Stop the drug runners! On the death penalty and the fickleness of Tony

Before I get lambasted, I would like to make clear that I am against the death penalty. I think when a state starts saying it's OK for them to kill people in certain circumstances, it opens the possibility for many others to justify killing people for whatever reasons of their own. It's just a matter of the state saying "my reasons are better than your reasons". In all honesty, I am against the whole punishment model of crime and believe in reparation, reconciliation and rehabilitation and why is a whole other extensive discussion.

Despite this, however, I am struggling with the current popular movement against the execution of the Bali Nine guys. Sure, I don't think they should actually be killed. My problem is, why are we suddenly all up in arms about these guys? Texas killed 279 people between 2001 and 2014. Singapore killed 59 people for drug offences alone in the same time. Saudi Arabia executed 79 just last year and Amnesty International states that whilst information about death sentences is a state secret in China, it is thought they killed more people than the rest of the world combined. In the light of this, shouldn't we be a little more vigorous in our rejection of the death penalty worldwide? Or are we comfortable with the idea that it's only wrong when it happens to be some Australians involved? Or at least when they are on the receiving side. Did Australia complain when the Bali bombers were executed? No. In fact, they were tacitly supportive.

Then of course, we have Tony and Julie making appeals for clemency. Hang on, I thought the death penalty was supposed to deter people from committing crimes? So it's OK for Tony to lock 1000s of innocent people up indefinitely in appalling conditions as a deterrent to STOP THE BOATS, but it's not OK for another country, whose laws clearly state the consequence for drug dealing, to kill convicted drug runners when all they want to do is STOP THE DRUG RUNNERS??? Of course, Australia likes to couch their stance as saving lives at sea. So 1000s are locked up as a deterrent to people risking their lives at sea so they can instead risk their lives by staying at home. Ignoring the idea that punishment as deterrence is not actually all that effective, these people haven't even done anything to be punished for! Indonesia is concerned that they have 5 900 000 drug users and 50 deaths per day from drugs, not to mention being a focal point for drug trafficking. Indonesia sees their law as saving lives at home. Is the death penalty really reducing drug trafficking in Indonesia? Probably not. But that doesn't change that both countries are justifying the unjustifiable as protecting their country.

Latest athlete-model uncovered!

I was at the crag yesterday and had the privilege of shooting the latest up and coming climbing model. He's got great talent. Climbs 400 days per year. Spends 28/7 monitoring social media. Check out his slideshow below*.




Ok, so they look a bit ridiculous. Would they look any less ridiculous if I had shot a well known climbing hunk in this way? Say Chris Sharma? I don't think so. Try this as well for another idea of how images look when we shoot men in the same way as we shoot women.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021444/the-hot-underwear-models-selling-this-motorcycle-are-not-what-you-would-expect




*With much appreciation to my gorgeous partner for the immense fun had creating those images.

How super does superwoman have to be?

Sierra Blair-Coyle is causing a little controversy in climbing forums at the moment. http://eveningsends.com/climbing/athlete-models-sierra-blair-coyle/

http://www.rockandice.com/lates-news/tnb-a-short-talk-with-sierra-blair-coyle?fb_action_ids=10152748602508931&fb_action_types=og.comments.  On the one hand, I’m not going to object to any women putting out there that they are fit and strong. On the other hand, it’s problematic that to get this sort of publicity, they also have to be gorgeous, smiling and putting themselves out to the male gaze at the same time. Far from making climbing seem more accessible by climbing lesser grades than the top of the field, it presents an even more unattainable image. For the non climber, it all still looks impossible. V0 looks pretty bloody impossible to most people. Even for the rest of us, how many of us are sending V7? I’m not. Then on top of still unrealistic achievements for your average dogsbody, we also have to look gorgeous whilst doing it.  I seem to have missed the bit where going climbing needed a face full of make up. What a pain it must be though, having to make yourself look like that each morning just to go for a climb. Looking like that doesn’t come effortlessly, and I’ll bet she works hard at achieving that look. Make up, hair, depilation, clothing, not to mention diet and exercise … I don’t know how women find the time or energy for it all. I struggle to throw my dreads in piggy tail and stagger out the door.

I’m not dissing what she does per se, she climbs perfectly respectable grades, she’s found a way to market herself that’s obviously found a niche, she’s also at uni full time, it’s all a truckload of work and I wouldn’t bloody do it. But I do have a problem with a culture that asks for this stuff. It doesn’t reward women for getting dirty and sweaty, for looking like they just spent the day (or week or month) on the cliff, for battling and grimacing. You can’t just be an ordinary woman. Or even an ordinary woman doing extraordinary things. Or a gorgeous woman in your own way. You have to be a gorgeous woman willing to present yourself in a certain way doing extraordinary things. How super does superwoman have to be in this world?

