http://www.smh.com.au/national/visa-to-vice-migration-agents-linked-to-sex-workers-20111011-1lj80.html#ixzz1aVYgu038
First paragraph... "Licensed migration agents are helping bring women to Australia on student visas who end up working in conditions of sexual slavery or at illegal brothels".
Second last paragraph... However a [DIAC] spokesman said it has "no evidence to suggest any migration agents have been linked with people trafficking in the sex industry in the last five years".
Last paragraph... The Migration Agents Registration Authority [said] no agents in the past ten years had been sanctioned over allegations of sex slavery or trafficking.
No evidence to back up your claims, no experts in the field to support you, so just start the article with a clear statement of what YOU BELIEVE to be true and hope the reader doesn't read all the way to the disclaimer at the end? Is this what passes for 'investigative journalism' these days?
If we're going to talk about sex work and visas, lets look at what role migration agents actually play. And more importantly, WHY.
If you're an English 20-something barmaid who wants to come to Australia on a working holiday, you can apply for your own visa and sign up with one of a multitude of Australian employment agencies. On arrival, those agencies will ship you all around the countryside, from pub to pub, arranging your accommodation and transport, and (I would assume) negotiating your pay rate and working conditions.
You are only allowed to stay in the same place for a short time before you have to change employers - which country pubs are all in favour of because, and I quote, "We get a steady stream of pretty young things and it keeps the boys happy. Keeps them coming back to check out the new ones". So basically, backpacker barmaids are being used as the cheap and unskilled equivalent of skimpies, but I digress...
If you're a 20-something SE Asian or Eastern European sex worker who wants to come to Australia for a working holiday, there's a good chance you won't be able to apply for your own visa. Thanks to over-the-top anti-trafficking policies, some countries are actually denying visas to young single women who they 'suspect' might be intending to work as a sex worker.
Even if they do manage to get their own visa, sex workers don't have the luxury of employment agencies to assist them in finding employment and accommodation once they get here. In many Australian states, brothels are not allowed to sponsor or advertise for staff, and procuring (and anti-trafficking) laws make it difficult for third parties to help sex workers find work. So think about it... you're in a foreign nation, where you don't speak the language, trying to secure employment in an industry that is heavily regulated and often shrouded in secrecy. You don't know the local laws, you have no way of knowing which are the well-run brothels and which ones are dodgy and once you find a job, you have no idea what your rights are.
*Note: If the only information a migrant sex worker gets about Australian sex work is "Foreign sex workers are sex slaves, exploited, offering unprotected services, being raided and rescued", etc - from our sensationalist media - how do you think that affects their choices? What sort of working conditions will they accept if they think that's the norm? How do they stand up for their rights if they're led to believe they don't have any?
Taking all of this into consideration, is it really any wonder that sex workers from other countries choose to go through a migration agent and/or brothel syndicate? It may be their best option, or perhaps their only option. One thing's for sure, it will always be the most expensive option. Bringing someone into the country and circumventing (not necessarily breaking) laws costs a lot of money. That expense is then passed on to the sex worker. Having huge debts and being in a precarious legal position then leaves these sex workers vulnerable to exploitation.
Let me just say that again, to make it doubly clear - migrant sex workers are vulnerable to exploitation thanks to anti-trafficking laws and immigration policies. Unscrupulous operators might be taking advantage of it, but our laws and attitudes are CAUSING it.
Blanket bans and excessive controls lead to a violent, exploitative black market, dominated by organised crime. Did the world learn nothing from prohibition?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Exposing the Flesh Trade (aka Sensationalist Journalism 101)
There is no story in journalism that gets more clicks, fans and accolades than a sex slavery exposé.
The readers lap it up. It tugs at the heart strings, gives us an 'insight' into a seedy underbelly that we've never experienced and will never understand, and plays on our xenophobia and inherent fear of anything sex-related. It gives us a damsel in distress to care about and a hero to worship - makes our stupid white selves feel proud that we have heroic white cops to protect naive Asian prostitutes from their scary Asian bosses.
For the 'investigative journalist', it's an easy story to write. Few people know the realities of sex work, so you can just write whatever stereotypical crap springs to mind. Few people know who the major players are, so you don't have to interview them if you think they won't toe the party line. Many people have preconceived ideas about Asian women (ie RACISM), so readers will believe you when you suggest they have no agency, or that every Asian woman lives in desperate poverty, or that Asian women make great sex toys, or that Asian women are too stupid to know when they're being scammed or exploited. (Let's just ignore the fact that most migrant sex workers in Australia US UK New Zealand
Not enough evidence of trafficked sex workers? No worries - that's because it's such a well-hidden activity. They're definitely out there. Honest. We just can't find them. Sure, that means we can't corroborate the excessive numbers we're quoting, but you can't refute them, either. So there. Checkmate. If all else fails, find any old case involving an Asian brothel and question why nobody has been convicted. If possible, make it look like a cover-up. That shit must happen all the time, because police are corrupt and Asian gangs are powerful, right? Yeah, why not. The readers will buy that.
Why are my knickers in a twist (again) about this topic? Well, The Age and Four Corners have partnered up to do an 'exposé on the flesh trade', which will screen on Four Corners on Monday night. The Age has posted a bit of pre-screening self-promotion here: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/terrible-price-of-a-trade-in-misery-20111007-1ldln.html
The article's language and imagery, and obvious bias, is appalling. Not to mention the graphic depiction of the discovery of the murdered man. Vile tragedy porn. What the hell is this story even about?
Let's look at the facts, without all the decorative detail. The dead man visited sex workers, used meth, and one night he stormed a brothel. The Age/Four Corners don't know exactly what happened that night, but they're convinced he was there with good intentions. Mind you, the police didn't press charges because they thought there might be a case for self-defence, which would suggest that after an extensive murder investigation, they believed the man was NOT there with good intentions. (Interestingly, the detective involved chose not to comment).
But we all know there must be more to this story than meets the eye, because OMG THERE WAS BROTHELS AND ASIANS AND STUFF.
"...there were whispers of broken hearts - Papo had fallen for a Korean student before his death..."
So he was in love with a brothel girl, who obviously didn't feel the same way, or there wouldn't be any broken hearts.
"[Papo] told an officer he was gravely concerned for the welfare of a 20-something Korean woman he had dated named Kathy...who was being threatened and had had her passport taken from her."
Ok, so he actually dated the woman. In the past tense. This seems to confirm they had already broken up.
"Then there was the discovery that the quiet Asian girl who had lived with Abraham in the Papo house for a few months, often studying English books on his bedroom floor, worked in a brothel".
WAIT....WHAT? She lived with him??? Ok, now I'm all kinds of confused. Was she trafficked from Korea
"[Papo] told [David] he had called Kathy on her mobile ... Kathy had been taken to Sydney
It took me three times reading through this article before I noticed this bit... "she had been taken to Sydney Sydney
''[Abraham] said that a male had then got on [Kathy's] phone and threatened him. The guy had said that he would chop him up if he came near her. He told me he then rang an Asian guy that runs a brothel in South Melbourne and had an argument on the phone about Kathy.''
