“Never, Ever Give Up”. Arthur’s Inspirational Transformation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX9FSZJu448&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Free WiFi at Stockland North Shore #townsville #nq Stockland should have had free WiFi at Aitkenvale, during renovations, to compensate for the inconvenience caused to shoppers and tenants.

The latest version of Blogsy for iOS allow the user to create a blog posting for publishing on Tumblr.

1st reason: The loss of supply is due to external influences, such as birds or animals.

2nd reason: The loss of supply is due to fallen power lines.

Must have been bloody big birds or animals!!!!

APRIL 30, 2012 

“If you’re not trained in the spotting of smug, self-satisfied misogynists, you might not know the general thrust of their shtick.”

CLEMENTINE FORD

When you’re a feminist, you get used to misogynists trying to challenge the necessity of your politics. “Feminism’s finished! Women are equal now and there’s no use for all the hairy arm-pitted rubbish! Quit your yapping! Embrace your curves!”

But misogynist isn’t a very fashionable kind of word – I mean, no one saunters into a room proudly pronouncing, ‘My name’s Don and I’m a misogynist!’, unless it’s the latest charter meeting of the World’s Greatest Single Dads Monthly, or Channel Nine. So because people know it’s not really kosher to be a codified turd, they try and hide their misogynist views under the guise of legitimate arguments.

If you’re not trained in the spotting of smug, self-satisfied misogynists, you might not know the general thrust of their shtick. Luckily for you, I’ve become somewhat of an expert in the field since they all started following me on Twitter. So to help novices and outsiders, I’ve taken the following five popular misogynist arguments and parsed them into some kind of legible (if not logical) format for your benefit.

1. If you want to see real oppression, go to the Middle East.

The problems here are threefold. First, it implies women in the west should be grateful for the benevolence of their natural overlords. Who cares if 1 in 3 of you will experience sexual assault in your lifetime, while also enjoying the privilege of lower pay than your male counterparts and the symbolic annihilation of yourselves in literature and film? Women in Afghanistan are being stoned to death. So you can just go ahead and file your complaint on my DICK.

Second is the accusatory tone. Now, I’m no statistician, but I’d estimate that 98.76% of people outraged over feminism’s ‘failure’ to ‘protect’ their brown sisters from the oppression of their Muslim Male Masters (because let’s not forget, this is about racism too) are doing exactly zero to agitate for women’s liberation anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. But even though they hate feminism and all who dwell therein, they still think they know how to do it better than you do. This is because misogynists see themselves as Upper Management – which is precisely why we need to get more women into executive roles.

Finally, liberation and change aren’t beholden to hierarchies of need. It’s possible to seek the liberation of oppressed groups everywhere, at the same time! Asking comparatively privileged women (many of whom also live in the Middle East – it is not a vacuum) to be satisfied with ‘good enough’ just reinforces the patriarchal hierarchy of power that needs to be dismantled.

Besides, I don’t hear anyone accusing working families of selfishness for complaining about their rising electricity bills just because some slum dwellers in India don’t even HAVE working Playstations.

2. How can women expect us to respect them when they won’t respect themselves?

When Sheik Al-Hilali compared scantily clad women to uncovered meat, we were rightly outraged. In Australia, we yelled, we don’t treat women like that! Except that we do. We use clothing and behaviour to provide excuses for sexist everyday, be they rapists or simply people who think a woman’s right to be afforded a basic level of dignity is contingent upon how much of her skin she’s revealing. The fact that we criticize other cultures for it doesn’t make us champions of women – it makes us both sexist AND racist.

We’re not protecting women – we’re protecting our property. Asking women to respect themselves in order to ‘earn’ the right to be treated like a human being is total horseshit. But suggesting that you have the right to treat her exactly as you please because she didn’t adhere to your archaic views of feminine propriety is misogyny, plain and simple.

3. Stop criticizing domestic servitude! Some women are proud to look after their families.

This one’s a misogynist favourite, especially notable for the fact it’s the only time you’ll find them advocating for women’s rights in the workplace. Specifically, a woman’s right to iron her husband’s work shirts instead of her own. Misogynists who use this argument like to wax lyrical about things like choice, pride and sacrificial love. But what they’re really defending is their belief that women belong in the home, performing dull domestic tasks for the primary benefit of everyone other than themselves (and mainly their husband). Despite the fact that these dudes wouldn’t devote even an tenth of their lives to it themselves, they’re invested in outwardly maintaining the nobility of unpaid domestic work – because ascribing false honour to drudgery is how you reinforce invisible social power.

The thing is, women can choose those things if they want to. There’s nothing more tedious than the status quo trying to pit stay-at-homes against workforce broads. But the fact is, these people aren’t advocating for or defending a range of choices. How do I know that? Because if they were, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

4. It’s a science thing

“Look, men and women are built differently. It’s biological. Men are more visual, women are more emotional. That’s why more men are in executive roles. It’s about merit. If women were better, they wouldn’t be so crap. I didn’t make the rules.”

