Wear whatever bloody bikini you want #fatkini

Society has a long history of telling women what they should and shouldn't look like.  The fatkini is being flaunted as a rebellion in which fat women are finally allowed to show some flesh. My problem starts with how this is still promoted with calls to beauty. That fat women can look good in a two piece bathing suit. It remains stuck in a world where women have to look beautiful. And the fatkini itself is high waisted and often front panelled in order to cover and control a woman's belly. We still get the message that it's not OK to have a belly. Personally, I don't care what you look like in whatever you wear. That really should remain a matter of personal taste. I like or dislike what both women and men wear and how they look over the full range of sizes. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to look or dress like that. It's no business of anyone else's how you look. Worry about your health if you are going to worry about anything. Is your waistline over 80cm? Check out http://tinyurl.com/lvmvs32. You won't die from people disapproving of how you look, but there's a lot of suffering to be had in diabetes, chronic heart disease or kidney failure.

Fat men turn up on beaches in red speedos. If you want to wear a hot pink g-string bikini to the beach this summer, I don't care what size you are and whether people think it's "beautiful", just go for it. If you are swimming or jogging in it, all the better.

#Equality is such a popular word

I suspect that equality is the PC word for all those people out there who complain feminism has made the world too PC. Everyone loves it. They happily espouse that they are all for equality, even that they are "equalist". I love a good made up word, but I think that "equalitarianist" would be a much better one. It's socially acceptable to say equality. That appeals to ideas of fairness we hold, which is of course not unreasonable. But it is an outrageously narrow focus of what is considered in this discussion of equal and people carry with it a view that feminists somehow don't want equality, but dominance. Or concessions to keep up when the world really is about “merit”. If one really thought our cabinet reflected the most meritorious of the LNP, one would have to wonder how women in the LNP even manage to put their shoes on the right feet. But Tony was actually right – for advancing his agenda, he choose the most capable ministers. If he could find enough women or indigenous australians or people with disabilities to participate in his reconstruction of 1950s Australia, he might well use them.

This obsession with the word equality, however, gets on my goat. I keep hearing people saying women are equal now. I don't have any problem with feeling equal to men. Indeed, like a lot of people, I actually have a fair dose of feeling superior to quite a lot of other people. But it's not really about how I feel. Of course there is a place for fighting for the liberal feminist ideals of equal representation/wages etc, which seem to be what people mean when they talk equality. These have probably seen more progress than any other feminist values because they are congruent with capitalism. Equality in representation in a capitalist world probably does have more trickle down effect for women than capitalism does for the poor, but, to co opt that bloody word, until I see equal numbers of those equal men and women earning equal wages in positions of power equally likely to wear dresses and make up, I'm afraid that the social agenda on women hasn't changed much. It just takes the acceptable end of debate and ignores the rest.

These fairly simplistic versions of equality still highlight the discrepancies, but so much of the policing of women is fixed in ideas in our society. We all participate in the perpetuation of discourses of what is normal and acceptable. I struggle when otherwise intelligent, capable, independent women tell me they wear make up and shave their legs because they like it. Change their name to their partner's because they want to change it. Inordinate other not-so-little things. When I see similar numbers of men and women choosing to do these things because they like it, I will accept that there is no social pressure in that choice. In the meanwhile, I'm afraid it's just too convenient that women intrinsically like preening themselves to an ideal suiting social expectations, committing them to time consuming and not always healthy regimes and going through a tedious process of redocumenting their lives to someone else's name.

I don't think feminism is really about equality. It's about freedoms and rights. Freedom to be/do/look/act how we want. To make our own choices. The right to be safe to do so. To be accepted and valued. All with respect for other people's similar freedoms and rights. This applies to all genders, sexualities, abilities, races etc. This of course involves a massive shift in social norms and expectations, but nothing resembling meaningful equality will result without it.

Besides, these people saying we already have equality either lack basic observation skills or basic maths. 

Bring out your #metadata

When all this furore over metadata started up, I wasn't clear on what it was. So I found out. I should offer these highly technical research skills to our govt, they obviously need it because what was rather immediately obvious is it was basically everything Tony said it wasn't. It takes real talent to be that wrong. And real arse to do it in public and continue on as if you hadn't made a complete arse of yourself.

