Moving again!!

Hello visitor(s)!

Sunili's blog can now be found at sunili dot net!

Ciao ciao x

health insurance number crunching

There's quite a bit of debate re the Rudd/Swan/Gillard plan to change the thresholds for the Medicare Levy in tomorrow's budget.

I had a bit of a blue with my mother yesterday (yes, I know, Mother's Day, I should've kept my mouth shut) when I announced how happy I was that I can bail on my $41.05 a fortnight private health insurance from July 1.

OMG she says (essentially), you'll have to pay so much when you have to go to hospital for elective surgery!

For what, a boob job? Because I sure ain't electing to have scalpels hovering over me for any other non-emergency reason, and I really don't mind going to a public hospital. I spent 3 days in a hospital in Sri Lanka. RPH is heaven in comparison.

Health insurance is a crock of shit. If Howard needed to tax people to force them to sign up with his cronies, something was seriously wrong with the product. What exactly is the sense in the Government penalising people for not paying for a private service? Ask Johnny, 'cause it makes no sense to me.

The ruckus over the droves of people who may be quitting private health insurance if the tax changes come in should ring the alarm bells for health insurance companies. Why don't people want to purchase (or keep) their products? Could it possible be because... shock, horror... because it's not value for money??

Gasp.

But guess what? The health insurance companies knew that already! That's why they got Johnny and Co (Pillagers, Inc) to force people to sign up!

At the moment I am contracted to pay over a grand to my health insurance company. For what? For $120 back on a $300 pair of glasses. For $100 back on dental (that'd be, what, three teeth cleaned)? I actually can't afford physio, chiro, any of that other stuff, so I don't see why I need to be paying through my nose just to get some minuscule rebate. Maybe if I wasn't paying so much for health insurance, I could do a proper pilates class once a fortnight to fix my bloody sore back!!

Say this year I bought a pair of glasses for $300 (transitions! how good is not haing to carry a separate pair of sunnies?!) and went to the dentist for an annual clean and check-up, liberal estimate of $200.

With health insurance I will pay:

$1080 (Insurance)
$300 (Glasses)
$200 (Dentist)
-$220 (Rebate)
$1360 annual total.

That's right, $1360 for $500 worth of products/services.

I was never any good at Maths (I prefer shopping), but even I can see how shit that is.

At the moment, if I didn't have health insurance, I'd be smacked with the "Medicare Levy" for being a naughty girl who should really pay for shit I don't need.

I know I may occasionally get my debit card out to pay for something I don't really need, but guess what, I want it, and it's my money so I will damn well spend it on stuff I want. Isn't that what "liberal market economics" are all about, Johnny?

So from 1 July, I should theoretically* be able to get a pair of organic-cotton jeans and that HOT gossip girl dress, with enough change to order some more merrican apparel gear, and have my glasses and clean teeth too. I like those numbers much better.

* I say theoretically because I will not actually buy those jeans and that dress... 'cause kids are starving in Burma. But it is my prerogative to decide how I want to spead my money. Which may mean donating it to charity or saving for a home-loan deposit. Not paying it to some health insurance goon.

The Quest

Looks like my coffee addiction has returned. I think I picked it up while thesising last year, but after the glorious condensed-milk coffees I downed like water in Vietnam, nothing else was palatable. While it's not fair to judge countries like Cambodia on their lack of coffee-brewing and growing prowess considering they still haven't properly recovered from the 20th century's other genocide, I just took that as an opportunity to be healthy and try to kick the dirty habit.

I'd been drinking various white, red and green teas for a while after I got back, but really needed something stronger and tried to be satisfied with Clipper organic Indian Chai. 'Tis delicious and warming and soothing, but I dunno. I was still falling asleep.

So, despite knowing that coffee is bad for you, and that none of the CBD places seem to use fair trade beans, I kept sneaking into Rosso Espresso on my way up from the SCt carpark to grab a skinny mocha with two on the way to work.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So freaking good. There is a line out the door and onto the footpath every morning at that place, even when it is raining, for a REASON.

Best. Coffee. In. Perth.

Or is it?

I decided that I should shop around to see if I could find better since they're not fair trade (yes, I'm a hippy), kinda pricey, and yeah, the fricking line.

This survey is extremely under-researched, just saying what I happen to see in relation to everything but what the mocha tastes like.

So.

This morning's sample was from jango in King Street. They sell fair trade chocolate and all their food packaging is recycled-looking cardboard or recyclable plastic, and they have cool juices and drinks and stuff, and they take EFTPOS, but the mocha? Bah-bow. (Think Bert's Family Feud, here, people. Survey's not happy.) Bitter, totally not sweet enough, and the large is way too small.

Next.

wait. he said WHAT?

I feel like the mother from Home Alone.

KEVIN??????????!!!!!!!

Last week heralded the announcement of a raft of legislative amendments to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in areas such as super, tax and medicare. Hurrah, we cheered, accepting that this important step towards equality for all Australians was important in its practical, real-life applications even though the who 'gay marriage' thing is still a hot tamale.

But did Rev Kev really tell the ACT they are are NOT allowed to legislate for civil union ceremonies yesterday? Wait, he actually, seriously, honestly "warned the ACT government [he] would use Commonwealth powers to scuttle any laws to introduce civil partnerships in Canberra on the grounds it would too closely mimic marriage"?

WTF, Kevin? W. T. F?

Apparently the ACT is allowed to have a 'relationship register', which means the unions are legally recognised, but, apparently, letting same-sex couples gather in front their families and friends to commit themselves to each other is the gateway drug to ruining the moral fibre of society ergo must be outlawed.

W. T. F?

Not only is this completely hypocritical considering

1. they're "removing discriminatory laws" one week but overturning other laws aimed at removing discrimination the next;


2. they're using the same power from s35 of the ACT Self Government Act 1998 (Cth) Howard used in 2006 to effectively ban "gay marriage", to which the ALP was vehemently opposed;


3. last year KRudd expressly said that in relation to civil unions, "state and territory governments are elected to govern and are accountable to their constituencies. The ACT Government’s indicated it wishes to head in a particular direction and the ACT Government is therefore in a position to be accountable to its citizenry for that." [link] [another],

it's ab-sa-fricking-lutley crap. Did I mention it is hypocritical? Fark.

Shame, Kevin, shame.

He has clearly been ignoring this Facebook group:

shelter

When I arrived at work this morning there was a fellow who looked 70+ sipping his soup patrol tea as he was shuffling though the Supreme Court Gardens. He only had shorts on so he'd pulled up a pair of footy socks to try and keep his legs warm. It was so sad to think that somebody's grandfather slept out in the cold last night.

Realestate.com.au and Mission Australia launched their House for the Homeless campaign yesterday. $1 will be donated for various Mission Australia projects for every person who visits, up to $100,000.

Every dollar counts, sure, but I don't know how far $100k goes in the current real estate market??? A 6th of a house???

The Youth Affairs Council of WA is also running a campaign to highlight the problem with a "postcard petition" aimed at Premier Carpenter.

After seeing so much homelessness on my recent trip to South-East Asia, it's even more humbling to see it in my home town.

Image: YACWA

Networkers and Gen Y (or: "The Blind Leading the Bionic-Visioned?")

Networking (v): 1. to establish communication links with other people as a means of exchanging ideas, information and useful contacts;
2. schmoozing and oozing general creepiness at functions when most (normal) people are quite happy to be left alone to their own devices.

Last week I attended a 'networking' function organised by the Law Society of WA's Young Lawyers Committee.

