part shaped me.

It was history, finally that caused me to walk away.  Through my studies I have learned that the Bible is not the cut and dried document that I had believed it to be.  Different threads of interpretation run through the Bible, and it is a compilation of many authors and editors and translators and long forgotten oral traditions. There an environmental ethic in there, if you look past the ‘new heaven and new earth’ of Revelation (if there’s going to be a new earth than it doesn’t matter what we do to this one).  There’s a feminist message (Jesus praised Mary over her sister Martha for scriptural learning, befriended a Samaritan woman, saved an adulterous women, etc) too if you overlook Paul’s letters.  Just as the Bible is far from being a homogeneous document so the Church is not homogeneous.   I realised that  major theological decisions were made by a bunch of men coming together and arbitrarily deciding ’stuff’ and making it ecclesiastical law.  Thousands of people have died because of differing interpretations of pure conjecture.  Books and people put to the flame for heterodoxy.  So when it finally occurred to me that my childhood beliefs were the result of closed doors power plays by political bishops of ages long gone, well these things stopped making sense to me.  The trinity, transubstantiation, the unbroken status of Mary’s hymen, tricky answers to questions that should not have been asked.

I learnt about the architects of the Church, the Early Church Fathers, men like, Augustine (pictured), Jerome, Philo, Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas who each had their own twisted version of Aristotelian logic that they brought to the Church.  These men shaped the Catholic Church and imprinted their misogynistic mindset upon the developing theology.  Understanding the humanity of those that shaped the Church is what has compelled me to walk away.  When people take seriously the notion that women are ‘the devil’s gateway’ (Tertullian) and use that understanding as the basis for a theological stance how can that institution ever be reformed – with the founding epistemology so deeply ingrained with dualistic and misogynist beliefs about the world.

Not sure what I believe anymore, but I do know this, as I work it out I won’t be trying to foist it on anyone else.  Maybe reading about other ways to be Catholic has made me pause to think about my relationship to the Church, or maybe I’m just fed up with the tragic injustice of it, but I’m going to come back to the topic and post about the Church’s teaching on sexuality shortly.

 

Show and Tell

I know that this isn’t a parenting blog but I can’t help myself. My (not so) little girl started school today.  She looked so shiny and happy and hopeful in her over sized school uniform.

When I picked her up this afternoon she told me she said had a secret for me “you didn’t pack me enough food, Mum”.  “Oh didn’t I?” I replied, knowing full well she had had today’s menu picked for the last few days and refused my offer of more food as I handed over her lunch box this morning.  She was adamant about what she was taking and I wasn’t going to ruin her morning by making a scene and forcing my will upon her (and I knew she had an adequate amount for her 3 meals breaks. But I’m guessing that she ate extra at lunch and had nothing left for afternoon tea).  Then after a pause she said “No I was mistaken..you can pack me extra tomorrow “.  Wow, one day at school and look at the new and improved maturity levels.

Apparently she had “great fun” and when I told her that she would be going to school five days a week she got real excited “Yay! Five’s my favourite number!”  Well that just works out nicely doesn’t it?

I implore you to check out this link.  My girl’s first day wasn’t quite like this for me, but I am going to insist on sharing this with you anyway as its just plain hilarious.  It’s from LOOKY DADDY! A blog that actually purports to be about parenting, but is actually a site of much hilarity.  To set the scene for this clip, Brian is a stay at home dad,  and its his twin girls first day at preschool.

The First Day of Preschool from Brian Sargent on Vimeo.

By the way how’s this for some show and tell?

Japanese boys bring WWII bomb to school

 

Further to my “Un-Australian” musings – here be links

In the Sydney suburb of Manly, hundreds of youths draped in “Aussie pride” livery wore slogans declaring “f–k off we’re full” as they smashed car windows and ran up the famous Corso targeting non-white shop keepers.    (From the LP post, link below)

Picture of Australia Day revelers at Manly Beach, their bodies adorned with the slogan “Fuck off we’re full” (via Lauredhel@Hoyden About Town, see here more info and discussion about this image)

Unbelievably enough, bearing in mind our discussion about flag wearing Aussies and the seedy side of patriotism, there was some trouble yesterday of the Australia Day kind.  Let me make plain I am not saying that Australia Day is bad, in fact, there are many council run events and fundraisers and family picnics and all sorts of other lovely things that happen on Australia Day. Unfortunately some celebratory things were marred by trouble.  It seems that the darker side of patriotism is growing more noticeable – discussed here in depth on the LP thread. Upon hearing about the events described above, my nearest and dearest noted “Nationalism is only one step away from Facism.”   So anyhows, for your information here we have a collection of news stories about Australia Day happenings.

Rudd rejects Australia Day change

Kevin Rudd, who last year delivered a formal apology to Aboriginal Australians for past injustices, has rejected the idea. “Let me say,” he said, “a simple, respectful, but straightforward no”.

Rees slams Oz Day brawlers

Nathan Rees says he is concerned some people are still trying to hijack Australia Day celebrations.