Ok, maybe not. He had just spoken to Kathy on the phone. Did she not know where she was? If his aim was to rescue Kathy, would it not have made more sense to call the Sydney Sydney
The whole phone call thing is also interesting. Apparently this sex slave - the one who was allowed to go off and live with her boyfriend for a few months - also has a mobile phone. A man gets on her phone (the same man who was raping and beating her?) and threatens to chop Papo into little pieces if he comes near her. And then....
David also told police he had called Kathy on her phone and, in broken English, she had confirmed that she was with ''bad people'', was being hurt and was unable to talk.
...the man hands the phone back to Kathy, so she can be called at a later date by her boyfriend's brother. But she's not allowed to talk. She just has the phone for...I dunno...Angry Birds, or something.
Maybe the TV program will provide more information and help this story make some kind of sense, but as it stands, it has more than a few plot-holes. I reckon I could write a slightly more believable version, based on the 'evidence' presented thus far...
A guy starts seeing a sex worker and falls in love with her. She moves in with him and after a few months, things start to head south. Maybe he demands she stop working and she doesn't want to, maybe he treats her badly (my own experience with a meth-using boyfriend wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs), or maybe she just doesn't feel the same way about him any more. For whatever reason, she ends the relationship and moves back into the brothel.
Loverboy doesn't accept this decision and starts stalking and harassing her. He calls her, she tells him she's gone to Sydney Sydney Melbourne Melbourne
He goes to the police and makes a sex slavery claim - not because he fears his ex-girlfriend is 'in trouble', but to set the wheels in motion for a trafficking raid, which will cause havoc for the owners and hopefully get Kathy detained and/or deported. The police don't take it seriously, or maybe he just can't be bothered waiting for them to act, so he takes matters into his own hands. He storms the brothel, assaults a guy, maybe steals some stuff, then pulls out a metal bar to finish the job.
Now I'm not, for one second, excusing the man who beat another man severely enough to kill him, self-defence or not. I'm only looking at the events leading up to that incident, which - when you take away all the sex slavery, Asian crime gangs and seedy brothel neighbourhood crap - looks very much like your garden-variety ex-boyfriend who wouldn't take no for an answer. Would we see this differently if Kathy had been white? Or if she'd worked at a florist? Or if Zheng had been a nightclub bouncer, not a brothel driver?
Then, towards the end of the article, we get to the really dangerous part of these kinds of stories - the calls to change the laws and crack down on licensing/trafficking/sex work. Anyone who actually knows anything about sex work laws, brothel licensing and anti-trafficking laws, knows it's the 'cracking down' that actually facilitates this sort of crime. Cracking down on visas forces migrant sex workers to seek assistance from agents/traffickers. Cracking down on brothels forces owners to cut corners, rip off workers, or operate outside the legal framework in order to remain profitable. Cracking down on brothel licenses sees rich, powerful 'cleanskins' with no brothel experience buying their way into the sex industry. These crackdowns are invariably introduced in the name of "protecting vulnerable sex workers", but they are always the people that end up being hurt the most.
In the days since The Age article and Four Corners promotion hit, there has been an avalanche of trafficking and sex slavery media in NSW and Victoria...
...to name but a few.
By the way...do you notice anything missing from all of these articles? All these calls to change laws, crack down on owners and "protect the prostitutes"? Sex worker voices, that's what's missing. The very people these politicians and noisy advocates claim to want to protect. So noisy that they can't hear sex worker groups screaming FOR FUCKS SAKE, YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT EXPLOITATION? HOW ABOUT WE START WITH YOU EXPLOITING US IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL POINT-SCORING?!
The voices of sex worker rights organisations will not be heard in the Four Corners piece. The Australian sex workers association, for example - who runs a federally-funded migration project, in partnership with sex worker organisations in SE Asia and staffed by multilingual migrant sex workers - was actively refused an interview during production. In their attempts to redress this obvious bias, sex worker groups are now being refused interviews with the newspapers. If you want to hear that side of the story, you will need to go to their websites, follow them on Twitter and Facebook, read the Indy press. Because you ain't gonna hear it in the mainstream media.
Trafficking is real. Sex slavery is a heinous crime and anyone committing it should be hunted down like a dog and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We need to be aware that these situations exist and to know what to do if we come across it. But writing racist, hysterical nonsense and actively excluding the experts from the discussion is not the way to go about it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
In defence of bogans...
This is a comment I made on another blog post that was defending the stereotyping of 'bogans'. Just posting it here to show someone else - and maybe to point to in future when the debate gets too much for me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
re: my recent sex doll outburst
Ok, so now that I've had a couple of beers, a nanna nap and a nice cup of coffee, I might be able to comment on this more objectively, instead of going off half-cocked like I did earlier. I tend to only blog when I'm angry, which is a habit I probably need to kick.
I didn't want to make this an attack on the author and I'm really annoyed at myself for having done so. (If the person in question happens to read this, please accept my heartfelt apology). It was the session content I took issue with and, whilst that's obviously intrisically linked to the book, I'd prefer to focus solely on the topics raised in the session.
- The sex doll as the 'perfect woman' - controlled, obedient and silent.
The words 'control', 'silence' and 'perfect' were repeated over and over during the presentation. Now, I'm not doubting that there are people out there who like their sex partners to do what they're told and keep their mouth shut. I also know that there are traditional standards of feminine beauty that many men find sexually desirable. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that most men consider these things essential in a 'perfect woman'.
To be honest, I found that assertion extremely insulting to both men and women. I don't believe that men wield their penises as weapons, subduing and conquering a string of (female) partners, on a life-long quest to find the perfect automaton. I don't believe that women are valued solely for their vaginas and that having agency makes them somehow less than 'perfect'. I simply do not believe that the average man wants to have complete control over a silent, obedient woman. Full stop.
I'm not saying that the presenter personally believes this to be the case, but this is the premise that much of the discussion was built on. When the basic premise is so inherently flawed, the conclusions are bound to have some holes in them.
- Similar types of aberrant sexual activity - the desire for control and emotionless, one-sided sex can be seen in men's attraction to prostitutes.
Ummm...no. Firstly, this stereotype doesn't accurately reflect the power dynamic in commercial sex exchanges, nor the degree of intimacy involved. Secondly, having sex with a living, breathing sex worker is in no way similar to having sex with an inanimate object - the blatant dehumanisation of sex workers in that statement is utterly abhorrent.
If anything, I'd consider the motivation behind visiting sex workers to be the exact opposite of what was stated in the session. These men could have sex with sex dolls and other vagina-like sex toys, or they could masturbate. Instead, they pay to have sex with another human being. If you compare the number of men who have sex with sex dolls to the number of men who visit sex workers, I think you'll find substantially more men pay for sex - that is, the two activities are not so similar as to be interchangeable.
Sex workers are not some non-human entity devoid of emotions or agency. There is absolutely no difference between having sex with a sex worker and having sex with a stranger from the pub, only we don't judge people for the latter. Choosing a sex worker over an unpaid stranger does not make a man an emotionally stunted control freak, any more than choosing vanilla icecream over chocolate makes you a racist.