Aside from the fact I was totally exhausted (urgh, friggin' 9-5; I'm usually failing to retain normal levels of consciousness by Wednesday mornings, and this was on a bloody Thursday night) I really enjoyed the opportunity to catch up with people from high school and law school who've also entered the legal 'profession', as aptly described by The Hon Chief Justice of WA, Wayne Martin.

The CJ's speech was pretty funny, and although it was a little long since he'd spent the first 5 minutes talking about how he knows we must get bored from long speeches from old grey-haired dudes when we would rather be drinking and catching up with mates, at least it was semi-inspirational and entertaining.

The main speaker was a chap called Ron Gibson, Managing Director of Go Networking. Apparently he was there to impart some wisdom and 'networking' tools and tips which may put us young'uns in a better position for advancing our careers.

The invite to the function describes him as a "networking guru". A google (v) of the guy reveals that this he is

the country's foremost [self-established] authority in the field and subject of business networking - the art and skill of forming and cultivating those all-important business connections. Ron's presentation offered proven techniques and approaches that you can use to network effectively and socialise successfully in any situation, to network within your industry for maximum effect and to cultivate your new contacts into profitable, long-term business partnerships.

I (and I may speak on behalf of a significant portion of the attendees) would describe him as a bit of a git, but I suppose he's just doing his job, and I shouldn't diss what people have to do to put food on their families.

But I just as I don't want to have to deal with some drug dealer trying to peddle me WizzFizz while I'm chatting to my mates, I'd rather not have to listen to some motivational-life-coach-guy try to teach me about what I should and should not do at parties when I just want to be chatting to my mates.

Because that's what this networking guy was trying to do.

One of the blogs I'm really enjoying at the moment made some interesting comments about networkers the other day:

Networkers always struck me as overenthusiastic people, the sort of people who want to be your friend right away. They want to know everything about you, where you were born, what your first boyfriend’s name was, what color your childhood blankie was and whatever happened to it. They come off a little creepy, and remind you vaguely of your mother at the dinner table the first time you brought a boyfriend home.

Sounds horrible, dunnit? Well. It could be worse. Some old guy could be standing on a podium trying to tell you that this is what you should be doing every day if you want to get anywhere in life now that you're out of the playpen that was university. Yep, that stuff was essentially the gist of what Mr Networking Guruji was trying to get us to do to improve our Brand Recognition rating or something. Not many people were impressed.

Tei at Rogue Ink goes on to explain that she now likes networkers despite the fact they are freaks because they are "lovable, wonderful, indispensable" variety of freaks. But, I guess since I haven't had a networker help to set me up with helpful people who may want to give me bags of money/opportunities, I still consider them, and the whole concept of what they do, to be just plain annoying.

It just seems so smarmy to "network" in the way he was trying to "teach" us.

There were several times during Gibson's "lesson" when he could not be heard over the rabble of people who had lost interest after he explained that his credentials for teaching young lawyers how to network stems from his being the step-grandson of the founding partners of the Perth firm Gibson & Gibson.

While it was pretty embarrassing to have him try to talk over us like he was a teacher trying to re-gain the attention a rowdy class of Year Fours (especially when the Chief Justice was in the room observing it all*) it made me wonder a couple of things about this whole business networking thing as it relates to us i.e. Kids These Days.

Firstly, does all this schmoozing actually work, and secondly, because it seems to have worked for people who are currently In the business world (if it hasn't why the hell are we still hearing about it?? Have they all been duped???), do we really have to learn how to be a schmaltzy tool, or can we get by doing things our way?

By our way, I mean the Gen Y way. I realise that that the Baby Boomers in management and our Gen X co-workers hate us, and I'm sure we can learn a few tips from our elders, but I have a tip for them too. If they want to impress us, in terms of trying to recruit us or offer their services to us, they should bloody stop talking at us and rather talk with us.

Because we're know-it-alls and we freaking know it. So if someone tries to treat us like idiots, we'll probably lose respect for them quick-smart. Which definitely what happened the other night.

So back to my ponderences on networking... what I was wondering the other night was whether we really need to be taught about making small-talk and the importance of 'making contacts'. It just seems to me that we've grown up having those sorts of ideas as a given, and we're pretty capable of introducing ourselves to friends-of-friends, or even randoms at parties or gatherings, and keeping in touch. And not to mention our aptitude at using the internet to establish and "grow" our network connections.

By the way, I can't seem to find this "networking guru's" website, so I think his Brand Recognition efforts totally suck on the whole internet issue.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just being a Gen Y brat. Thanks to the YLC for organising the night; I'm sure if we were less full of ourselves we would've gotten more out of it.

- - -

*Speaking of the CJ. At one point in the night, when I managed to find myself in a little group with a fellow Judge's Associate and His Honour, he tried to introduce himself, as any good, nice, polite person would do when seeing someone they've never met before standing an the group you're chatting with. "Hi, Wayne Martin" he said, extending his hand out. "Yes, I know you, Sir," I replied, shaking his hand, "I work for you." He looked down at my name tag, which had "Supreme Court of WA" under my name, and went "Oh right", clearly not having any clearer idea of who I was. Me thinks I need to work on my Brand Recognition. Or at least spend more time in the main building.

The Perils of Politically un-Popular Publication

Hahaha so turns out the administration of my un-beloved Noter Dayme has more in common with dictatorial regimes than previously thought. As reported by news.com.au (the Woman's Day of online "news"):

The closure of Moskovski Korrespondent, whose editor Grigori Nekhoroshev was forced to resign, was a sharp reminder of the perils of invoking Kremlin displeasure.

...

I thought we should run the story to help break the taboo," said Nekhoroshev. He paid a swift penalty for his daring: the paper, owned by Alexander Lebedev, the billionaire tycoon, ceased publication immediately.

Its parent firm blamed "costs" and "conceptual disagreements with the newsroom" but insisted in a statement that "this has nothing to do with politics and is solely a business decision".

Hrm, why does that sound so familiar? Because those Krazy Kats at Kremlin use the same lines to try and shut down press outlets for which they have no care as the Student Life Office gang!

Bless!


Update 22/4:
"So, the Uni learned it's media-censorship tactics from the Kremlin?" a friend asked at dinner last night. "No," replied Matt, "The Kremlin learned it's media-censorship tactics from the Uni. Who'd've thunk it, eh?"

The War on Quasi

My previous rant about my alma mater got me thinking. Now that I'm out of the system... I can bloody say what I want! And, more specifically, what I wanted to say last year when I was editor of Quasimodo, the University of Notre Dame Student Association's student magazine.

In late 2006, I was honoured to be appointed as editor of Quasi. I had written several pieces for the mag in the preceedings years, and I loved what it's existence meant: an outlet for students to write about what interests, or matters to, them and discuss 'student life' (as far as that term can apply at UNDA).

Then came the Bullshit.

There were lots of things that pissed me off. But what really got me upset was when they banned two versions of editorial I wrote for my first (ultimately only) issue.

The first version dealt with the reason why it had taken us longer than usual to get the issue out. I wasn't "allowed" to talk about. Ignore it, they said to me, focus on what we have now. So I wrote on the importance of freedom of the press.

I guess it's fair that I wasn't allowed to publish that either. Cause we didn't have freedom of the press!

Somehow The Sunday Times got wind of it. I had an "off the record" chat to a journo there, which, of course, got published that weekend:

Quasimodo editor Sunili Govinnage said the student association's constitution ruled that the magazine be vetted by a review committee. She said the committee was meant to provide legal advice, but its student representative had been kicked off and its role was now "pure censorship''.

"They won't allow any criticism of the university at all, even any analogies that might hint at criticism about freedom of speech,'' she said.

