The Coalition is now in power in Victoria, and being a Liberal voter, this makes me happy. Though I quite liked Brumby himself, (he always struck me as quite a decent guy) there's no denying his government was a shambles. The Year 9 boot camp was particularly ridiculous. Having had that kind of touchy-feely education for my Year 9, I know it doesn't actually work. Myki hardly needs mentioning - my own card works, but no-one else's seems to, and there's a reason why take-up has been so-so - it is still confusing to many people, myself included. And they spent too much bloody money on something that seems quite simple. Then there's the closure of Hazelwood. Thank goodness the Coalition won, because do you know how much power that dirty coal-fired sucker provides to the state? Twenty-five per cent, and Labor (with the Greens egging them on) wanted to shut it off with nothing to take up the slack! It's all well and good to talk about sustainable alternatives like solar and wind. I'm all for these things, but until they are capable of consistently producing power the way existing power plants do, they will not actually be viable alternatives. Isn't it better to wait, and get something right, rather than rush in and get it horribly wrong, wasting billions in the process?
As for Ted and co, well, our new Premier is to me as he is to most Victorians - something of an enigma. No-one seems quite sure what the Liberals will do now - only that they were sick of Labor's mismanagement. In all honesty, Brumby was right to say that Baillieu won because the public was unwilling to stomach another four years of his government. We were sick of Premier Brumby, Deputy Hulls, Mr 'How many floors is it?' Madden and Mr 'Help, I'm lost on a mountain!' Holding. I am willing to stand up here and now and say that though I voted according to my own beliefs, there was no specific policy that made me more Liberal-biased than usual. The fact is that we as a state voted against Labor, not for the Liberals. And imagine that New South Wales and Queensland will do the same when their elections come round.
I just hope the Coalition gets it right, and doesn't create a disaster reminscent of those Ruddy days of yore. It shouldn't be too hard - after all, with the word 'myki' still a byword for 'catastrophic failure', it's not like they've got much to live up to. But I hope very much that Premier Ted and Friends will govern as if they had the best government in the world as their standard - goodness knows Victoria wants, needs, and in truth, deserves a government of that calibre.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Love and Marriage (and God, apparently)
As anyone has read my previous post about Alex Stewart (the guy who smoked the Bible and Koran) knows, I don't have a lot of time for a certain kind of atheist. Specifically, the narrow-minded ones who are more antitheist than atheist, who are full of all the hate they deride organised religion for. But we've been through all this.
This morning I was reading the paper and came across severals letter regarding same-sex marriage. What made me mad was this one guy who, wondering why the government should have any say in who marries who, said: "For us atheists, the whole thing is a moot point: we don't get married." The ignorance and stupidity of this statement is dumbfounding.
Once again, we've got someone with that crucial misunderstanding of what being an atheist means. Put simply, no two are the same, no two came to their atheism in the same way, and most importantly, there is no such thing as 'us atheists' because it is not a single unified creed but an individualised world view.
But I guess the real kicker for me was the idea that atheists don't married. This bloke's reasoning was because it's a religious ceremony. Maybe in earlier times, yes, that's all it was. Hell, there have been times when it was little more than a business transaction. There are still places where the latter happens.
However, modern marriage is about love, not God or dowries. The idea that you have to believe in God to get married is ridiculous, and I feel sorry for the guy because he obviously believes on some level that without religion, you can't really have a connection deep enough for marriage. Doesn't the fact that there is a strong movement towards legalising same-sex marriage in this countrry (a movement which I wholeheartedly support, I should add) show that rather than being symbolic of God uniting a man and a woman, it's actually one of the purest forms of expressing lifelong fidelity to another person, regardless of their sex? It's about stepping up and saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and bind your fate to theirs.
This is not to say that when two people love and are committed to one another, it is a foregone conclusion that they should marry. Of course this is not the case. Love takes many forms, and I believe many long-term de facto couples simply find a ceremony unnecessary in the light of all their years together. And if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry, they should be able to. Their connection to one another is no less meaningful and life-affirming than a heterosexual couple's, and the sooner that is recognised legally, the better.
As for atheists getting married, the drop in the number of church weddings and the rise in the use of celebrants shows that people everywhere who don't regard organised religion as important to their relationship are marrying without God or his priests looking on. Frankly, when the right person comes along, I can't see that I'll find any conflict between my atheism and my affection for the man in question. I'll love him, he'll love me, and I don't see how the fact that marriage is historically a religious ceremony is any impediment to that hypothetical wedding. It's not like God's going to stand up at the 'or forever hold your peace' bit and complain that we didn't include him!