- Similar types of aberrant sexual activity - porn
Ummm...no, again. Whilst watching porn may be somewhat similar, in that it's a masturbatory aid, the presenter seemed to have a hard time separating the porn movie from the porn actress. As with sex workers, comments were made about the women involved being degraded, controlled and forced to engage in unwanted (and unenjoyable) sexual activity, and that porn consumers prefer their women to be that way. The larger porn debate is not one I want to get into right now, but the assumption that a porn actress is living the part she's playing is nonsensical - we wouldn't assume the same thing of a Hollywood actress or TV soapie star. We should also credit men with the intelligence to tell the difference between an actress and the character she's portraying on screen.
Again, there is that underlying idea that sex is something that men do to women, that women tolerate begrudgingly. Any woman appearing to enjoy lots of sex (sex workers, porn stars) must be either forced or damaged. It then follows that a man who engages in sex with a forced or damaged woman must be some kind of monster.
- Having sex with sex dolls can become addictive
Call me crazy, but I just don't see a problem with that. Does it really matter whether a person shags his doll once a week or three times a day? Who is it hurting? People do become addicted to sex. Some of the more problematic consequences of sex addiction include infidelity, over-spending (on sex workers or mistresses) and the risks associated with unprotected sex. None of these things apply to a sex doll addiction.
- Sex doll use may act as a gateway to the mistreatment of actual people
I'm not sold on the idea of 'gateway' activities. They say that marijuana is a gateway drug, but if everyone who smoked pot graduated to the hard stuff, more than half our population would have a heroin addiction.
I just don't see having sex with a corpse as a natural progression from sex dolls. I don't think someone who beats the crap out of an inanimate object would enjoy seeing a real partner scream and cry and bleed. I don't think a man who has sex with a young-looking doll will end up raping a child.
I tend to see the gateway argument as just another attempt at enforcing morality, based on the belief that if you indulge in one deviant activity, you probably won't have any qualms about engaging in others. I can't think of any examples of 'positive' gateway activities. Nobody warns you that volunteering might be a gateway to employment. We don't fear that taking one person as a life partner will be a gateway to polyamory. It's only when you're doing something naughty (like fucking a sex doll) that you find yourself on the slippery slope.
- Sex doll users have a fear of commitment and don't want to experience real love
This may be the case, but I can also see the opposite being true...that sex dolls could provide a person with unconditional love. Children love their dolls and stuffed toys. They tell them everything, take them everywhere and care for them very deeply - if you want to see how much, just try and toss your kids' favourite toy in the bin. You could also compare it to the love people have for their pets, especially less demonstrative creatures like fish, and some people even feel a strong love for their plants. The fact that a person has sex with their doll is of no real consequence and doesn't make his feelings of love any less real.
- 'Normal' sexual behaviour occurs within a monogamous, long-term, heterosexual relationship.
This wasn't explicitly stated, but it was certainly intimated. The only type of sex discussed was penis in vagina intercourse and the inability to form lasting relationships was repeatedly referred to as a negative outcome. There was no recognition of sex or gender diversity. The power dynamics in gay and lesbian relationships were not explored, nor was it considered that some people might simply choose to remain single.
There was also no exploration into the use of sex toys by women - and when you consider the popularity of vibrators and dildos, that discussion could get quite interesting. Sex dolls might be silent and obedient, but at least they resemble a woman's (entire) body. Are women taking objectification to a whole other level by abandoning all but the penis? Do these oversized, perpetually erect penises have a negative effect on male confidence and body image? Does enjoying complete control over a silent, disembodied dick suggest a misandrist streak or fear of commitment?
Anyway, they are some of the reasons why I was so frustrated with the sex dolls session. I don't believe the presenter was intentionally sexist or that he meant any offense - I just think the scope of the study was way too limited and the perspective too one-sided. And I will repeat that I have NOT read the book and for all I know, the information may be presented in an entirely different way. If so, I'm happy to stand corrected. (I will also go back and remove my unnecessarily nasty recommendation not to buy the book, which I had no right to say). But I did find the content of the Swancon session really hard going and I vehemently disagree with a number of the conclusions.
I didn't want to make this an attack on the author and I'm really annoyed at myself for having done so. (If the person in question happens to read this, please accept my heartfelt apology). It was the session content I took issue with and, whilst that's obviously intrisically linked to the book, I'd prefer to focus solely on the topics raised in the session.
- The sex doll as the 'perfect woman' - controlled, obedient and silent.
The words 'control', 'silence' and 'perfect' were repeated over and over during the presentation. Now, I'm not doubting that there are people out there who like their sex partners to do what they're told and keep their mouth shut. I also know that there are traditional standards of feminine beauty that many men find sexually desirable. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that most men consider these things essential in a 'perfect woman'.
To be honest, I found that assertion extremely insulting to both men and women. I don't believe that men wield their penises as weapons, subduing and conquering a string of (female) partners, on a life-long quest to find the perfect automaton. I don't believe that women are valued solely for their vaginas and that having agency makes them somehow less than 'perfect'. I simply do not believe that the average man wants to have complete control over a silent, obedient woman. Full stop.
I'm not saying that the presenter personally believes this to be the case, but this is the premise that much of the discussion was built on. When the basic premise is so inherently flawed, the conclusions are bound to have some holes in them.
- Similar types of aberrant sexual activity - the desire for control and emotionless, one-sided sex can be seen in men's attraction to prostitutes.
Ummm...no. Firstly, this stereotype doesn't accurately reflect the power dynamic in commercial sex exchanges, nor the degree of intimacy involved. Secondly, having sex with a living, breathing sex worker is in no way similar to having sex with an inanimate object - the blatant dehumanisation of sex workers in that statement is utterly abhorrent.
If anything, I'd consider the motivation behind visiting sex workers to be the exact opposite of what was stated in the session. These men could have sex with sex dolls and other vagina-like sex toys, or they could masturbate. Instead, they pay to have sex with another human being. If you compare the number of men who have sex with sex dolls to the number of men who visit sex workers, I think you'll find substantially more men pay for sex - that is, the two activities are not so similar as to be interchangeable.
Sex workers are not some non-human entity devoid of emotions or agency. There is absolutely no difference between having sex with a sex worker and having sex with a stranger from the pub, only we don't judge people for the latter. Choosing a sex worker over an unpaid stranger does not make a man an emotionally stunted control freak, any more than choosing vanilla icecream over chocolate makes you a racist.
- Similar types of aberrant sexual activity - porn
Ummm...no, again. Whilst watching porn may be somewhat similar, in that it's a masturbatory aid, the presenter seemed to have a hard time separating the porn movie from the porn actress. As with sex workers, comments were made about the women involved being degraded, controlled and forced to engage in unwanted (and unenjoyable) sexual activity, and that porn consumers prefer their women to be that way. The larger porn debate is not one I want to get into right now, but the assumption that a porn actress is living the part she's playing is nonsensical - we wouldn't assume the same thing of a Hollywood actress or TV soapie star. We should also credit men with the intelligence to tell the difference between an actress and the character she's portraying on screen.
Again, there is that underlying idea that sex is something that men do to women, that women tolerate begrudgingly. Any woman appearing to enjoy lots of sex (sex workers, porn stars) must be either forced or damaged. It then follows that a man who engages in sex with a forced or damaged woman must be some kind of monster.