Ms Govinnage said she was reduced to tears and felt "like an administration pawn'' when the last edition was scrapped.

Ironically, its editorial was on the importance of press freedom.

"The university took it as a direct criticism of the vice-chancellor, which it
wasn't,'' Ms Govinnage said.

Hahahahahaha. That'll teach me never to say anything "of the record" ever again, won't it?

I thought I was going to get expelled. Seriously, I had probably never been so scared, or felt more like an 8-year-old who got caught stealing snakes from the Deli, in my whole life.

Here's what I wrote about The Bullshit to appear in the Notre Dame Law Student Society paper, The Sundry Crimes, which is, of course, my version of the events:

Back in December 2006, the Uni admin approached the Student Association with a polite request that Quasimodo no longer be published. The concerns related to the cost of the publication and the fact that, in the past, the magazine had criticised the way things were done at Notre Dame without going directly to those responsible and giving them a chance to respond.

To be fair, once or twice Quasi got some little things wrong. The uni wasn’t impressed by the fact they were giving tied-grants to the Student Association (for other purposes) but that the Student Association was in turn spending a significant amount of cash (their own) on a publication which was bad-mouthing the uni.

Bottom line: either Quasi went, or the money went.

The Student Association and the Quasi Committee spent considerable effort getting more sponsorship, cutting down the costs of publication and making an effort to improve the way we write about things happening at Uni. Annabel Hay’s article on the new credit point/fees structure was well researched and all the facts were checked and signed off by the Registrar, who provided us with further information and his responses to our concerns.

But apparently it still wasn’t good enough … until we begged them to actually read the magazine. It was eventually ‘authorised’ for publication (although we’re still not sure what gave them the authority to authorise it or ban it) on the condition that the Vice Chancellor’s delegate gets to censor all inklings of profanity, references to sex, and the story behind the uni’s attempted ban of the mag itself.

Because we just had to get the thing to the printers due to our contractual commitments with our sponsors and the fact we had been fighting over this for months, we capitulated and just said ok to it all … it was more important to get the mag out before exams. Looking back now we’re not proud of it but it felt like we had little choice.

Here’s what we don’t get … we appreciate that we’re a private uni, and that there are something things that are off-limits, but we’re not a primary school. We reckon that our standard is pretty gosh-darn high in comparison to the other uni papers, and to censor the word ‘arsehole’ and ban us from using the common phrase ‘short and curly’ seems a little over the top.

And in terms of commenting, and even criticising university policy, we believe that as the constitutionally-created publication of the Student Association we’re allowed to talk about it in a reasonable, rational way and we shouldn’t be expected to be part of the Uni’s massive Public Relations machine.

‘Freedom of speech’ is a phrase that most of us have accepted into our vocabularies. Without getting into nitty-gritty arguments about human rights (whether they exist, are enforceable, should be legally/constitutionally recognised…) when someone talks about the freedom to express opinions and comment on social and political appenings in a democratic society, most of us probably take it for granted.

While we do not have a Bill of Rights which entrenches freedom of speech in the popularly-known sense, the High Court has recognised that ‘freedom of political communication’ is a fundamental right implied in the text and structure of our Constitution. This right is derived from the fact that we have a Parliament that is “directly chosen by the people”. We, the people, have a right to know everything about whom and what we’re voting for.

CEO of WA Newspapers, Ken Steinke, recently said that while “every government would prefer to have a compliant media which simply recycles the government’s version of events … that is not how The West Australian or any other ‘credible’ nedia organisation operates.”

“Many journalists and critics have encountered the inappropriate pressure applied by some government politicians and staff in an attempt to manipulate news coverage,” he said, but “that pressure has been ineffective and will continue to be resisted by all media.” [link]

It is with shame that I read those words. And from that shame I vow to never let our magazine, your magazine, be unnecessarily censored again. Sure, I agree with Jim McGinty that The West can be shonky (I only ever read the Today section, anyway), and I know Quasi isn’t a beacon of enlightened journalism, but what really is? We’re just a student newspaper, for crying out loud!

Regardless of concerns over quality, which can and in terms of Quasi, I believe has been fixed, I think it’s more important to have criticism and questioning in order to create a real dialogue and work towards improving the way things are done, rather than have the government and other authorities go on doing things their way without batting an eyelid or taking a look at themselves.

Suprise, suprise, this wasn't allowed to go to print. The Law School didn't want to risk The Admin coming down on them too.

But at least now it's in cyber space. The editorial I wanted to print will be here shortly, too.

The Editorial That UNDA Banned

So this is what They didn't want anyone to read...

Dear All

Welcome to the first issue of Quasimodo for 2007! It's been several weeks in the making, but we're really excited to finally have it out. Hurrah! We think the celebrations are warranted because it is so important to have Quasimodo at Notre Dame.

A vibrant student paper is one the hallmarks of a vibrant student community. It promotes a sense of belonging among the students, encourages debate on important issues, lets us put analytical skills we learn in the classroom into practice, allows us to vent about things that upset us and also gives us a laugh despite our increasingly stressful lives.

And, most importantly, it's not like they can put the Cocktail Party photos in SLO Mail the same way we do!

Over the last few years, Quasi has come a long way. There have been ups, several downs, and more than its fair share of controversy. I hope that this issue signals a turning point in the history of our little magazine. I hope that everyone, from the students and staff to the Administrators of this fine educational establishment, can appreciate, enjoy and be proud of what we've put together.

This issue features a lot more uni-focussed material than we've had in the recent past. We've got stories from inbound and outbound study-abroad students, info on how you can join up to new clubs, an interview with Keith McNaught, who was recently awarded the Student Association's prestigious Lecturer of the Year award for 2006, updates from our Sports Rep and the Physio Students Society, as well as regular faves such as the discounts directory (which is bigger and better than ever!) dnd a super-sized, bumper social photos spread.

Because we had to miss an issue this semester to due to reasons beyond our control, we've got photos from O-Day, Commencement, the fantastic Back to Uni Traffic Light Party and the Annual NDSA Cocktail Party. How fine and dandy, cotton candy!

What cannot be sugar coated, however, are serious social and political issues in the world around us. In addition to an article from a student who suffered horrific injuries in a high-speed car crash, we've also introduced what may be a regular 'world issues' section. This edition, we have articles from students and Dr Rob Imre from the

School of Arts and Sciences. Let us know what you think about it, if you'd like to see it continue and especially if you'd like to write about something which matters to you.

An article I'd been meaning to write, but which we didn't have space for due to the extra photos and such, relates to current political happenings in Sri Lanka, the country where I was born. I may still call Australia home, but I ruefully admit that I cheered for the blue and gold in the Cricket World Cup (Gilly, love ya mate, but squash is just not cricket…)!

A couple of years ago, I wrote in these pages about my heartbreak at witnessing the coastal parts of the island nation six months after the tsunami of 2004. A current issue which now worries me is a political aspect of the brutal civil war between the majority Singhalese (of which I was born a part) and the minority Tamil insurgents, who are seeking an independent homeland.

In February of this year, the Sinhalese government arrested a Tamil journalist and the Singhalese publisher of the Sunday Standard and Sinhala-language Mawbima newspapers. They were not charged but remained imprisoned for weeks under anti-terrorist legislation, which allows for lengthy detention without trial.

The papers' editors and the NGO Committee to Protect Journalists were disturbed that these arrests occurred after the papers published articles which criticised the Sri Lankan government and army for human rights violations. The journalist and publisher were finally released when the Supreme Court declared there was no evidence against the pair.