So goes the argument. Basically, it’s the kind of pop science spouted by the readers of such noted academic journals as NW Magazine and the Herald Sun. Whenever you hear someone say, ‘women are just better at washing up’ or ‘men are just better at being the leader of the free world’, ask yourself this: would that sentence be as benign if we replaced gender with race? Would we stand by, nodding sagely as mainstream pundits discussed how white people are just better at empathy than black folk? I sure hope not.

So why is it okay to say that women aren’t as good at stuff ‘because biology’? The biology argument is a Trojan horse that does nothing but sneak sexist propaganda into the castle. The only biological difference between a man and a woman is the difference of a Y chromosome – and even then, there’s a bit of wiggle room.

5. Men are oppressed too, therefore women aren’t! Or something.

‘If feminists really cared about equality, they’d be addressing all the inequality that faces men. Like, why do feminists only care about breast cancer and not prostate cancer? Why aren’t feminists advocating for single dads? Why won’t women sleep with me when I’m a really nice guy and I’ve made a particular effort to be nice to them, particularly? Until feminism can answer that, I’m afraid I don’t really see it as being legitimate.”

This is the last bastion of the misogynist’s argument – their self fancying checkmate, if you will. What these people are basically saying is that, despite the overwhelming evidence of entrenched sexual, physical and ideological oppression of women, the only way feminism can really be fair is if it first identifies and solves all of the ways in which the patriarchy also oppresses men.

To be more specific, women who agitate for their own liberation are only allowed to do so once they’ve fixed all the things that make men sad, thus making them stronger and even more powerful.

To paraphrase the great Sarah Connor, a bitchin’ kick ass broad who saved humanity from blistering annihilation at the hands of the Terminators: if a stick figure, an animation, can reject the stupidity of misogynist rhetoric…maybe we can too.

Go forth and rebut, my friends.

PUBLISHED: 7 HOURS 12 MINUTES AGO | UPDATE: 0 HOUR 0 MINUTES AGO in http://afr.com.au

MARK LATHAM

Julia Gillard’s belated decision to suspend Craig Thomson from the Labor Party is only one of many needed to end the corrupted relationship between the ALP and the trade union movement. From Thomson’s suspension it logically follows that Labor should end the Health Services Union’s affiliation to the party, starting with the NSW annual conference in July. For years HSU rorting has propped up the right-wing Sussex Street machine, with a steady flow of resources and conference delegates. Gillard has missed an opportunity to cut this link.

One of the most scandalous elements of the Thomson affair was the decision by NSW party headquarters to contribute $150,000 to cover the MP’s legal expenses for a spurious defamation claim. This handout was complemented by a $160,000 payment Thomson received from the HSU for defamation action against the union and its national secretary, Kathy Jackson. In both cases, Thomson was vaingloriously trying to rebut the truth: that he had misused his union credit card to pay for escort services. Neither claim passed muster in court.

These handouts highlight the closeness of the HSU-Labor relationship. Powerbrokers within the ALP cannot survive without factionally aligned union numbers. So, too, union chiefs would lose much of their authority if they simply had to serve their members, rather than ALP factional interests. The Sussex Street machine needed Thomson, no less than he needed it.

The moral decline of the Labor movement is evident in the way in which party and union officials watched Thomson misuse his entitlements and initiate nonsensical legal action, but then paid him $310,000 for his abuse of process. If Gillard had any spine, she would have expelled these officials from the ALP yesterday, as well.

Unfortunately, the HSU imbroglio is just the tip of the iceberg. Most Labor-affiliated unions siphon off substantial amounts of members’ funds to fight factional battles and internal elections. ALP funds are also used improperly for these purposes. Other sinecures, most notably superannuation boards, have been used to ensure that union officials can turn public duty into private profit. Do not think for a moment that Thomson is the only union boss to have misused his entitlements.

The factional system is overflowing with abuse, a problem well-known within the Labor movement for the past 25 years. The recent declaration of the ACTU executive that it has zero tolerance of corruption within its membership was the funniest line since the last episode of Seinfeld. Indeed, the perfect post-parliamentary career path for Peter Slipper, as a master of the tricks of the trade, would be to sign up as a union official and factional leader.

Under extreme political pressure, Gillard has finally moved against Thomson. The bigger move, the genuine display of leadership, would be to liberate the Labor Party from the curse of union and factional control.

Mark Latham is a former Labor leader.
The Australian Financial Review

Does this mean that the Editor of The Australian Women’s Weekly may be convicted of #photoshop “buggery”?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/anna-bligh-exit-weighs-on-jackie-trads-party-baggage/story-e6frgczx-1226322327241