- Having sex with sex dolls can become addictive
Call me crazy, but I just don't see a problem with that. Does it really matter whether a person shags his doll once a week or three times a day? Who is it hurting? People do become addicted to sex. Some of the more problematic consequences of sex addiction include infidelity, over-spending (on sex workers or mistresses) and the risks associated with unprotected sex. None of these things apply to a sex doll addiction.
- Sex doll use may act as a gateway to the mistreatment of actual people
I'm not sold on the idea of 'gateway' activities. They say that marijuana is a gateway drug, but if everyone who smoked pot graduated to the hard stuff, more than half our population would have a heroin addiction.
I just don't see having sex with a corpse as a natural progression from sex dolls. I don't think someone who beats the crap out of an inanimate object would enjoy seeing a real partner scream and cry and bleed. I don't think a man who has sex with a young-looking doll will end up raping a child.
I tend to see the gateway argument as just another attempt at enforcing morality, based on the belief that if you indulge in one deviant activity, you probably won't have any qualms about engaging in others. I can't think of any examples of 'positive' gateway activities. Nobody warns you that volunteering might be a gateway to employment. We don't fear that taking one person as a life partner will be a gateway to polyamory. It's only when you're doing something naughty (like fucking a sex doll) that you find yourself on the slippery slope.
- Sex doll users have a fear of commitment and don't want to experience real love
This may be the case, but I can also see the opposite being true...that sex dolls could provide a person with unconditional love. Children love their dolls and stuffed toys. They tell them everything, take them everywhere and care for them very deeply - if you want to see how much, just try and toss your kids' favourite toy in the bin. You could also compare it to the love people have for their pets, especially less demonstrative creatures like fish, and some people even feel a strong love for their plants. The fact that a person has sex with their doll is of no real consequence and doesn't make his feelings of love any less real.
- 'Normal' sexual behaviour occurs within a monogamous, long-term, heterosexual relationship.
This wasn't explicitly stated, but it was certainly intimated. The only type of sex discussed was penis in vagina intercourse and the inability to form lasting relationships was repeatedly referred to as a negative outcome. There was no recognition of sex or gender diversity. The power dynamics in gay and lesbian relationships were not explored, nor was it considered that some people might simply choose to remain single.
There was also no exploration into the use of sex toys by women - and when you consider the popularity of vibrators and dildos, that discussion could get quite interesting. Sex dolls might be silent and obedient, but at least they resemble a woman's (entire) body. Are women taking objectification to a whole other level by abandoning all but the penis? Do these oversized, perpetually erect penises have a negative effect on male confidence and body image? Does enjoying complete control over a silent, disembodied dick suggest a misandrist streak or fear of commitment?
Anyway, they are some of the reasons why I was so frustrated with the sex dolls session. I don't believe the presenter was intentionally sexist or that he meant any offense - I just think the scope of the study was way too limited and the perspective too one-sided. And I will repeat that I have NOT read the book and for all I know, the information may be presented in an entirely different way. If so, I'm happy to stand corrected. (I will also go back and remove my unnecessarily nasty recommendation not to buy the book, which I had no right to say). But I did find the content of the Swancon session really hard going and I vehemently disagree with a number of the conclusions.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Swancon36/Natcon50: SO MUCH SQUEE
On my first day of Swancon, as I gazed in wide-eyed wonder at a wall of Doctor Who merchandise, I heard a sharp intake of breath beside me and a female voice exclaimed "OH MY GOD! SO MUCH SQUEE!!!"
That statement pretty much sums up my entire weekend.
The panels - bar one*** - were exceptional. Amongst my favourites were Alan Baxter's workshop on writing authentic fight scenes (including simulated punch-ups between participants), Nicole R Murphy's presentation on writing sex scenes (NOT including simulated sex between participants!) and a fascinating session called 'Ghosts in the Machine: AI and The Human Mind' (panel included Justina Robson and Sean Williams).
My overall favourite would have to be the Series Four Doctor Who (Hartnell and Troughton) session, which showed heaps of rare/lost footage and audio, complemented by expert commentary and behind-the-scenes info from the panel. It included an emotional video tribute to Elisabeth Sladen/Sarah Jane Smith - half the room were sobbing their hearts out by the end - and another for Nicholas Courtney/The Brigadier. There was also a wake held for Sarah Jane and The Brigadier in the public bar on Saturday night.
This is only my third Swancon, but it's obvious there is a very large and passionate Who community in Perth and each year, the Doctor Who panels/events have made the top of my favourites list. If any of the folks involved happen to be reading this, THANK YOU.
I've never been to any other sci-fi conventions, but I've seen pics and heard many stories from my interstate and international friends. What blows me away about Swancon (and, from what I can gather, sets it apart from many other cons) is just how close you can get to the 'celebrities' of our field. If you read my post about last year's Swancon, you'll remember I had a major geekgasm over casually chatting with the likes of Ian Irvine and Richard Harland, and getting blind drunk with Scott Sigler. Let's not mince words here - that was nothing short of FUCKING AWESOME.
This year I found myself on a hunt for midnight munchies with Sylvia Kelso, teased Alan Baxter at the bar, danced like a mad woman to the music of DJ Sean Williams, philosiphised about small towns and family with Ian Nichols, talked sex with Nicole R Murphy, cuddled (at the behest of a Twitter friend) Paul Kidd, dodged (without success) Ellen Datlow's camera, and took happy snaps of Justina Robson. Just to mention a few. Again... nothing short of FUCKING AWESOME! Sometimes I regret living in the small-town backwater that is Western Australia, but Swancon is NOT one of those times.
Like all things, my Swancon experience had a downside. I raised the issue, for the second year running, of the exclusion of newbies as something the committee really needs to address. I know this exclusion isn't intentional, but the tight-knit groups of regular attendees can make new people feel very unwelcome. This is my third Swancon and each time I've ended up hanging out with people from interstate or overseas, because they often feel as left out as I do. If Swancon wants to broaden its fan base and increase its numbers, something really needs to be done about the isolation felt by newbies. This year I was a little better off thanks to Twitter - I'd met some Perth peeps online (and in person at #wawonkdrinks) and one of those people went out of his way to ensure that I felt included. His kindness made all the difference. Thank you, Nick!
All in all, Swancon was - all together now - FUCKING AWESOME. Thank you to the Swancon committee, the volunteers, the guest authors, the Whovians, the Perth Twitter geeks and everyone else who made my weekend so memorable. See you next year!
*** OH. MY. GOD...the 'Dolls of Desire: Man's Unnatural Selection of the Perfect Woman' presentation. I can't even begin to tell you how furious this session made me.
I haven't read the book and, after attending that session, I have no intention of ever doing so. But if the presentation is anything to go by, the book is a study based on a COMPLETELY FALSE PREMISE. I sat there with steam coming out of my ears as this white, heterosexual man talked about what it means to be a sex worker or porn star, denied women their agency and sexual enjoyment, described men as inherently abusive control freaks, demonised 'alternative' sexual behaviours like BDSM and polyamory, and invisibilised gay, lesbian and trans* folks. I had so many things I wanted to scream about that I was struck dumb and couldn't say anything at all.