So, yes, man in the newspaper, one day I fully intend to be a married atheist. I hope that doesn't completely blow your mind. Oh, and by the way, you, sir, are an idiot.
This morning I was reading the paper and came across severals letter regarding same-sex marriage. What made me mad was this one guy who, wondering why the government should have any say in who marries who, said: "For us atheists, the whole thing is a moot point: we don't get married." The ignorance and stupidity of this statement is dumbfounding.
Once again, we've got someone with that crucial misunderstanding of what being an atheist means. Put simply, no two are the same, no two came to their atheism in the same way, and most importantly, there is no such thing as 'us atheists' because it is not a single unified creed but an individualised world view.
But I guess the real kicker for me was the idea that atheists don't married. This bloke's reasoning was because it's a religious ceremony. Maybe in earlier times, yes, that's all it was. Hell, there have been times when it was little more than a business transaction. There are still places where the latter happens.
However, modern marriage is about love, not God or dowries. The idea that you have to believe in God to get married is ridiculous, and I feel sorry for the guy because he obviously believes on some level that without religion, you can't really have a connection deep enough for marriage. Doesn't the fact that there is a strong movement towards legalising same-sex marriage in this countrry (a movement which I wholeheartedly support, I should add) show that rather than being symbolic of God uniting a man and a woman, it's actually one of the purest forms of expressing lifelong fidelity to another person, regardless of their sex? It's about stepping up and saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with someone, and bind your fate to theirs.
This is not to say that when two people love and are committed to one another, it is a foregone conclusion that they should marry. Of course this is not the case. Love takes many forms, and I believe many long-term de facto couples simply find a ceremony unnecessary in the light of all their years together. And if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry, they should be able to. Their connection to one another is no less meaningful and life-affirming than a heterosexual couple's, and the sooner that is recognised legally, the better.
As for atheists getting married, the drop in the number of church weddings and the rise in the use of celebrants shows that people everywhere who don't regard organised religion as important to their relationship are marrying without God or his priests looking on. Frankly, when the right person comes along, I can't see that I'll find any conflict between my atheism and my affection for the man in question. I'll love him, he'll love me, and I don't see how the fact that marriage is historically a religious ceremony is any impediment to that hypothetical wedding. It's not like God's going to stand up at the 'or forever hold your peace' bit and complain that we didn't include him!
So, yes, man in the newspaper, one day I fully intend to be a married atheist. I hope that doesn't completely blow your mind. Oh, and by the way, you, sir, are an idiot.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Beaches and Butts
Every year, around this time, our good friends in the media start telling us 'What Swimsuit is Right For Your Shape'. They also tell us about new kinds of (hide your) shapewear pretty much once a month. Both things irritate me because they represent two things - media's belief in the inherent stupidity/gullibility of women everywhere, and the constant peddling of the Jennifer Hawkins-esque body as the ideal and proper shape.
First of all, just because a year has elapsed, it doesn't mean we need a whole new set of bathers, be it bikini, one-piece or apparently exciting new range from, you guessed it, Jennifer Hawkins. Not there's anything wrong with buying a new set every year, the stuff stretches and fades, goodness knows, but the idea that a year has gone by and the number of swimming costumes women own has magically gone from several to nil and we're all primed and ready to buy more is just ridiculous.
Secondly, stories about what sort of bathers you should be wearing imply that you, the consumer, does not know how to dress herself. It whispers in your ear that you are stupid, and that these fashion designers, 'media commentators' and... (SNORTS) celebrity bloggers are smart, and that you need them to tell you what to wear. I'll be straight up here and say that sometimes you see a woman walk down the beach and you think, "Oh, that pattern is all wrong" or "She should NOT be wearing a bikini". There's no accounting for taste. But you don't go up and scream these things in their faces, not just for the sake of good manners and empathy for your fellow beachgoer, but because however questionable the fashion choice, people's right to dress as they please is indisputable, no matter how subjectively 'bad' or 'wrong' it may look to my eyes, yours, or those of the rabid and ravening monster that is the media.
So far as shapewear is concerned, my mother remarked (though not in these exact words) that with ever increasing amount of the body these lycra contraptions are covering, we might as well be heading back to stays and the like. That seems like a backward step to me, because it is perpetrating a twofold lie, one for each sex.