What I keep wondering every time they talk about security and terrorist risk, is really, just how scared of terrorists do they think I should I be? A medium security threat. I feel like maybe sending forces out into the streets was necessary for a "medium" security threat. How high do these security threats go before we put defenses out on the street? This is starting to sound like British climbing grades.  Medium, high, really bloody high, preposterously dangerous, honestly, we are are fucked, here they are coming for us now?

But no, what we actually have is 25 or so people they think have been fighting in Afghanistan or somewhere who have come back to Australia. 25 out of 23 500 000 people. I'm just going to round that up for the sake of late night maths. It's about 0.000001% of the population. And the best way to protect us all from this enormous number of people? Metadata retention. For all 23 500 000 of us. Actually, I find it quite amusing that they might try and find anything useful out of my metadata. Like the companies that buy my credit card information. Good luck predicting what I'm going to do from all that.

But really, when they carry on about threats in Australia, I just can't get worked up about terrorism. Know how many people have died in Australia ever from terrorist attacks? Um, none. I'm not worried about being eaten by a shark either, and for something that's already really bloody unlikely, that's still a heck of a lot more likely than in a terrorist attack. Do you drive or work? Don't do it! 109 workplace deaths already this year. 153 road deaths in Vic alone. It's hazardous. Acutally, 58 Australians died getting out of bed in 2011. Don't even get up. You can still produce all that metadata from bed anyway, so you'll be safe from terrorism. I expect the new Direct Action Plan on climate change will be metadata retention. The govt knowing you wasted 5 minutes of your life on my blog will save the planet.

It's easy rousing #womenagainstfeminism

I mean really, there's actually nothing radical about getting narky about feminism. It's been a popular past time for, well, more than a century. And there's nothing new in what #womenagainstfeminism are saying. I just seem to have heard it all before somewhere. It's all a bit dull though, hearing again, we are all man hating, sex hating and ugly.  Do they notice in the same lines the criticise feminist for tarring all men with the same brush, they, um, do the same thing to feminists? We have hairy legs and think men are dirty. Hang on, dirty? That's a new one. I must have missed that though. Which feminist theory espoused that one? I'll have to check with @SenatorAbetz. Still, I guess some men are dirty. At least some of the time. So am I in fact. I was goddamn grotty camping all last week. And I do have hairy legs. I think they look pretty good actually, my hairy legs. Is it feminist to think my hairy legs are spunky? I think I'll set up a sexualised photo of my legs with a few clichés on it:   I need feminism because otherwise I wouldn't have an excuse to post raunchy selfies of my hairy legs.

Back on topic, I'm saying it's easy because it's a well trodden line, to put down feminists. We're not seing #womenagainstcapitalism or #womenagainstchristianity or #womenagainstneoliberalism, all of which have in varying ways tried to control women, the poor, homosexuals, differing races and cultures just to name a few. Quite a lot more than feminism ever has done.  Why not #womenagainstanteaters? I don't need anteaters because I choose to walk on two legs, eat mango and don't need to oppress those poor insects.

Taking a stand against these things goes against the status quo. OK, maybe not the anteaters. Taking a stand against feminism, however, doesn't.  Of course, we could all jump up and say, but look I love men too. And sex. I wear pink tutus and ride unicorns. But aside from feeling like it's just pandering to these preexisting ideas yet again, it's also pointless. If anyone cared to look, they would see that there are feminists with male friends and partners all over the place. There are feminists enjoying sex and loving their bodies. There are feminists sharing responsibilities and pleasures and hardships with men as well as women.There are feminists who actually are men. Some of them might even be dirty. There are also non-feminists who don't like men or sex or sharing. Some of them have hairy legs too. And bump into the occasional dirty man. Honestly, I can't quite get over that one. All feminists must think men live in mud. All that clothing is just covering a highly cultivated layer of filth. Sorry, really, what I was trying to say is that the world is full of difference. Telling people with set ideas things that conflict with them is a great way only of talking to a brick wall.  We have been not just telling, but living in people's faces as a whole variety of feminists with different tastes, ideas, interests, ways of living and sexualities for that 100 or so years as well, and people just don't want to notice. They want to maintain the myth that we are manhating, hairy, sexually frustrated beasts trying to recuit all women to our cause and take over the world and maybe enslave those dirty men whilst we are at it.

Great. I'll get working on it. I could do with a house slave.