And then I want to know, where are the male “athlete-models”? Sure, I admit I think Alex Honnold has gorgeous eyes. Most good climbers have a body worth admiring as well. I do my fair share of gawping. But where are the men marketing themselves to the female gaze in this way? Where are the sponsors paying them to sell their appearance over their achievements? Where are the men putting appearance maintenance into their training schedule? Having to dress themselves up even to run to the corner store? There is a substantial difference here. Then there’s also a long discussion to be had about women participating in their own objectification and what is free choice in all of that, but really, I haven’t eaten enough chocolate for that right now.

I also read an article about “bikini class” bodybuilders and the rigmarole around their appearance on top of all their training was ridiculous. http://www.buzzfeed.com/ashapiro009/training-tanning-and-branding-with-the-bikini-bodybuilding-s?utm_term=.pheJb4nMY#.dsQ4OldGJY. They too are marketed as the “accessable” end of their sport, which is just laughable and the end of body building where women are still “feminine” and “attractive”, because of course, it’s not ok to be a woman who is not easy on the male eye. One glance will suggest how much work goes into looking like that, let alone reading the actual story. Then because they also rely on social media for their following, they can’t leave the house without being all hotted up because someone might take a photo, bung it on Instagram and ruin their image. It all sounds like a recipe for misery to me.

Honestly, how come women all have to be beautiful? Even as people try and extend the range of what is acceptable for women, we just move on to other ways in which women can be beautiful. Women can be fat and beautiful. Intelligent and beautiful. Strong and beautiful. Talented and beautiful. Women of colour are beautiful. Really, what is wrong with just being happy, healthy, smart, capable, generous, funny, caring, fit, interesting or whatever … that we all have to be visually approved of as well? Are we really moving at all from the idea that women are most valued and most happy with themselves when their appearance meets cultural standards?

Am I the oppressed short? Some thoughts on sizism and fat discrimination.

It's not very popular in feminist circles to be down on the fat activism movement, but I'm a bit dubious about it. After reading some extensive articles on thin privilege and how sizism is seperate to sexism , http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/10/lets-talk-about-thin-privilege/, http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/11/20-examples-of-thin-privilege/, I feel some crucial points have been left out.

All women are judged on their size. It's not just fat, overweight or underweight women; healthily sized women are judged on their size, size is a form of abuse thrown at all women. Commentary and judgement on their size is offered to all women. I am smack in the middle of my healthy weight range, and I have been call a fat cow, told I looked pregnant, told my bum is big ... Similarly, people feel free to comment on how when they think my weight is looking good as well. This constant scrutiny of size is not offered to men. Men are allowed a significantly greater leeway before people will comment on or disapprove of their size. Nor do i hear them randomly told how slim they look in that outfit. As a result, far fewer men spend a vast amount of their time worrying about their size regardless of whether it is something they should worry about than women.

And there does come a point where people should worry about their size. It is a health issue.A well documented and researched health issue. Is your size a health issue? No? Well, go out and wear and do whatever you damn well want. It is a health issue? Then address your health issue, but go out and wear and do whatever you damn well want at the same time.

Of course it is wrong to judge and discriminate against people based on their size. It is wrong to put people down because of their size. It is wrong to make jokes about size. This is all genuinely problematic. But some of this claiming fat discrimination is getting a bit silly. Can't get clothes in your size? Look, I can't get shoes small enough for me a lot of the time. Do I scream "average size foot privilege"? I have to hem almost every pair of pants I buy. Do I scream "average height privilege"? People just don't stock them because they don't sell many of them. And as the proportion of larger people has grown, large clothes seem to have become more available with the increase in demand.

Your health insurance costs more? My health insurance has never asked me about my weight, but it seems perfectly reasonable to charge more for a higher risk group. See earlier comments about well documented evidence for health concern attached to obesity. Note, not attached to simply being a woman whose body, like most women's bodies, doesn't exactly resemble the promoted ideal. Insurance companies always charge according to risk factors. Have a history of car accidents and speeding fines or not been driving long? Your car insurance costs more. Live in a high crime area without house security? Your house insurance costs more. Charged more by an airline? Well, if you overflow your seat, you need 2 seats. Airlines sell flight by the seat. Really, I'd quite like to have my baggage allowance increased because I weigh less than most people, but do I claim "small person discrimination" that me plus my baggage are less than an average sized healthy male yet they still want to charge me for every kilo  over the baggage allowance? I have to climb to get food from the top shelf in the supermarket. I stand on the seats to put my hand luggage in the plane's overhead lockers. Should I really be wondering if the world out to oppress short people?