Shapewear makes it look to men, who, bless them, would never imagine such a stupid thing under a woman's clothes, that the shapewear-clad woman is a size smaller and an entirely different shape to the one she actually is. Forgive the meat-market turn of phrase, but that is quite definitely false advertising. Frankly, I think the opposite sex deserves a woman to be honest with them - in word, in deed, and in body. Been through this before, but isn't it better that a man love you for who you are instead of lust after who you're not?
The lie that it tells women is that you can look as leggy and perfect as Jennifer Hawkins without having to do anything other than squash your internal organs and operate on reduced oxygen. What's more, it tells women that this is the way they should always be. God forbid that men, who are after all the implicit target audience of all this pouring ourselves into shapewear and careful bathers selection, should see the real you, squidgy edges and all. And of course, every time a woman takes the stuff off, and the proper shape of her body reasserts itself, it is a kick to her a self-esteem. It actually encourages women to feel bad about themselves.
A specific one that disturbs me is the underpants that, no joke, make your bottom look more rounded and shapely. Incidentally, they do make these for men too. But seriously, padded underpants? A padded bra is one thing, but shit, is your arse really the make-or-break thing about your appearance? I mean, I'm technically the target market, being narrow of hip and flat of rear, neither of which I consider detrimental to my appearance, when I do bother to think about such things. I suppose what enrages me so about this particular one is that the producers of these things, not satisfied with normal-sized and overweight women encasing themselves in shapewear, have started targeting the slim woman, the one who is probably safest from the media's obsession with the perfect female form. I don't technically fit into this category, but there are women out there who are now going to ask the question, "Does my butt look small in this?", and that makes me sick, because it leaves the chronically insecure with absolutely nowhere to go.
At the end of the day, all of this garbage cluttering our TVs, websites and newspapers are all designed to project one single idea - wear this pair of bathers and you will find a man. Cover all your natural body in lycra, hide anything that could possibly break the illusion of perfection, and you will find a man. Because of course, the only thing a man looks for in a woman is a fucking sculpture of an arse and an hourglass figure, right? No way could they be looking for anything real behind the metric ton of make-up and the push-up bra. No way could they be looking for your heart or mind or soul. Those things are worthless, because a man wants your body, not you. These are all the words that all those perfectly coiffed, perfectly strapped, nipped, tucked, painted people aren't saying. These all the appalling brutal ideas they don't want at your conscious level.
And they take advantage of all the women who simply can't or don't want to see this, and reduce them into wobbling puddles of self-loathing. It's wrong, it's just so bloody wrong. I could easily go strangle the lot of them, especially when they start talking about promoting positive body image. Derisive laughter is the only sane response to these peddlers of misery, who so self-righteously pretend to fix a problem they created on the one hand and keep on driving the nails in with the other. We must all turn our backs on these snakes and their poison. They'll have us buying new bathers on our deathbeds.
First of all, just because a year has elapsed, it doesn't mean we need a whole new set of bathers, be it bikini, one-piece or apparently exciting new range from, you guessed it, Jennifer Hawkins. Not there's anything wrong with buying a new set every year, the stuff stretches and fades, goodness knows, but the idea that a year has gone by and the number of swimming costumes women own has magically gone from several to nil and we're all primed and ready to buy more is just ridiculous.
Secondly, stories about what sort of bathers you should be wearing imply that you, the consumer, does not know how to dress herself. It whispers in your ear that you are stupid, and that these fashion designers, 'media commentators' and... (SNORTS) celebrity bloggers are smart, and that you need them to tell you what to wear. I'll be straight up here and say that sometimes you see a woman walk down the beach and you think, "Oh, that pattern is all wrong" or "She should NOT be wearing a bikini". There's no accounting for taste. But you don't go up and scream these things in their faces, not just for the sake of good manners and empathy for your fellow beachgoer, but because however questionable the fashion choice, people's right to dress as they please is indisputable, no matter how subjectively 'bad' or 'wrong' it may look to my eyes, yours, or those of the rabid and ravening monster that is the media.
So far as shapewear is concerned, my mother remarked (though not in these exact words) that with ever increasing amount of the body these lycra contraptions are covering, we might as well be heading back to stays and the like. That seems like a backward step to me, because it is perpetrating a twofold lie, one for each sex.