To be honest, I had planned to give a constructive critique of this presentation, but I've realised I'm still too angry to comment politely on it. I was blown away by the level of sexist, stereotypical bullshit... and anyone who knows me in the real world knows I've dealt with a shitload of sexist, stereotypical bullshit in my time.
All I can say is... as a sex positive woman, I found this session incredibly frustrating.
[Edited because I let my temper get the better of me and behaved like an outrageously rude bitch.]
That statement pretty much sums up my entire weekend.
The panels - bar one*** - were exceptional. Amongst my favourites were Alan Baxter's workshop on writing authentic fight scenes (including simulated punch-ups between participants), Nicole R Murphy's presentation on writing sex scenes (NOT including simulated sex between participants!) and a fascinating session called 'Ghosts in the Machine: AI and The Human Mind' (panel included Justina Robson and Sean Williams).
My overall favourite would have to be the Series Four Doctor Who (Hartnell and Troughton) session, which showed heaps of rare/lost footage and audio, complemented by expert commentary and behind-the-scenes info from the panel. It included an emotional video tribute to Elisabeth Sladen/Sarah Jane Smith - half the room were sobbing their hearts out by the end - and another for Nicholas Courtney/The Brigadier. There was also a wake held for Sarah Jane and The Brigadier in the public bar on Saturday night.
This is only my third Swancon, but it's obvious there is a very large and passionate Who community in Perth and each year, the Doctor Who panels/events have made the top of my favourites list. If any of the folks involved happen to be reading this, THANK YOU.
I've never been to any other sci-fi conventions, but I've seen pics and heard many stories from my interstate and international friends. What blows me away about Swancon (and, from what I can gather, sets it apart from many other cons) is just how close you can get to the 'celebrities' of our field. If you read my post about last year's Swancon, you'll remember I had a major geekgasm over casually chatting with the likes of Ian Irvine and Richard Harland, and getting blind drunk with Scott Sigler. Let's not mince words here - that was nothing short of FUCKING AWESOME.
This year I found myself on a hunt for midnight munchies with Sylvia Kelso, teased Alan Baxter at the bar, danced like a mad woman to the music of DJ Sean Williams, philosiphised about small towns and family with Ian Nichols, talked sex with Nicole R Murphy, cuddled (at the behest of a Twitter friend) Paul Kidd, dodged (without success) Ellen Datlow's camera, and took happy snaps of Justina Robson. Just to mention a few. Again... nothing short of FUCKING AWESOME! Sometimes I regret living in the small-town backwater that is Western Australia, but Swancon is NOT one of those times.
Like all things, my Swancon experience had a downside. I raised the issue, for the second year running, of the exclusion of newbies as something the committee really needs to address. I know this exclusion isn't intentional, but the tight-knit groups of regular attendees can make new people feel very unwelcome. This is my third Swancon and each time I've ended up hanging out with people from interstate or overseas, because they often feel as left out as I do. If Swancon wants to broaden its fan base and increase its numbers, something really needs to be done about the isolation felt by newbies. This year I was a little better off thanks to Twitter - I'd met some Perth peeps online (and in person at #wawonkdrinks) and one of those people went out of his way to ensure that I felt included. His kindness made all the difference. Thank you, Nick!
All in all, Swancon was - all together now - FUCKING AWESOME. Thank you to the Swancon committee, the volunteers, the guest authors, the Whovians, the Perth Twitter geeks and everyone else who made my weekend so memorable. See you next year!
*** OH. MY. GOD...the 'Dolls of Desire: Man's Unnatural Selection of the Perfect Woman' presentation. I can't even begin to tell you how furious this session made me.
I haven't read the book and, after attending that session, I have no intention of ever doing so. But if the presentation is anything to go by, the book is a study based on a COMPLETELY FALSE PREMISE. I sat there with steam coming out of my ears as this white, heterosexual man talked about what it means to be a sex worker or porn star, denied women their agency and sexual enjoyment, described men as inherently abusive control freaks, demonised 'alternative' sexual behaviours like BDSM and polyamory, and invisibilised gay, lesbian and trans* folks. I had so many things I wanted to scream about that I was struck dumb and couldn't say anything at all.
To be honest, I had planned to give a constructive critique of this presentation, but I've realised I'm still too angry to comment politely on it. I was blown away by the level of sexist, stereotypical bullshit... and anyone who knows me in the real world knows I've dealt with a shitload of sexist, stereotypical bullshit in my time.
All I can say is... as a sex positive woman, I found this session incredibly frustrating.
[Edited because I let my temper get the better of me and behaved like an outrageously rude bitch.]
Thursday, September 16, 2010
THE ROOKIE by Scott Sigler (Part review, part rambling. Mostly rambling)
Ok, let's get this out of the way up front... I hate Aussie Rules Football. HATE it. I have slightly less violent emotions about rugby, mostly because rugby boys have the bodies of gods and you don't need to like the game to enjoy the view. Then there's soccer with its swan-diving cry-babies, and cricket... is cricket even a sport? I've seen more exciting games of Duck-Duck-Goose. Put quite simply, I would rather gouge my own eyes out with a teaspoon than watch any form of sport.
THE ROOKIE focuses quite heavily on American Football. As you would expect, given my low tolerance for all things sports, my knowledge and understanding of American Football amounts to precisely zero. The fact that I'm Australian doesn't help. I have to be honest and admit that I struggled with this aspect of the book. The football jargon and slang went straight over my head, and it was impossible to summon an accurate mental image of the scenes playing out before me, because I had no concept of things like field markers, player positioning, or...you know...the rules.
So what possessed someone like me to pick up a book like this? Basically, I would travel cross-country to read graffiti on a toilet wall if it was written by Scott Sigler. That's all. If I wasn't such a fan, I would never have read this book. And that, my friends, would have been a crying shame.
Set 700 years in the future, the story follows Quentin Barnes, quarterback extraordinaire, on his quest to hit the big time as a Tier One starter in the Galactic Football League. There's a whole lot of football. We watch each game in detail (complete with stats charts and radio interviews) as every play he makes takes him closer to realising his dream. The games are fast and furious and written with such attention to detail that even I, with no real idea of what the hell was going on, could feel the tension and excitement and pain and elation. I may not have been picturing the game in the 'correct' way, but it was still highly entertaining.
There's also a whole lot of stuff going on off-field. During a brief stint of prohibition, organised crime moved into the GFL and they never moved out. Players are bought and sold by 'the mob' and team ownership includes privileges like smuggling and drug running with impunity. Depending on the mood of the boss, non-performing or misbehaving players may be sacked...or whacked. Corruption is rife.
Oh, and did I mention there’s aliens? Two of the big ticket issues addressed in this book are class and racism. You see, 700 years in the future, humans have settled on other planets and are trading with alien nations. Galactic Football League teams are made up of many different beings, each playing positions suited to their particular physiology (in one race the females are bigger and faster than the males, so the women play on the teams). The League itself serves as a tool to maintain race relations, giving beings from different planets a common interest and an opportunity to learn to work together.