When your doctor investigates weight related conditions first, they are making a reasonable choice to eliminate the most likely options first. They could test for ebola if you have just vomited as well, but they don't because it's very low down on the list of probable causes. Being obese is strongly correlated with developing myriad rather awful conditions. Visit a dialysis unit or care for someone with chronic heart failure if you want to see how bad these things will get. Or just think about getting older. We will all get weaker, develop some degree of arthritis and moving gets to be hard, hard work. If you are obese, you just aren't going to be able to move yourself around that much sooner. I'm not talking about just not conforming to society's generally harsh assessment of female appearance here, I'm talking about medically concerning weight.

My point in all of this is to focus on the actual discrimination here - pull people up for fat jokes and abuse. Stand up to real discrimination, not evidenced based assessments. Think about how your respond next time you find yourself caught up in the constant discourse about women's size. And get on with doing and being who you are whilst looking after your own health.

Move over cane toads, vegetarians are the new environmental curse.

It seems to be popular once again to claim the environmental and ethical benefits benefits of meat eating. This morning I find myself reading Mike Brown on the poor long suffering mice that vegetarians kill. http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/ordering-vegetarian-meal-there-s-more-animal-blood-your-hands. And how livestock on Australia’s otherwise “unusable” rangelands is a good thing.

Really, I wonder if these people have thought through what they are arguing? Maybe Mike hasn’t been to outback SA or Qld, so he hasn’t seen the devastation caused by sheep and cattle grazing. Tim Flannery has had an extensive go at sheep farming being the major source of trashing the SA landscape. He also argues that habitat clearance and food competition by sheep has had more impact on small mammals than predation by cats. And we know everyone loves to bag out cats as the environmental scourge of the nation. Phenomenal amounts of inland Qld are bare paddocks with cow prints in the dust. Then you can wander into far northern Australia, where feral cows, pigs, horses, buffalo and donkeys run amok. And even those still within the confines of stations, well, those stations don’t look like pristine habitat anymore do they? Northern Australia is currently undergoing a mass extinction of small and medium sized mammals similar to that which has already occurred over central Australia and groups like Australian Wildlife Conservancy have a particular focus on the north for this reason and rehabilitate former stations. Livestock animals clear vegetation, spread weeds, trash waterways, spread diseases, compete for food with native animals, their hooves disturb our fragile topsoils and if you are worried about their health as well, they aren’t the fattest and happiest looking animals, because it’s still a bloody harsh environment out there.  Rangeland grazing remains hugely problematic

.

Then there’s the carry on about all the negative effects of grain farming. Now, I’m not going to defend mass grain farming as being a wonderful thing. But, since when did meat eaters stop eating grains? It’s not the sole province of vegetarians. That sausage or hamburger needed some grains, as did the bun you ate it in. Have some pasta with your bolognaise? Some rice with your beef korma? Aside from this ridiculous omission, I think you might notice that not eating meat correlates with more consumption of vegetables, legumes, pulses, nuts and seeds, not grains. And all those poor anthropomorphised mice. Mice are a pest animal that are killed. Sheep and cattle are pest animals that are bred, then killed. And how cute are little lambies? Does that interfere with your enjoyment of Sunday roast? I don’t think so.

Arguments against ethical choices so often seem to invoke a pointless slippery slope. Yes, it sux that mice are poisoned. Does that somehow delegitimise any attempt at more ethical and environmentally sustainable eating? Well, no. It seems to be expected that once you take an ethical stance, you have to live up to everyone’s interpretation of every possible related issue. What about the poor lettuces???? Some people would have us all be breatharians for making the slightest objection to their comfort zones. But actually, you don’t have to be. It’s ok to draw lines of what you consider reasonable for you, your situation, your ethics and the environment. Eating a few grains does not devalue not eating hooved animals totally unsuitable for grazing the Australian environment. Animals which are still rounded up using helicopters, transported via roads, contributing their own share of carbon emissions, then slaughtered in those rather horrible things called abattoirs.

I’m hardly the strident vegan I was in my youth. Mike does have a point about kangaroos. Kangaroos are culled across Australia and dumped in pits. Most of the roo that is used is exported or turned into pet food. Ok, so pets have a rather large environmental impact and sustainable pet food is a good thing, but we really are killing a lot of animals for little return here. When done according to the RSPCA approved guidelines, kangaroo harvesting is humane and sustainable. Then there are emus. We cull them as pests as well, when we should really consider them a suitable source of meat for Australian conditions. Then there are all the feral rabbits, goats, camel and buffalo. We already kill them. We should actually use them instead of growing still more animals to eat. If we are going to eat meat, hoofed animals should be on the way out even when they are range grown, let alone intensive animal farming. People need to get over the idea of eating Skippy. If you can eat Babe, Peppa and Clarabelle, what’s the difference?

Reading about Ebola is heart breaking.