Subsequently, the Government froze the papers' bank ccounts, forcing them to suspend publication and effectively silencing their criticisms. Journalists in Sri Lanka have told the Committee to Protect Journalists that coverage of political and defence matters has become increasingly difficult after the anti-terrorist laws were reactivated last year and that self-censorship is now a common occurrence.

As a writer, an editor and a student of politics and law, it is again heartbreaking to see something so fundamental as freedom of speech being violated by those with power and authority in a place which is such an important part of my life.

So there's just something to ponder as your peruse these pages. Aside from the heavy stuff, which is supposed to get you thinking, I hope you enjoy! Please write to s at quasimodo@nd.edu.au so that next issue we can bring back the much loved "Dear Quasi" pages!

Finally, I would like to thank the Student Association Committee for understanding that this publication is one of the core services the NDSA provides and kudos sspecially El Presidente James and Pubs Rep Cara for all their hard work in helping to keep Quasi alive.

I would also like to express gratitude to previous editorial committees, including Sean Redden, Carita Kazakoff, Rob Corr, Tim Kennedy, Lauren Burwood, Laura Broadbent, Chris Bailey and Patt Vagg, for all their moral support in recent weeks and for bringing Quasi to where it is now. I really hope that Patt's fears and worries for his baby are sufficiently quelled with this issue and those to come this year.

Cheers and best wishes
Sunili x

Now c'mon... Was that really a thinly-veiled attack on the way the Vice Chancellor and his cronies who had tried to stop Quasimodo from critiquing the university administration by witholding funding from the Student Association?

*shrug*

Freedom of Thought and Intellectual Freedom

She's baaaaaaack!!

After her column a couple of weeks ago about how K-Rudd's been doin' O-Kay (which left more than a couple of commenters asking, "Who are you and what have you done with the real Janet?") Aunty Jan returns to doing what she does best: writing diatribes full of broad, sweeping statements that generally end with "It has happened in the US. It should be happening here."

This week's thesis: "University is not the place to crush ideas".

You're soooooo right Aunty J. Of course it isn't; High School is.

Sarcasm aside, I once again find myself agreeing with Janet.

Now, there's a Facebook group that's named something along the lines of Law School: Where Idealism Goes to Die, but I promise my idealism is only slightly anemic rather than already cremated.

Mind you, my corporate-law coffin is pretty much ready and waiting for me (habour-views, satin lining and all!), but I'm not quite ready to lie down in it.

Anyway, my point is that I am certainly not one of the "group of Young Liberals" who are the subject of Albrechtsen's current concerns (btw, as one commenter rightly points out, what counts as a 'group'? 100? 50? 10? More than 2?). However, I do believe that "freedom of thought and intellectual freedom" (maybe articulated a little snappier) is one of the most important (if not the ultimate) tenet of a university.

However, I reckon that if JA really had her way, she'd just as biased for the Right as the Leftie Scum academics the Young Libs have a problem with. My fave comment from the blog is from Steve of Sydney:

Welcome to Janet Albrechtsen University. Please read the Charter for each of our faculties:

• Business: Maximise profit. It doesn’t matter what you do to achieve it but it helps to use others in order to get there. Global warming doesn’t exist so pollute as much as you can.
• Law: Screw the poor. The law is there to serve and protect the interests of the corporate state. All other matters are trivial.
• Medicine: Survival of the fittest is how we should gear our health systems. Don’t waste money on improving public health because there is no such thing as “the public.” It’s everyone for himself.
• Education: Our role is to churn out compliant but suitably skilled fodder for the business community.
• Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. This faculty is now permanently closed and no correspondence will be entered into.
• Science: Studies in this faculty to be geared at improving GM crop yields in semi arid parts of South Australia.
• Architecture and Engineering: We will will teach you underlings how to design chic blocks of flats that will make good investments for those clever enough to pass our Business or Law degrees.
• Theology: We operate from the premise that the world is 6,000 years old, that church and state must be blurred and Islam must not be examined, but simply crushed. This faculty is continually upgraded thanks to our friends and sponsors from the Hillsong Church.
• International Studies. The US is unquestioningly a force for good in this world.

Full course fees, payable by your parents, are required at the time of enrolment. No “special considerations” will be entered into in ANY circumstances.

Hey!! That sounds reeeeeally familiar!!!

I often lament over the fact I have yet to attend a Real University, rather than one that (regardless of the rhetoric, trust me, I was there) pretty much ticks all the above boxes. My dreams of not having a HECS debt ended up becoming a Fee-HELP nightmare and I really don't have many good things to say about the "University" of Notre Dame Australia.

I recently discovered ND had released an Academic Freedom Policy. And oh, what a glorious example of witty, ironic, sarcasm-based humour it is!!!!

At least I assume it is... 'cause this schizzle canno' be fo' real:

1. The University of Notre Dame Australia ... is an integral part of the world-wide group of great Catholic universities, and follows academic freedom norms which are common in all such universities.

...

5. The University hopes and anticipates that most of its students and staff will support and contribute to the context of Catholic faith and values within which it functions as an institution of higher learning.

...

6. The University must be a liberal and unfettered place where the basic values and beliefs of Christians are exposed, explained, researched, debated, freely challenged, and openly affirmed or rejected.

Can it?

Well, at least with such clear and unambiguous terms, not, we don't have to worry about it being binding on anyone.

Cause it (specifically number six) certainly didn't apply to the Vice Chancellor when The Quasi tried to debate the morning-after pill, in a"fair and balanced" way with perspectives of a female student and a member of the School of Philosophy (who has since resigned, along with pretty much all of the best academic staff ND ever pretended to have).

This year's PROSH put it so perfectly:

Notre Dame: All the downsides of Catholicism, none of the benefits of university.

Touché.

Women @ Work

So the glass-ceiling thing comes up again. Another study, another article, another blog post asking the same old questions:

WHY are there so few women at senior levels in Australian corporate life? How is it that women, who are at least as well educated as men these days, represent only 12 per cent of ASX 200 executive managers? Why have women been appointed as CEOs of just five ASX 200 companies since 2004?

The Leadership Challenge: Women in Management study by Hannah Piterman presents some interesting observations, and I look forward to reading Aunty Jan's response to this in the coming days, but I figured I'd have my say first so that I don't spend a whole entry being angry at her, rather than the topic.

One participant in the study, a female senior manager, commented that

A lot of women don't want to be senior women in corporations because they want to have more flexibility and more choice and dedicate more time and focus to other elements of their life".

The author of the article I read, Jennifer Hewitt, responds:

Fair enough. It's certainly a sensible alternative to the competitive fixation with titles and offices and status shown by so many men. But, particularly given the growing shortage of skilled employees facing Australian businesses, it's worth figuring out if such choices have to be so rigid for so many women.

While I totally agree with that, I don't think it's fair enough that giving up a career because it's incompatible with kids is the only 'sensible option'. Surely there's a sensible option to deal with this work/life problem if it means sorting the skills shortage?

I've been watching Cashmere Mafia recently (I know, I know, in the last post I referred to City Homicide, but bear with me here) and while it is mostly SATC: Married With Higher Paying Jobs, I think there's at least one storyline that touches on a real issue highlighted by this study -- nothing has changed in the corporate world which makes it easy to be a woman in management.

Frances O'Connor's character is middle-management in a finance firm who also happens to be a mother. Every aspect of her arc is basically about her family v work dilemma. In two episodes, colleagues trying to out-do her for promotion fix meetings and projects with the hope she won't be able to make it due to family commitments. According to Dr Piterman:

Working mothers are excluded from key roles, projects and opportunities due to a work structure and a culture that does not accommodate their needs

and the author of the article I read points out that

A number of the most successful women in the study either don't have children or have a very supportive partner or engage in complex juggling acts that are not sustainable.