Shapewear makes it look to men, who, bless them, would never imagine such a stupid thing under a woman's clothes, that the shapewear-clad woman is a size smaller and an entirely different shape to the one she actually is. Forgive the meat-market turn of phrase, but that is quite definitely false advertising. Frankly, I think the opposite sex deserves a woman to be honest with them - in word, in deed, and in body. Been through this before, but isn't it better that a man love you for who you are instead of lust after who you're not?
The lie that it tells women is that you can look as leggy and perfect as Jennifer Hawkins without having to do anything other than squash your internal organs and operate on reduced oxygen. What's more, it tells women that this is the way they should always be. God forbid that men, who are after all the implicit target audience of all this pouring ourselves into shapewear and careful bathers selection, should see the real you, squidgy edges and all. And of course, every time a woman takes the stuff off, and the proper shape of her body reasserts itself, it is a kick to her a self-esteem. It actually encourages women to feel bad about themselves.
A specific one that disturbs me is the underpants that, no joke, make your bottom look more rounded and shapely. Incidentally, they do make these for men too. But seriously, padded underpants? A padded bra is one thing, but shit, is your arse really the make-or-break thing about your appearance? I mean, I'm technically the target market, being narrow of hip and flat of rear, neither of which I consider detrimental to my appearance, when I do bother to think about such things. I suppose what enrages me so about this particular one is that the producers of these things, not satisfied with normal-sized and overweight women encasing themselves in shapewear, have started targeting the slim woman, the one who is probably safest from the media's obsession with the perfect female form. I don't technically fit into this category, but there are women out there who are now going to ask the question, "Does my butt look small in this?", and that makes me sick, because it leaves the chronically insecure with absolutely nowhere to go.
At the end of the day, all of this garbage cluttering our TVs, websites and newspapers are all designed to project one single idea - wear this pair of bathers and you will find a man. Cover all your natural body in lycra, hide anything that could possibly break the illusion of perfection, and you will find a man. Because of course, the only thing a man looks for in a woman is a fucking sculpture of an arse and an hourglass figure, right? No way could they be looking for anything real behind the metric ton of make-up and the push-up bra. No way could they be looking for your heart or mind or soul. Those things are worthless, because a man wants your body, not you. These are all the words that all those perfectly coiffed, perfectly strapped, nipped, tucked, painted people aren't saying. These all the appalling brutal ideas they don't want at your conscious level.
And they take advantage of all the women who simply can't or don't want to see this, and reduce them into wobbling puddles of self-loathing. It's wrong, it's just so bloody wrong. I could easily go strangle the lot of them, especially when they start talking about promoting positive body image. Derisive laughter is the only sane response to these peddlers of misery, who so self-righteously pretend to fix a problem they created on the one hand and keep on driving the nails in with the other. We must all turn our backs on these snakes and their poison. They'll have us buying new bathers on our deathbeds.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Under the knife
I've commented on this before, but I really have to wonder why on earth women (and indeed, people in general, my own sex are just the serial offenders) have such difficulty in accepting what their DNA made them.
This particular gripe is specifically female, however, because today I'm here to talk about breast implants.
As much as it embarrasses me to have to say so, I am well aware I don't know how someone who feels they need breast augmentation feels. To put it delicately, it's not a feeling I have ever had or likely ever will have, barring something like cancer. However, what I do get is people wanting what they haven't got.
What set me off about this was hearing about Charlotte Dawson. (she's the slightly bitchy judge with the slightly frozen face on Australia's Next Top Model. Technically, Alex Perry also fits that description, but he's male, and besides, he's very bitchy. :P) Getting back on topic, Charlotte has breast implants to go with the Botoxed face. Old breast implants, which began rupturing because of their age. Now, we won't go into why on earth one would allow cameras (and Simon Reeve!) to be present while having surgery to rectify this, that's a whole other post. I was sitting there thinking, "Oh, good. She'll have them removed." Which she did, but with the express intention of replacing them with newer, smaller versions made out non-leaking materials. As it happens, medical things transpired and she couldn't do that part on the day the cameras were there. I'm not sure whether she's since had the new ones put in or not. Regardless, the fact that she had them in the first place is what bothers me. That anyone has them bothers me.