Quentin Barnes comes from the Purist Nation, a human colony with hardcore religious foundations. The Church controls most aspects of daily life and a raft of things (including, it seems, freedom of thought) are condemned as sins and banned. Church members and their families have access to education and power, while the underclasses are condemned to a life of shame and destitution, with little chance of ever rising above their station. Quentin, an indentured mine worker, defied those odds when he was signed to the local football team, but his privileged team members never let him forget where he came from.
Fundamental to the Church's belief system is the conviction that the human race is superior to all others - people from the Purist Nation are instilled, from a young age, with an unadulterated hatred for all things alien. On top of that, they live with the constant military presence of an occupying alien force. Fear and disgust are the only feelings Quentin has ever had for non-humans...and now these monsters are his team mates.
Quentin's internal struggle with his racism and religious beliefs is central to this story. He finds out quickly that, far from being seen as blessed and perfect, his countrymen are despised and ridiculed by beings from other planets (including other human planets) for their treatment of alien races and their blind faith in their Church. As time goes on, he is forced to see things through a different lens and begin the process of re-assessing everything he's ever known to be true. It’s obvious from the start where Quentin’s soul-searching is going to take him, but the journey is beautifully described.
Aside from racism, one of the things that stood out for me was the deconstruction of religion. I’m not going to go on a church-bashing rampage, but the book exposes and examines what I believe to be the more sinister aspects of organised religion – social control, social exclusion, nepotism, guilt, bigotry, selective application of values and biased interpretations of history, to name just a few. Some of the observations are quite overt, other times they’re hidden in subtext. I don’t know if it was the author’s intention (and I apologise for this comment if it wasn’t) but the analysis, while remaining respectful of individual beliefs, raises a well-deserved middle finger to those institutions that thrive on perpetuating fear and hatred amongst their followers.
Anyhoo...I could waffle on for hours about other topics touched on in this book, but I’ll spare you the torment. I have waffled enough! Suffice to say; to describe this book as a story about aliens playing football would be to severely underestimate its strength and depth.
THE ROOKIE is totally YA-friendly, with no bad language and only fleeting references to sex and drugs. Sigler’s alien worlds and the creatures that inhabit them are rich and vibrant; each with its own unique culture and language and history. The social and political commentary is obvious, but not preachy. People of all ages and genders can enjoy this book, but I would especially recommend it for teenage boys, as a fast-paced sports/alien adventure with really positive messages of equality, self-respect and ‘mateship’.
THE ROOKIE is the first book in a series. The second book, THE STARTER, went on sale just a few weeks ago and is available from www.scottsigler.com/thestarter . I’m looking forward to devouring my copy shortly.
THE ROOKIE focuses quite heavily on American Football. As you would expect, given my low tolerance for all things sports, my knowledge and understanding of American Football amounts to precisely zero. The fact that I'm Australian doesn't help. I have to be honest and admit that I struggled with this aspect of the book. The football jargon and slang went straight over my head, and it was impossible to summon an accurate mental image of the scenes playing out before me, because I had no concept of things like field markers, player positioning, or...you know...the rules.
So what possessed someone like me to pick up a book like this? Basically, I would travel cross-country to read graffiti on a toilet wall if it was written by Scott Sigler. That's all. If I wasn't such a fan, I would never have read this book. And that, my friends, would have been a crying shame.
Set 700 years in the future, the story follows Quentin Barnes, quarterback extraordinaire, on his quest to hit the big time as a Tier One starter in the Galactic Football League. There's a whole lot of football. We watch each game in detail (complete with stats charts and radio interviews) as every play he makes takes him closer to realising his dream. The games are fast and furious and written with such attention to detail that even I, with no real idea of what the hell was going on, could feel the tension and excitement and pain and elation. I may not have been picturing the game in the 'correct' way, but it was still highly entertaining.
There's also a whole lot of stuff going on off-field. During a brief stint of prohibition, organised crime moved into the GFL and they never moved out. Players are bought and sold by 'the mob' and team ownership includes privileges like smuggling and drug running with impunity. Depending on the mood of the boss, non-performing or misbehaving players may be sacked...or whacked. Corruption is rife.
Oh, and did I mention there’s aliens? Two of the big ticket issues addressed in this book are class and racism. You see, 700 years in the future, humans have settled on other planets and are trading with alien nations. Galactic Football League teams are made up of many different beings, each playing positions suited to their particular physiology (in one race the females are bigger and faster than the males, so the women play on the teams). The League itself serves as a tool to maintain race relations, giving beings from different planets a common interest and an opportunity to learn to work together.
Quentin Barnes comes from the Purist Nation, a human colony with hardcore religious foundations. The Church controls most aspects of daily life and a raft of things (including, it seems, freedom of thought) are condemned as sins and banned. Church members and their families have access to education and power, while the underclasses are condemned to a life of shame and destitution, with little chance of ever rising above their station. Quentin, an indentured mine worker, defied those odds when he was signed to the local football team, but his privileged team members never let him forget where he came from.
Fundamental to the Church's belief system is the conviction that the human race is superior to all others - people from the Purist Nation are instilled, from a young age, with an unadulterated hatred for all things alien. On top of that, they live with the constant military presence of an occupying alien force. Fear and disgust are the only feelings Quentin has ever had for non-humans...and now these monsters are his team mates.
Quentin's internal struggle with his racism and religious beliefs is central to this story. He finds out quickly that, far from being seen as blessed and perfect, his countrymen are despised and ridiculed by beings from other planets (including other human planets) for their treatment of alien races and their blind faith in their Church. As time goes on, he is forced to see things through a different lens and begin the process of re-assessing everything he's ever known to be true. It’s obvious from the start where Quentin’s soul-searching is going to take him, but the journey is beautifully described.
Aside from racism, one of the things that stood out for me was the deconstruction of religion. I’m not going to go on a church-bashing rampage, but the book exposes and examines what I believe to be the more sinister aspects of organised religion – social control, social exclusion, nepotism, guilt, bigotry, selective application of values and biased interpretations of history, to name just a few. Some of the observations are quite overt, other times they’re hidden in subtext. I don’t know if it was the author’s intention (and I apologise for this comment if it wasn’t) but the analysis, while remaining respectful of individual beliefs, raises a well-deserved middle finger to those institutions that thrive on perpetuating fear and hatred amongst their followers.
Anyhoo...I could waffle on for hours about other topics touched on in this book, but I’ll spare you the torment. I have waffled enough! Suffice to say; to describe this book as a story about aliens playing football would be to severely underestimate its strength and depth.
THE ROOKIE is totally YA-friendly, with no bad language and only fleeting references to sex and drugs. Sigler’s alien worlds and the creatures that inhabit them are rich and vibrant; each with its own unique culture and language and history. The social and political commentary is obvious, but not preachy. People of all ages and genders can enjoy this book, but I would especially recommend it for teenage boys, as a fast-paced sports/alien adventure with really positive messages of equality, self-respect and ‘mateship’.