I've been naughtily watching eps before they're on TV here, so I won't say any more on the CM stuff, just that it got me thinking about the glass ceiling over the weekend when, lo and behold, here is this interesting study which notes

Female talent is ultimately lost as working mothers fail to achieve effective flexible work arrangements and abandon demanding corporate careers.

I've spoken to a men running large corporate business who agree that this is a massive problem that needs a creative solution.

Determining what that solution is, or even where the impetus for finding this solution will come from, is not so easy as identifying the problem. I mean, if it's on a Manhattan-based dramedy, surely it's old news.

So, who's it going to be, kids?

Who's going to just throw their hands up and admit that there's a serious problem, and that working on the dooms-day skills shortage we currently have may just have to include getting rid of that gosh-darn glass ceiling as well as more TAFEs and 457s?

Because unless someone gives everyone a good kick up the backside, I have a feeling we'll just sit around twiddling our thumbs and whinging.

I'm not going to say it'll be easily. It's not just more childcare centres or paid maternity leave that's going to fix this problem. The attitude of people in business and the corporate world has to change, because no amount of CBD creches will change stuff like this:

It's not just because most women tend not to be around as much for the networking ppportunities like the drinks at the pub or the games of golf.

It's also a more subtle shading that means male executives feel more comfortable with men like them while women who try to emulate that masculine model encourage suspicion, derision and cultural isolation.

"The communication and decision-making styles attributed to women, such as being inclusive and collegial, are seen as incompatible with desired leadership traits of decisiveness and expediency," the study summarises. "Women's reluctance (and/or inability) to enter into a game of strategic survival and aggressive personal politics is perceived as weakness and lack of ambition."

So I'm not just looking at you, Tanya, but also at the guys running all the businesses out there (because, yes, they are guys).

We've got the research, we know what's wrong, we've got the impetus... so how about we try and change that whole 'corporate culture' thing, shall we?

Prime Suspect

The recent developments in the Corryn Rayney murder investigation have shocked and saddened me.

Firstly, to hear the police come out and name her husband, and claim that they have evidence that she was murdered in the family home was a little unnerving. Did anyone watch the second (and was it the last? I haven't heard about it since) episode of Shark? With the story line of the surgeon husband suspected of killing his doctor wife while the kid was at home? The episode aired the week after Corryn went missing. Her body was found a few days later. I sat there watching it going, 'oh jeez, I hope the same thing doesn't happen here.'

I know, I'm totally lame for relating everything to televisions shows. But it was just creepily co-inki-dinky. Like Annabel Catt/Dixon.

But after Mr Rayney was declared the "prime suspect" on Thursday, and after days of forensic investigation and luminol spraying, he still hasn't been charged. At least not with her murder.

They were estranged. The phone tap thing is weird. And he's the main "person of interest". For all we know, he did it.

But the way the police have handled the publicity issues here just astounds me. Don't they watch City Homicide?? Noni Hazelhurst wisely tells the Thank-God-You're-Here guy to make sure his kids keep everything out of the press every single week!

Sure, in the this age of information-gluttony, the public wants to know everything. But it's also in the public interest to ensure our legal system retains its integrity.

We have a criminal justice system to try and prosecute offenders. Even when they're charged, suspects are innocent until proven guilty, etc etc etc. But we've been given snippets of this and bits of that which amounts to a great circumstantial case, without any real hard facts or evidence.

Media releases should never, ever, replace counsel presenting a case to a judge and jury. Unless we get the call-up to sit in the box with 11 fellow Perthites, we cannot decide if Mr Rayney did it or not... but with everything that's been aired out in the past few days, will they ever find 12 people who haven't already made up their minds?

You can say as much as you like that the WA Law Society & Bar Association etc are just speaking out on this issue to defend one of their own, I guess like
Deputy Commissioner Dawson standing by Snr Sgt Lee, but they are the ones who know how the system ought to work.

Tom Percy QC was absolutely right when he came out and said:

"The concept of a prime suspect, there is no concept of it in law. I think it was definitely a mistake. They've got to either charge him or just be quiet about it."

If Mr Rayney did it, he did it, and if the police do everything right he'll get done for it according to the law. But the way things are unfolding, he's getting done by the media, and the problem is that there is no right of appeal from that verdict. It's life, it's been done, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Yay blogging is fun!

In case no-one has noticed, let me point out that my internet-related activity spikes under two circumstances:

1. When I have uni assessments due (currently, my Law Honours thesis... due Oct 24. I have only written one chapter); and
   
2. When an election is looming (Kevin07!!!).

So here we are, at an eclipse of both phenomena!

This post-comeback post is what, 10 months late? If the maths is wrong, please don't hate me, cause it's 1:18am.

This new layout is nice, though, don't cha think?

I won't say 'stay tuned...' because I'm not sure if there will be anything after the static crackle to follow... but we'll see. There's only so much (fluff)Friend petting I can do and there are just hours to be procrastinated away...

x Sunili

The Battle for Their Minds: Ideology and the Future of Education in Australia

I'm baaaaaaack. My redrag.net blog got hacked so it's back to Blogger basics. This is an article that didn't make it into the last issue of Quasimodo for 2006 due to technical issues. I didn't want to waste it so I thought I'd use it as a filler for my comeback post.

---

Some time before he drank that fateful glass of hemlock, Socrates pointed out that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Here at Notre Dame, our Core Units give all of us an opportunity to examine aspects of life in Philosophy and Ethics, and to learn about ideas. Our Core Units and other humanities courses are opportunities for us to think.

Very recently, the Honourable Julie Bishop, Federal Minister for Education and Training, gave an address to the History Teachers’ Association of Australia conference at our lovely Fremantle campus. In her speech, she outlined the Howard/Bishop regime’s manifesto for changing the way history—stories of life, of our societies and of our world—is taught and, ultimately, examined in our schools.

Apparently, the need for this change is driven by concerns, as outlined in quite emotive language, of the dangerous “social engineers” in the education departments of the Labor-controlled states: “Ideologues who have hijacked school curriculum and are experimenting with the education of our young people”. It just makes you quiver in fear, doesn’t it?

As Aristotle observed, “All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.” Ms Bishop’s policy developers appear to have come to just that conclusion.

The (Big L) Liberal plan outlined by Ms Bishop is to implement a single national curriculum to be co-ordinated by a National Board of Studies which will not be under the influence of the nasty (little l) liberal intellectual ideologues. No longer will there need to be a fear of social engineering, because, as we all know, the Liberals aren’t at all into stacking boards with their own ideologues. Appointees to the ABC, the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the nuclear-energy inquiry task-force over the last decade have all been completely, 100%, certifiably, absa-diddley-doodily ideologically neutral… or maybe not.

Paul Keating claims Howard’s regime is on its own mission for ideological domination. “Whatever John Howard believed I stood for philosophically,” said Keating, “I was never tempted nor had the temerity to subjugate professional opinion by formalising adherence to any set of rules or philosophy in government-owned media institutions … Yet the only apologia for this brazen interference by the Howard Government is the new whispered word balance, which decoded means … let's hear more from us” (emphasis added).

The example of the new content requirements for the ABC can be seen mirrored in education policy.

The National Board of Ideology Free Studies would essentially deal with the influx of “fads” in school curricula which Prime Minister Howard has previously identified as “black armband history” that tends to apologise for facts about the past (generally in order to learn lessons for the future) which amounts to “little more that a litany of sexism, racism and class warfare.” Howard prefers the “‘traditionalist’ view of a good education… in opposition to the more fashionable, progressive views that have held sway in schools and universities.”