Now, I'm not disputing the right of women and men to have surgery done for purely vain reasons, but I am disputing that vanity, that belief that we as were made to be is not enough. Coming from the opposite perspective, there are definite downsides to having larger breasts, especially for those poor people who end up with back trouble. They at least have a medical reason to have things done to their boobs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that no woman under normal circumstances needs breast implants. I'd like to live in a world when the only people who have it done are mastectomy patients who understandably want one of the chief signals of their womanhood restored after a terrible ordeal.
This growing propensity for women to become bubble chests is more than little disturbing. I mean, who is it for? Men? One could point out that if a man doesn't love you as you are, small breasts and all, then he doesn't actually love you. Though it may attract more of a certain kind of men, these are not the ones liable to stay. For self-esteem? To feel more womanly? Well, that is something I can understand, but what on earth is womanly about having yourself knocked out and your chest filled with saline or silicone? What is feminine about having serious difficulty with, or not being able to, breastfeed if you have children, simply because you don't feel like a woman when you look in the mirror?
Fun fact, ladies - you're still a woman, regardless of the size of your breasts. The appearance of the thing is not the thing itself. (I think I borrowed that line from somewhere...) But we live in times when it is the appearance that matters, or at least that's how it seems. It is easier for some to put themselves through needless physical pain and scarring simply to get the body they think is better, and in doing so, avoid the necessary self-awareness to be comfortable in your own skin and self.
I've said this before, but women in general, please just learn to look yourselves in the eye and be happy with who you are, and what shape your body is designed to be. There's nothing wrong with you, or with any of us, and the sooner we all realise that, the sooner things like breast implants can become a rare occurrence instead of a disturbingly common one.
This particular gripe is specifically female, however, because today I'm here to talk about breast implants.
As much as it embarrasses me to have to say so, I am well aware I don't know how someone who feels they need breast augmentation feels. To put it delicately, it's not a feeling I have ever had or likely ever will have, barring something like cancer. However, what I do get is people wanting what they haven't got.
What set me off about this was hearing about Charlotte Dawson. (she's the slightly bitchy judge with the slightly frozen face on Australia's Next Top Model. Technically, Alex Perry also fits that description, but he's male, and besides, he's very bitchy. :P) Getting back on topic, Charlotte has breast implants to go with the Botoxed face. Old breast implants, which began rupturing because of their age. Now, we won't go into why on earth one would allow cameras (and Simon Reeve!) to be present while having surgery to rectify this, that's a whole other post. I was sitting there thinking, "Oh, good. She'll have them removed." Which she did, but with the express intention of replacing them with newer, smaller versions made out non-leaking materials. As it happens, medical things transpired and she couldn't do that part on the day the cameras were there. I'm not sure whether she's since had the new ones put in or not. Regardless, the fact that she had them in the first place is what bothers me. That anyone has them bothers me.
Now, I'm not disputing the right of women and men to have surgery done for purely vain reasons, but I am disputing that vanity, that belief that we as were made to be is not enough. Coming from the opposite perspective, there are definite downsides to having larger breasts, especially for those poor people who end up with back trouble. They at least have a medical reason to have things done to their boobs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that no woman under normal circumstances needs breast implants. I'd like to live in a world when the only people who have it done are mastectomy patients who understandably want one of the chief signals of their womanhood restored after a terrible ordeal.
This growing propensity for women to become bubble chests is more than little disturbing. I mean, who is it for? Men? One could point out that if a man doesn't love you as you are, small breasts and all, then he doesn't actually love you. Though it may attract more of a certain kind of men, these are not the ones liable to stay. For self-esteem? To feel more womanly? Well, that is something I can understand, but what on earth is womanly about having yourself knocked out and your chest filled with saline or silicone? What is feminine about having serious difficulty with, or not being able to, breastfeed if you have children, simply because you don't feel like a woman when you look in the mirror?
Fun fact, ladies - you're still a woman, regardless of the size of your breasts. The appearance of the thing is not the thing itself. (I think I borrowed that line from somewhere...) But we live in times when it is the appearance that matters, or at least that's how it seems. It is easier for some to put themselves through needless physical pain and scarring simply to get the body they think is better, and in doing so, avoid the necessary self-awareness to be comfortable in your own skin and self.
I've said this before, but women in general, please just learn to look yourselves in the eye and be happy with who you are, and what shape your body is designed to be. There's nothing wrong with you, or with any of us, and the sooner we all realise that, the sooner things like breast implants can become a rare occurrence instead of a disturbingly common one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)