THE ROOKIE is the first book in a series. The second book, THE STARTER, went on sale just a few weeks ago and is available from www.scottsigler.com/thestarter . I’m looking forward to devouring my copy shortly.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Collateral damage in the war against grog
Tonight's news featured a grinning WA Police Commissioner announcing, with great pride, that domestic violence rates have risen dramatically over the last 12 months.
Ok, so that's not exactly what he said. He was bragging that in the past year, our state has seen a significant drop in street violence and public displays of anti-social behaviour. Then the Premier joins in, praising the tireless work of the WA police. Then Attorney-General Christian Porter chimes in with what a raging success our over-zealous, Gestapo-style anti-violence legislation has been. All of them, proud as punch.
Halfway through the report, for just a few short seconds, a crime statistics graphic pops up on the screen, with all violent crimes showing a decrease...except the last one, which shows a significant rise. The voiceover says "Police don't know why there has been an increase in domestic violence". Then straight back to police and pollies congratulating themselves on their 'success'.
None of them were asked, on camera, about the domestic violence increase and the truth of the matter is that they couldn't care less. The Barnett Government is all about public perception. They rely on the sheep vote. They know that the idiots who vote for them only care about their own health, their own safety, their own lives. These NIMBYs don't care what happens to other people, so long as they don't have to witness it.
Which is why, when WAPOL gloated about the decrease in street violence, they may as well have been patting themselves on the back for the increase in domestic violence. They know they can't solve the problem of alcohol and drugs-related violence...the best they can hope for is to keep it out of the public eye. Sweeping crime off the streets and into family homes is a huge win for them. Women and children are just collateral damage.
In any other state, under any other Government, that news story would have focused on the increase in domestic violence. People would be asking why, in this day and age, women are being subjected to higher levels of violence in their homes. But, no... we can't do that either, because the state (and federal) legislation that they're so proud of, actually caused the increase.
You see, I have a theory. Actually, I came up with this theory a number of years ago and over the past two years, it's beginning to prove itself. It's not a very original or complex theory, but it's one that our Government will never come up with itself, because a) they're tee-totalling fundamentalists who don't understand the nature of addiction, b) they have absolutely NO IDEA what it's like to be poor, and c) they don't appear to have ever experienced domestic violence. Me and most of my friends, however...we have a very good grasp on all three.
It all started a few years ago, when the state Government banned smoking in pubs and clubs. We have a high number of smokers in my town and our pub wasn't prepared for the changes - the smokers, who constituted about three quarters of pub patrons, were forced to stand out in the carpark in the rain or heat; sans drinks because the carpark wasn't licensed. For a few people, it was uncomfortable enough to stop them going to the pub.
At around the same time, our local police decided to crack down on drink driving. Ok, so police have a job to do and drunk driving is against the law. I get it. But where I live, the pub is the only social outlet the area has to offer and people have to drive for miles to get there. We don't have buses or trains or taxis. For this reason, our local police have traditionally been pretty tolerant about people driving after a few beers (I don't mean pissed out of their brain. Just a few beers). Not so any more. Policing became less about saving lives and more about revenue raising, and police were given monthly targets to meet. All of a sudden, people from surrounding towns (including me) couldn't drive out of the pub without being stopped for an RBT. More people stopped going to the pub.
Some people started using drugs so they could have a good night out, without being nabbed for drink driving. This also coincided with the introduction of compulsory breath-tests at the local mine, where alcohol from the previous night would show up on the tests, but illicit drugs didn't. For passing the tests, and for staying awake after long hours at work, amphetamines became the drug of choice. Violence and anti-social behaviour, which had NEVER been a problem in my area, began to occur on a regular basis. Even more people stopped going to the pub.
Then came the massive federal tax increase on beer and spirits. Now, for the price of six beers in the pub, you could buy a whole carton in the bottle shop. For the price of three glasses of spirits, you could buy a whole bottle. Combined with the non-smoking venue, the violence and the increased police attention, almost everyone stopped going to the pub.
This is how it worked in my town and I believe it's also what happened across the rest of the state. Nobody goes out any more, so yeah, there is less public anti-social behaviour, less street violence, less drunk drivers... But what police and Government don't seem to understand is that it didn't actually go away. It just moved premises.
In the 'good old days', people would go to the pub. They would automatically limit their alcohol consumption, because they had to drive home and/or because drinks over the bar cost a fortune. If they only had fifty dollars, for example, they might buy five or six drinks. If they had to drive home, they would have even less. They would go home to their families at the end of the night with the giggles and wake up with a slight headache in the morning.
Nowadays, they don't go to the pub. They drink at home. With their fifty bucks, they can buy a carton of 24 beers, six bottles of cheap wine, or a whole bottle of spirits. They don't have to drive home, they don't have to watch their wallet. They drink to get drunk. They're also missing out on vital social interaction, which (particularly in country towns) leads to feelings of isolation and depression. Domestic violence is just a natural progression. I've seen it. I've experienced it. This is real.
Our Governments, state and federal, are naive enough to to think that raising the cost of alcohol and over-policing our behaviour will stop us doing things that they consider to be 'bad' for us. Instead, they are bringing out the worst in us. They are oblivious to the nature of drug and alcohol addiction, which can't just be stopped because the price gets too high. They are oblivious to the financial pressure that this puts people under - the more our addictions cost, the more money we spend - the more money we spend, the more debt we accumulate - the more debt we accumulate, the more we rely on our addictions to help us cope with the stress. They are oblivious to the fact that their 'anti-alcohol' measures are actually doubling or tripling the amount that people drink.
My advice? Stop relying on police, publicans, alcohol manufacturers, etc to tell you how to deal with alcohol and drug-related violence. Ask the people who are experiencing it. Think about what your bandaid measures are doing to our communities. And stop brushing this shit under the carpet. 'Out of sight, out of mind' is NOT solving the problem.
Ok, so that's not exactly what he said. He was bragging that in the past year, our state has seen a significant drop in street violence and public displays of anti-social behaviour. Then the Premier joins in, praising the tireless work of the WA police. Then Attorney-General Christian Porter chimes in with what a raging success our over-zealous, Gestapo-style anti-violence legislation has been. All of them, proud as punch.
Halfway through the report, for just a few short seconds, a crime statistics graphic pops up on the screen, with all violent crimes showing a decrease...except the last one, which shows a significant rise. The voiceover says "Police don't know why there has been an increase in domestic violence". Then straight back to police and pollies congratulating themselves on their 'success'.
None of them were asked, on camera, about the domestic violence increase and the truth of the matter is that they couldn't care less. The Barnett Government is all about public perception. They rely on the sheep vote. They know that the idiots who vote for them only care about their own health, their own safety, their own lives. These NIMBYs don't care what happens to other people, so long as they don't have to witness it.
Which is why, when WAPOL gloated about the decrease in street violence, they may as well have been patting themselves on the back for the increase in domestic violence. They know they can't solve the problem of alcohol and drugs-related violence...the best they can hope for is to keep it out of the public eye. Sweeping crime off the streets and into family homes is a huge win for them. Women and children are just collateral damage.
In any other state, under any other Government, that news story would have focused on the increase in domestic violence. People would be asking why, in this day and age, women are being subjected to higher levels of violence in their homes. But, no... we can't do that either, because the state (and federal) legislation that they're so proud of, actually caused the increase.