Oh! Shock, horror! Heaven forbid! Intellectual progress!!! Asking questions, understanding about life, our societies, the world. Now that’s bad education policy for you.

According to the Howard/Bishop regime, kids need to be learning about facts, dates and figures. Hrmm, yes, that’s a great way to get kids excited about history, since it was soooo interesting already. But actually, there’s absolutely no need to entice the kids to these classes: Julie Bishop’s history would be compulsory. Because “students need to be equipped with the fundamentals, essential and enduring skills and learning that will help make them informed and productive citizens” (emphasis added).

There have been worries that the primary function of social and political institutions such as law and education is merely the promotion of economic efficiency. And there you have it folks: students need to be educated in order to become productive citizens. Drones who know how to construct proper sentences as they work in their desk-mule jobs for corporate firms all around the country.

Ms Bishop sees the status quo as being affected by “too much political bias”. What she seems to be forgetting is that history is inherently biased: it automatically arrives from the view point of whoever wrote it down and that fact cannot be escaped. In her speech, Ms Bishop highlighted key things children should get out of their history lessons:

Every schoolchild should know, for example, when and why the then Lieutenant James Cook sailed along the east coast of Australia. Every child should know why the British transported convicts to Australia and who Australia's first prime minister was. They should also know how and why Federation came about, and why we were involved in the two world wars.

But if we ask ourselves these questions, ideological answers cannot be avoided. Cook sailed to Australia on orders from the British Government to find more land in order to expand their empire. Convicts were transported to Australia to deal with the ever-increasing prison population in Britain and some were petty criminals who only stole out of desperation in times of economic hardship and class subjugation. Australia’s first PM was Edmund Barton, who believed that “the doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman.” Federation came about in order to ensure the economic security of Australia and the first non-administrative act of the new Commonwealth Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth); the foundations of the White Australia Policy. We were involved in the World Wars following the lead of the British motherland seeking security in Europe.

Asking questions is actually quite subversive. She probably should’ve left the ‘why’ bits out if she didn’t want ideology taught in history lessons, and just stuck to proclaiming the importance of learning facts and dates about dead, white males.

Examining history and literary texts through ideological analysis and debating ‘themes and issues’ is a means to examine life. Because, really, what is the point if we just walk though life without giving it any thought? It is only through asking questions, seeking knowledge and making our own conclusions that we as a society can progress and improve. But as Cicero succintly lamented, “the authority of those who teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn.”

Movin' on up!

THANK YOU ROB!!!

I am now a wordpressionista, and my ranting has moved to new digs at http://sunili.redrag.net

So please update your links and bookmarks and whatnots.

See you there!

Counting Blessings

I spoke to my Mum in Sri Lanka this morning, and she is safe-safe-safe. Everyone in my family is safe, and there's just property damage to deal with. I cannot believe our luck...

My Mum and my Aunt from the US had wanted to drive down the South Coast (the worst affected areas) on a pilgrimge to a temple of Hindu god (Kataragama) (in whom Buddhists believe in/pray to too) this weekend, but all the holtels were booked so they went to another Aunt's house in Awissawella, which is inland. They didn't actually hear anything 'til after it had all happened.

Yesterday morning they had planned to drive down to visit my Grandma, who lives in Morragulla, Beruwalla--on the West Coast of Sri Lanka. The planned early-morning journey was interrupted when a water main burst in the street near my Aunt's place and my Uncle had to get in touch with the authorities to sort that out. It was a Sunday and a public holiday (Sri Lanka observes Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian holidays--another excellent reason as to why we should embrace true multiculturalism) so it took ages to organise maintenance... while they were waiting they got call from a relative of a relative asking if they had any news. It was apparently a "what news?" moment. The TV went on and they weren't going anywhere.

The first wave had come up to my Grandma's front fence. She spoke to my Mum and said everything was fine, the water's receded quickly. Silly old lady! The second wave was worse, and her place, which is actually raised about a metre off the ground, was flooded up to her chest. Her neighbours carried her to the second storey of the house across the street. My Uncle who lives nearby (the one with the new bub) owns a restaurant and a small guesthouse which did not get touched.

My second Uncle's house in the South was destroyed, but the family is safe, and a second cousin was playing cricket on the beach on the East Coast and he got sucked out to sea twice, but he's a national junior swimmer or something and he is ok.

Again, thank you everyone who called/messaged/got in touch with me, it means so much to know that you guys care, and thank you thank you thank you for your prayers/good karma... if you can, please keep it coming; my family is ok but thousands, maybe millions, more aren't doing so well.

If anyone is able to, the Red Cross/Red Crescent is taking donations...

• Red Cross Australia's Asia Quake and Tsunamis Appeal: Info, Donate Online
• International RC/RC accepts donations to the Emergency Disaster Relief Fund

P.S: My brother's in the US at the moment and he and my cousin drove to Canada this weekend... apparently there's a bitch of a blizzard out there right now. Is this a test, Mother Nature? I promise I will recycle even more...

Encouraging Conversation

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers, leave those kids alone

Looks like Gregory Melleuish's been listening to too much Pink Floyd... His latest column about liberal education raises some very valid points about the stagnation of intellectual debate.

To collapse many conversations into one is to reduce the vitality of the intellectual life of a society or culture. For ideas to develop and grow, individuals holding those ideas must be in touch with those who hold different positions so that they do not grow complacent and arrogant in their own rightness.

Apparently this stagnation occurs because there are too many whacko-lefties in universities. But surely if Tories weren't too busy making money, there might be a more "fair and balanced" intellectual status quo in universities? So how about properly funding universities and paying people properly for their intellectual contribution to society, instead of forcing brilliant minds to the stupor of the corporate world? (Argh, my tongue appears to be stuck to my cheek... must be the weather.)

Greg observes that the problem of "academic conformity"

prevents any form of vigorous conversation occurring within the universities. Instead, it is left to journalists and mavericks such as Keith Windschuttle to engage the academics from outside the universities. The result is not a conversation but a shouting match that is more like a gladiatorial spectacle than a debate.

I totally agree. Pseudo-academic insurgency merely prevents proper discussion, analysis and solutions. We shouldn't encourage intellectual blowback. Furthermore, the purpose of education is to encourage people to learn and make choices based on their analysis of all the information available. The presentation of only one perspective is "thought control".

Greg's solution to this odious scourge

is to create the conditions under which other institutions, including private universities, think tanks and institutes, are able to flourish.

But isn't that just building a Colosseum in which intellectual gladiators may fight, rather than encouraging a civil approach to intellectual debate? Governments should provide "a more favourable environment" for intellectual conversation by supporting universities properly.

Providing tax breaks for think-tanks isn't going to solve anything.


Update: A reply to the comment left by my Good Friend Anonymous because I have a cheap-arse comments system (can anyone help me out with that, not looking at anyone in particular?) which won't accept over 1000 characters...

First of all, I reckon you should put your name to your opinions. You don't have to leave contact details, but it really looks bad when you have to hide in Anonyland.

In any event, this is an issue of education policy. What I'm saying is that you can't run around crying that universities aren't up to scratch (which is what Greg was doing) when you support less funding for them (which is what, let's face it, Greg does). What we need are universities which are able to hire enough staff from diverse backgrounds and keep them there so these institutions are able to provide students with the opportunity to understand all facets of the debate.

The problem at hand is that universities are unable to have enough staff to teach classes let alone provide differing viewpoints, further exacerbated by the fact they just can't attract the right people by paying them properly (although another issue is whether Right people want to be involved in the first place; they seem to happy sitting on the side lines having a whinge).