“Absolutely reprehensible that people use the cloak of Australia Day or indeed the flag as insignia or a flag itself to dress up what is bigoted behaviour,” he said.

Boozy Australia Day brawl deplorable: police

No arrests made in Lennox Head Australia Day brawl

Police praise well-behaved Australia Day festivities

Riot police called to quell Aust Day brawl

Policewoman punched during Hunter brawl

and in other Australia Day news

Sex on Fire tops triple j’s hottest 100

American rock band Kings of Leon has taken out the number one place on triple j’s hottest 100 countdown with their song Sex on Fire.

Billed as “the biggest music poll in the world”, the annual Australia Day countdown took place live from Parramatta Park in Sydney.

On a more personal note, apparently a group of youths tried to pick a fight with my little bro (he’s 18 ) at the Melbourne BDO.  His current facebook status :    “ sticking feathers up ur butt does not make u a chicken, wearing a flag as a cape does not make you aussie.”

 

Apparently, I’m “Un-Australian”..

..for seriously considering the argument that Australia might be better served by changing the date that we celebrate Australia Day.  As detailed in this news article 26th of January commemorates the landing of the First Fleet in Sydney and subsequent settlement of NSW.  Furthermore, Australia did not even exist as a country until January 1, 1901 when Federation occurred. Prior to this time Australia was a series of separate colonies.  This is quite apart from the fact that to the Aboriginals the 26th of January represents ‘Invasion Day’.  Upon reading the comments thread connected to the article it became apparent that any one who dares to consider the argument for changing the date is ‘Un-Australia’.  So although giving people a ‘fair go’ is consider to be the ultimate Australian quality, this only applies to those that don’t challenge the status quo.

To be fair, some on the comments thread, were for the idea:

I, for one, think that’s a bloody good idea, and I don’t think that Indigenous Aussies can find anything celebrate about Jan 26, so let’s find a better date to celebrate as Australia Day. It’s a celebration, not a test, of “Australianness”.

While many reacted with a visceral anger at the very suggestion:

Just a quick suggestion, Time [sic] for you, your apologist mates and those that just don’t qant [sic] to get it. It’s 2009, time to build a ladder and get over it. Australia Day is Australia Day. Join in or shut up. Invasion day is a myth brought about by the guilt industry of the last century. Progress to the 21st century. We have more important things to deal with.

And (among other lovely comments):

What a lot of garbage, is “The Professor” now saying that each State and Territory should celebrate on a different day because the arrival of the British in Eastern Australia on January 26 “is not relevant to the Territorians”. The British did not land in WA or SA or QLD on this Day, but they did commence to establish a Great Country on that day and anyone who is proud enough to call themselves AUSTRALIAN should be proud enough to celebrate on January 26.

Like migrants, the indegenious [sic] take the benefits provided to Australians, if they don’t want to be Australian, give up the benefits.

(Benefits such as poverty and discrimination ‘cos we’ve given them so much haven’t we?)  Speaking of indigenous Australians Mick Dodson has been named Australian of the Year (in a gesture that seems to indicate that the Rudd govt intends to act upon the rhetoric expressed in the ‘Sorry Day’ speech.  This seems to be a real out reach to the Aboriginal people and an action that I could not imagine the Howard govt making ever.  Hopefully we’ll be seeing more concrete actions in this area).  Professor Mick Dodson had to consider whether he wanted to accept the award, given what Australia Day means to his people.

But he says accepting the award will help him advocate for human rights in Australia.

“It’s a humbling thing, but I too share the concerns of my Indigenous brother and sisters about the date, and I talked long and hard with my family about this and we decided it was in the best interests that I accept the nomination,” he said.

Professor Dodson says he hopes to build Australians’ understanding of what it means to protect the rights and human dignity of all Australians.

The way I think that it could be construed is that if Australia Day is not a celebration of the specific events of Jan 26 1788, then why not have it on another day? 26th of January has long been Australia Day, but it is only since 1988 that it has been a permanent public holiday.  Prior to that the actual holiday was moveable, like Easter, and always occurred on the last weekend in January – thus there was always an Australia Day long weekend even when 26th (Australia Day) occurred no where near the weekend.

I am going to be honest, by standard measure it could be argued that I really am ‘Un-Australian’.  I won’t be celebrating tomorrow by drinking beers and enjoying a day off (a re-occurring motif in the aforementioned comments thread).  I wish that I was celebrating like this: as it looks like fun, but in reality I’ll probably do some studying, maybe some gardening and a bit of housework.

Is it just me or does anyone else find the increasing ubiquity of the symbol of the southern cross (tattoos, stickers on cars) and the aussie flag a little troubling?  Anyhow if you want to know how Australian you are,  you can always take the Facebook test.

So how are you spending Australia Day?

Update: Bonus Australia Day Links

Australia Day: “Speak English!” @ Hoyden About Town

Happy Australia Day @ Cafe Grendel

Invasion Day @ the-paris-site