You see, I have a theory. Actually, I came up with this theory a number of years ago and over the past two years, it's beginning to prove itself. It's not a very original or complex theory, but it's one that our Government will never come up with itself, because a) they're tee-totalling fundamentalists who don't understand the nature of addiction, b) they have absolutely NO IDEA what it's like to be poor, and c) they don't appear to have ever experienced domestic violence. Me and most of my friends, however...we have a very good grasp on all three.
It all started a few years ago, when the state Government banned smoking in pubs and clubs. We have a high number of smokers in my town and our pub wasn't prepared for the changes - the smokers, who constituted about three quarters of pub patrons, were forced to stand out in the carpark in the rain or heat; sans drinks because the carpark wasn't licensed. For a few people, it was uncomfortable enough to stop them going to the pub.
At around the same time, our local police decided to crack down on drink driving. Ok, so police have a job to do and drunk driving is against the law. I get it. But where I live, the pub is the only social outlet the area has to offer and people have to drive for miles to get there. We don't have buses or trains or taxis. For this reason, our local police have traditionally been pretty tolerant about people driving after a few beers (I don't mean pissed out of their brain. Just a few beers). Not so any more. Policing became less about saving lives and more about revenue raising, and police were given monthly targets to meet. All of a sudden, people from surrounding towns (including me) couldn't drive out of the pub without being stopped for an RBT. More people stopped going to the pub.
Some people started using drugs so they could have a good night out, without being nabbed for drink driving. This also coincided with the introduction of compulsory breath-tests at the local mine, where alcohol from the previous night would show up on the tests, but illicit drugs didn't. For passing the tests, and for staying awake after long hours at work, amphetamines became the drug of choice. Violence and anti-social behaviour, which had NEVER been a problem in my area, began to occur on a regular basis. Even more people stopped going to the pub.
Then came the massive federal tax increase on beer and spirits. Now, for the price of six beers in the pub, you could buy a whole carton in the bottle shop. For the price of three glasses of spirits, you could buy a whole bottle. Combined with the non-smoking venue, the violence and the increased police attention, almost everyone stopped going to the pub.
This is how it worked in my town and I believe it's also what happened across the rest of the state. Nobody goes out any more, so yeah, there is less public anti-social behaviour, less street violence, less drunk drivers... But what police and Government don't seem to understand is that it didn't actually go away. It just moved premises.
In the 'good old days', people would go to the pub. They would automatically limit their alcohol consumption, because they had to drive home and/or because drinks over the bar cost a fortune. If they only had fifty dollars, for example, they might buy five or six drinks. If they had to drive home, they would have even less. They would go home to their families at the end of the night with the giggles and wake up with a slight headache in the morning.
Nowadays, they don't go to the pub. They drink at home. With their fifty bucks, they can buy a carton of 24 beers, six bottles of cheap wine, or a whole bottle of spirits. They don't have to drive home, they don't have to watch their wallet. They drink to get drunk. They're also missing out on vital social interaction, which (particularly in country towns) leads to feelings of isolation and depression. Domestic violence is just a natural progression. I've seen it. I've experienced it. This is real.
Our Governments, state and federal, are naive enough to to think that raising the cost of alcohol and over-policing our behaviour will stop us doing things that they consider to be 'bad' for us. Instead, they are bringing out the worst in us. They are oblivious to the nature of drug and alcohol addiction, which can't just be stopped because the price gets too high. They are oblivious to the financial pressure that this puts people under - the more our addictions cost, the more money we spend - the more money we spend, the more debt we accumulate - the more debt we accumulate, the more we rely on our addictions to help us cope with the stress. They are oblivious to the fact that their 'anti-alcohol' measures are actually doubling or tripling the amount that people drink.
My advice? Stop relying on police, publicans, alcohol manufacturers, etc to tell you how to deal with alcohol and drug-related violence. Ask the people who are experiencing it. Think about what your bandaid measures are doing to our communities. And stop brushing this shit under the carpet. 'Out of sight, out of mind' is NOT solving the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Interestingly, all those places are often judged as more ‘bogan’ than NSW or Victoria. The recent WA-bashing is a case in point, with West Aussies frequently described as inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy and selfish. Why? Because it’s the home of the cashed up bogan? Again, I don’t think it’s coincidence that Australia’s primary mining and agricultural states, Qld and WA, are commonly stereotyped as insular bogan bigots.
You said in your post that “bogan was a Melbourne word for many decades …to [Sydney] the bogans of old were westies”.
Firstly, you guys (apparently) defined a bogan by the suburb they lived in. We didn’t. We have ‘bogan suburbs’, known as such because that’s where all the bogans live, ie. the ‘bogan’ is a pre-defined type of person that happens to congregate in that suburb. Those suburbs are almost exclusively welfare and state housing-dependent areas, so for many people, ‘bogan’ is intrinsically linked to low income.
Secondly, Melbourne isn’t the only place where the word ‘bogan’ existed. I was identifying as a bogan in highschool, 25 years ago. I also have friends from Adelaide who claim ‘boganhood’ in their teens and their definition is compatible with mine – someone in black jeans and a flanno who drives a ute, drinks beer and listens to Oz rock. It had nothing to do with bigotry, or ostentatious clothing and houses (the latter being the complete opposite of the traditional bogan).
Which brings us to the crux of my argument – I don’t appreciate my personal lifestyle or history (or state) being re-appropriated to mean something hideous and hated. And it’s really not appropriate for people who don’t inhabit that community or identify with the label to say it’s simply part of the “continuing defining process” and dismiss the concerns of people that do.
This cruel stereotype will cause actual harm to people. It’s already started. For example, Centrelink is trialling income management in select ‘bogan suburbs’ in Perth, because their inhabitants are automatically deemed to be irresponsible and lazy. Actually they’re just poor, but society supports these measures because they firmly believe that ‘bogans’ are a certain breed of people who don’t give a f*ck about their kids or their health or the taxpayer. Hey, that sounds familiar…NT intervention, anyone?
You are creating a new underclass that it’s totally PC to vilify. And it’s all very well to claim that the meaning of the word is changing, but the ORIGINAL meaning of the word is still firmly entrenched in our psyche. What this means is that, today, any person fitting the OLD definition of bogan (black jeans, wifebeater, feral ute, goatee) is immediately grouped together with the NEW definition of bogan (violent, racist, sexist, homophobe). I should add that this is particularly upsetting for country people, like me, who tend to present as the city idea of ‘bogan’, even if we don’t identify as such. Just last week I had an argument with someone about “arrogant country bogans in their 4WDs, who don’t give a f*ck about the environment”.
Apologies for the lengthy rant, but I don’t think people realise just how much this stereotyping is hurting people. I’m actually getting to the point where I’m scared to talk about certain things on Twitter, lest I be deemed bogan and shouted down for it. On the weekend, I tweeted a ‘bogan’ joke and a friend retweeted it – he suffered a full day of insults and accusations of bigotry because of it. (Both of us are left-leaning and known in the activist community AND also identify as bogans). In short, if someone is a bigot, call them a bigot. The word ‘bogan’ is already taken.