The think-tanks Greg wants tax breaks for are not "true think-thanks". They are intellectual lobby-groups. They do not 'thoroughly [discuss] all options'; they present very partisan opinions in the hope of influencing decision makers. They are not an arena for encouraging "vigorous conversation", they are participants in the inevitable "shouting match" which results from the fractionalisation of the intelligentsia.

If it needs to be made clearer for you, Anon, what I'm saying is that Greg can't bemoan the lack of intellectual conversation in universities then argue the best way to solve this problem is to encourage external shouting.

My solution, to repeat myself in case it was *misread* the first time, is to encourage conversation within universities so THEY really can be "true think-tanks", and this should be done through providing proper funding and support for what they were established to do, cf pumping up partisan gladiators with ridiculous tax-breaks. Of course, if we're supposed to be so obsessed with tax breaks, yes, give them to the universities, but not hacks from think-tanks.

"Citizen Jane" Responds

From my inbox re my vile raving rant from yesterday:

Well, here I was carelessly surfing the internet and thinking to myself… geez there’s a lot of conservative crap being printed on the internet. With a slight sigh of relief I stumbled across your ‘blog.’ At the very first glance of your page I was quickly reassured with the state of the media. The media isn’t biased at all. There’s just as much conservative crap out there as there is ‘liberal’ bulldust such as yours (and for those wondering I use the term liberal very loosely).

To start off with I have to say that it is no real surprise that you got so worked up on the issue. Well, think about. If someone says something stupid your shrug your shoulders and think, if not say, what a “poor stupid bastard.” But in this case you had a person making logical, valid points and all you could respond with was a whole heap of swearing and false bravado. And to make things worse for you the person making these points was actually one of your own-kind (someone else who writes what they believe is right in an attempt to save the world.)

Oh… you thought I was referring to author’s gender. Opps, I guess you forgot the first rule of feminism: equality. Yes, that’s right – gender is irrelevant. WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE FINALLY UNDERSTAND THIS. The fact that it was a female writing the article is completely. Utterly. Undeniably. IMMATERIAL. But I suppose I should forgive you, when you can’t attack the content of an article you have to fill your page moaning about something.

The problem with old-feminists is that they completely lost sight of what they were fighting for. Originally, they weren’t simply about women’s rights, they were about equality. It just so happens that, at the time, women were getting a bloody raw deal. So, that’s what they fought for. Tooth and nail. They fought for a system where women could be educated, given the same opportunities and be just as, if not, more successful than their muscularly enhanced counterparts.

Conveniently (but predictably) you forgot to mention the fact that women do have a chance. And not just a 30% chance either. Confused? Oh, let me remind you of someone who actually has some facts.

Women in the present day are:

* Four times LESS likely than young men to kill themselves
* 22 times LESS likely to be imprisoned.
* And MORE likely than boys to leave school with no qualifications.

Oh, but didn’t you say:

“It's only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a $%&* choice.”

What’s worse is that you then go on to lament about the demise of the Office of Status of Women. Well don’t men have issues too? Isn’t this what we are fighting for here - Equality.

Agreed?

Anyone?

Oh… that’s right… now I remember why men don’t have an Office of Status. Because if they haven’t killed themselves then they are in prison or too uneducated to do anything about.

How convenient.

The thing that is admirable about Janet Albrechtsen is that she isn’t afraid to fight for equality. She isn’t the ego-thirsty, power-hungry person that you are. She can accept that 30% ain’t bad for women. Now, all your readers out there, bear with me here.

Let’s face facts. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Women give birth (using their vaginas). Men are strong and are more suited to the blue-collar jobs (not that anyone cares about those jobs anyway). But nevertheless, a bit like YOU said. You want to stay home and look after the kids. Well what happens if 70% of women agree with you. Do we then launch into a cry about the High Court?

No. We look at it objectively. Women have great opportunities. In fact, in some cases, they are better off than men. Most women are educated, out-of-prison and alive. And if a woman wants to gets on the High Court, SHE HAS THE OPPURTUNITY. So now that women have opportunities you can get off your high horse. Old feminism can slowly fade away. And a new, truer form of feminism can be bred where equality is fought for, regardless of the gender.

Citizen Jane

This, folks, is even more gold when one knows who wrote it, and I now feel 100% justified in certain possibly-irrational choices I may have made recently :-D

But, to the issue at hand.

Dear Jane

I agree with you, Jane, about equality. In fact, I was discussing this issue with a Friend From Up The Road yesterday and he takes exactly the same position as you with regards to what modern feminism is about. The term feminism should apparently be scrapped (in the same way one might say the ALP should get as far away from 'Labor' as possible which some creative corporate re-branding, but I'll save that one for a rainy day... it's too lovely a day today to be angry...) in favour of 'equalism' or, in the alternative, we should just forget about the whole damn thing all together and just get on with our lives.

However, there's something about forgetting the past which I just cannot deal with. What happens when you forget the past is that you make the same mistakes over and over again. This is the same issue I have with indigenous issues and economic policy... everyone gets lulled into a false sense of security when things are 'fine' and all of a sudden, you're back 70 years. As long as you, Jane, promise me that on the road to equalism we don't forget that women have suffered with the raw deal for a very long time, I agree that we need to support everyone with warm-fuzzies.

But, here's my reply speech (especially since you don't like them...) on the other issues you raised, in chronological order.

Firstly, I'm not the media. I'm an over-excited twenty-something nerd who hates to piss off the few real-world friends she has and has thus taken to venting in kilobytes. Furthermore, I believe there has been some good research done on the fact blogging doesn't affect the mainstream media enough to have real impact on the information war, and with 8 hits a day I'm not part of the tiny number who may in fact do so.

Secondly, I feel that my harping on Janet Albrechtson's gender was justified. Someone said to me yesterday that if a man had written what she had written, it would have never been published. Why would anyone say that if what she wrote wasn't ridiculously offensive to women and the hard fight fought by crazed feminazis everywhere? Plus, she wrote it as a woman, she should be able to justify it as a woman, and so I am going to write about what she wrote as a woman.

Thirdly, would you like to re-read my post and tell me exactly how many times I moaned without discussing 'content'? I may get emotional sometimes, but I generally try to stick to the issues at hand when I criticise something, without resorting to blatantly making stuff up.

Fourthly, I'm glad you accept that there needed to be a cat-fight for women to "given the same opportunities and be just as, if not, more successful than their muscularly enhanced counterparts" and that "as a result of the pressure from such people that many women’s lives have improved":

This is great. Women have achieved so much. But the brutal facts remain. The vast majority of the world’s women still have very little power, at work, in their relationships at home, or in the wider world. As British social commentator Polly Toynbee noted, even in the Britain of 2004: ‘the battle is only half won.’

Worldwide, 70 per cent of those living in poverty are women, as are two-thirds of illiterate adults. One in four women is beaten by her husband or partner. Every day, 1,300 still die unnecessarily in childbirth or during pregnancy.

I do not believe feminists have "lost sight of what they were fighting for". It is only when we accept sub-par results do we lose sight of the fight.

Fifthly, if you're up for some websurfing: here are some more facts about women and our (cough) place in the world.

Sixthly, when I was talking about [deleted] choices, it was in the context of responding to Auntie Jan saying feminazis do not offer women 'real choices'. I was saying we have choices. Because of feminazis and what they fought for. Yes, hurrah, something to celebrate! Auntie Jan goes on and on about how Old Femmos whine despite the progress we've made and yet what does she do? Whine about something we could celebrate. Way to go!

Seventhly, I understand the point you are making about the status of men. I'm sure you feel very strongly about it. All I have to say to that is, then let's stop arguing about women and men and fix the education system which currently favours the rich over the poor and is on a steady march to increasing that divide.

Oops, did I suddenly switch from whinging about gender to whinging about class? Here's the thing with equality in this country right now: Everything and everyone is divided into competing factions because it appears that the elites seem to like it that way. They're happy propping up their friends to high places and ignoring those who can't increase their status. My apologies for the digression, but there is a link...

The thing is, exactly the same issue exists with women. Women have always have and, if we ignore it, always will face an uphill battle for equality. Probably because we have different bits down there to men. (I am going to ignore the thing you said about Auntie Jan's ego: la la la la la la imnotlisteningoriwillswearagain la la la la.) My Friend From Up The Road pointed out that the number is 30% because 20% of women are having children at all times. (Like how 69% of statistics are made up on the spot.) Well, if that is the case, I give up. I concede. Capitulate, even. Ok, we have the chance and opportunity to be on the High Court now, let's get the hell over it.

But 30% isn't equality yet. We need to support everyone, men, women, children, elderly, indigenous people, migrants, students, workers, heck, even wild tree frogs, but we still have to fight for equality, as the best way to provide that support. We still have to fight because the current status quo doesn't give a shit. That's all I was saying. That and Janet Albrechtsen is evil.

Thanks for taking the time to send me a response, and I hope to talk to you soon
Sunili

P.S. I know I'm not one to talk about spelling, but I've recently found that Copy-Paste to Word only takes a few seconds ;)

Anger. Rising. Must. Blog.

Note: Sorry I've been out of the blogging loop for a while, it was due to the post-exam blob-out and being too busy in the real-world and then writing about slightly more interesting things elsewhere--I have even avoided looking the news up online--and please forgive that this response to my second favourite Tory Lady Janet Albrechtsen is a little tardy and may have been covered elsewhere. I promise I'll be getting back into the swing of things again shortly. Oh, and yeah, I get really ticked off here, so you have hereby been given a

LANGUAGE WARNING.



Anti-feminist women perplex me. Conservative anti-feminist women (though I'm hard pressed to name any progressive anti-feminist women) more so. Let's face it, if a woman it so brainwashed by her context to think her place is in the home and she should never be able to achieve or do anything because she wants to, then I can't blame her. Heck, if a woman sits down and has a good think about all the issues and decides, for. her. self, that's what she wants to do, then kudos to her. But how can an educated, apparently intelligent woman of the world think so? I suppose "an intelligent Conservative" is an oxymoron. But, in my humble opinion, so is Tory Anti-Feminism.

In her latest, Janet Albrechtsen suggests that for those weirdo hippie bra-burning crackpots better known as 'older feminists', "conservatism and feminism do not mix".

And rightly so, because Tories like the Luddite "picket-fence, mother-at-home model" of women's policy in preference to the "oh, shit; quick, put a woman on the High Court even if it's solely to save us from international humiliation (even though we probably can't be more humiliated and looked down upon...)" model.

But, surely, if a Conservative woman was all gung-ho for that personal-best-self-interest realist crap, she would be promoting the need to support women though affirmative action mechanisms because it'd be the best way for her to win?

Apparently not!

Which I SO do not get. Doesn't Jan realise that maybe one day she could be swinging her sensible shoes off the edge of highest park-bench in the country if only she supported giving women a so-called 'free ride'?

No, she's too busy pointing out that 30% is a victory.

I know Jess from ausculture hearts Janet Albrechtsen, but I hate her and her smarminess.

According to Jan, 'real women' (of which I am apparently not one) should be celebrating (and that does not just mean being pleased with the current progress, but actually congratulating ourselves on this is be-all and end-all achievement) the following:

Women hold 33 per cent of Australian government board spots, well beyond the 8.6 per cent of seats they had on Australia's top 200 listed companies as at June 2003. For the same period, women held more than 30 per cent of positions at the senior executive service level in the Australian public service. In the private sector the figure is 8.8 per cent. Women fill more than one quarter of Coalition seats and as Howard noted in his post-election press conference, there are more women in cabinet than at any time since Federation.

First of all... 103 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME SINCE FEDERATION, but, more bizarrely... we're supposed to be proud of THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT?????????????

Fuck. Off.

Oh, pardon me. That's thirty-three percent of government board spots.

Fuck the fuck off, Jan. Not happy, even.

Apparently we're not allowed to be 'angry' that only SIX women head government departments. That's SIX out of EIGHTEEN departments. Good things obviously come in thirds, because this fact, according to Auntie Jan, is the. Best. Thing. Ever.

Fuck. Off.

I appear to be repeating myself. But I just can't help it. I am livid. FUCK THE FUCK OFF, JANET!!!!

On the issue that affirmative action is a 'free ride', Auntie Jan argues that:

... merit must come first. Short cuts based on gender will hardly advance the status of women. When you appoint a woman on sex, not talent, you risk appointing the talentless -- or at least promoting that perception. And that can only encourage a view that women are not quite up to the job.

What complete and utter bullshit. On first glance, Jan's point appears relatively rational. (Heaven forbid!)

But let's have a think about this, shall we? (Phew. Order is once again restored to the world.)

First of all, while we may like to think we live in a meritocracy, oh no we fucking don't. What's the difference between appointing a woman to the High Court because she's a woman and appointing a conservative to the High Court because he (let's face it, he) happens to be a conservative, for fuckssakes? Because that's what fucking happens in the fucking real world, as much as it pains me almost to the point of tears.

Second of all, we "risk appointing the talentless"??? Give me a freaking break, woman. Why don't you just SAY "there are no talented, qualified, quite-up-to-the-job women available to fill these positions", COUGHBULLSHITCOUGH, and just admit your redicularity (is that a word? I mean it in the same way one says 'hilarity'). Giving women a chance to enter a male-dominated profession is shitloads more progress than THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT. Can someone please explain to me how the fuck she ever passed highschool (heck, even kindergarten) thinking THIRTY PERCENT was good enough? That concept is just spinning me out right now.

And on the issue of choice... The feminazi version of choice apparently has "a nasty tendency to transmute into the dictatorial and doctrinaire". WANKWANKWANKWANKWANK. Your point, sweetie? (By the by, what a nice way of appealing to the masses; you go, Jan.) There is so a fucking choice when you support women. When I have children, I will stay at home with them because I'm the clucky type and I want to watch the cute little monkeys grow up. But I also want to do something with my life other than get sprogged up. That's called choice. It's only when we have opportunities do we have a bloody choice. It's only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a fucking choice.

Finally, if it's not too much to ask, Auntie Jan, would you care to explain and/or give an example of what you mean by "objective policy making based upon impartial research of women's needs and wants"? I would be most appreciative. Because if that isn't what the Office of Status of Women is about, well, then, I'm stumped.

So now I'm back to being confused. Confused as to why a woman thinks it's fine for women to only be 30% of the decision making process which affects 50% of the population, confused as to why she's not riding the affirmative action train to Success Station herself, since it's in her go-get-em Tory nature anyway, and confused as to how in blazes she gets stuff published in national newspapers. (No, wait, I so know the answer to that last one: Tinkerbell.) Oh jeez, how is her existence even rational? Is she some sort of über Conservabot sent here from the future to destroy our souls or something? If so, is she from the same lab from which Ann Coulter spawned?

URGH.

Right, back to being angry. Jeez Louise, I am so pissed off right now. I'm just going to stop before I say something which could get me sued. If I haven't already.

Sunshine on my window

"Why don't these photos make the news?" Thanks Fiona.