I've been reading a bit about the Ebola outbreak the last few days. You can have this vague idea in the back of your head that there's an extremely rare but devastating illness in West Africa but the actual reality of it not hit home. West Africa is a long way away, the numbers still sound kinda low, but when you look a little closer, there are over now 7000 confirmed cases and they suspect the actual number of cases to be 2-3 times that. Each person is infecting about 2 others. The fatality rate is about 70%. Those are really overwhelming figures.

Then there is the lived experience of these people. They are nursed in isolation facilities and most will die a gruesome death, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding and multiple organ failure, with only strangers in spacesuits with them. Or they are amongst the uncounted cases in the community, cared for mostly by women at home, who are almost inevitably going to be infected themselves as the virus spread through the body fluids that will inevitably be everywhere.

And this is all in some of the poorest areas of the world. Sanitation is limited at the best of times, and this is not one of them. Health care services are limited and completely unprepared to deal with this outbreak.  Wars, corruption, civil unrest and so forth make it more difficult to access care or have built mistrust in government systems.  In short, the virus couldn't have picked a better place to ensure its own survival. My heart also aches for the health care workers in these places. Many, especially local workers, would not have the equipment available to protect them, or the knowledge of the risk before it was too late. They too are dying in large numbers.  Special facilities have been set up to provide care, but it is a small fortune in equipment, water and chemicals to contain the virus within them. But not only does West Africa need money, equipment and chemicals, it needs health care workers. These people not only face the risk of catching Ebola, but also watching the tragedy of it. Imagine caring for a population who are suffering terribly and 70% of them will die within days. The strength of these people is amazing, but supportive care can reduce mortality to 30%. That's a huge difference that medical teams can have.

In the face of all of this, the richer world has been slow to act. Even now, with countries sending medical staff and military assistance to build treatment centres, Australia is offering only a small amount of money. We carry on about burkas, conduct terrorist raids for toy swords and send military troops and equipment to Iraq, but only a few million to control a humanitarian crisis spiraling out of control. Even if you only wanted to be selfish about it, Ebola is spreading at such a rate that it will become a crisis for more than just West Africa. A much bigger global threat than terrorism. More people have died in Liberia in the last few months than in the Sept 11 attacks. But hey, it's all happening to black people in Africa right now, so who cares?

I'm uncomfortable with my shared discomfort with conservative nutcases.

I hate admitting I have anything in common with a bunch of conservative nutwits, but I have a problem with burkas. Yes, I know that there are a bunch of different veils associated with Islam, but I am being slack and just using the term-du-jour for my convenience. It's not really au fait amongst the left at the moment to criticise religious veiling, but when it boils down to it, I have a problem with any cultural/religious dictation of what women should and shouldn't wear. I'm not terrified it is a security risk and I am appalled at a bunch of privileged white and mostly male people attempting to further ostracise a minority group for political sway. This does not however, change my concern about cultural regulation of women. Yes, I know there are women who choose to wear a veil. Choices always happen in a context, and women are great at self policing. We have been conveniently helping cultural norms keep us within an acceptable range for a long time across many cultures and religions. Women also choose to wear makeup, shave their bodies, obsessively diet, have plastic surgery etc etc. That doesn't change the common theme of the controlling of women's bodies. Whether they have to be covered up or enhanced, we are still telling women what is and isn't OK about them. And there is a common theme of focusing on women's sexuality. Women are covered up in order to protect men from their sexuality or women are dressed up in order to show off their sexuality. But not too much. Because then they are asking for men to lose all control and assault them. It's all bollocks.

I'm struggling to think of an internet selfie campaign that I haven't had a problem with, but I am currently uncomfortable with the #WISH one. Part of it is the nature of "selfie activism".  It's very easy to take a photo and bung it online and feel all gooey inside but, has anything really changed? The other is around what sort of things become popular selfie campaigns. Call me cynical (ok, I accept I am actually cynical), but they all seem to be ones in which you can rather participate in without really doing anything confronting. No make up selfies was full of cute pictures. Women against feminism was full of cute pictures. And WISH is full of cute pictures of women in scarves. The interpretation of the hijab is all quite flexible (and indeed it seems to be in the muslim community as well, which does seem like a good thing) where you grab your favourite scarf and drape it attractively over your head. We don't see women putting a full black or blue veil on. And I see a few men posting selfies saying they are also in solidarity. Where are their hijabs?????  Surely there is no less pointlessness in men wearing women's religious head wear than non-islamic women wearing it? I accept this is all well meaning and maybe some women are feeling less ostracised by the number of women posting photos, but I'm wondering where are the selfie campaigns in solidarity with victims of domestic violence, acid attacks, female genital mutilation ... oh wait, they won't make for cute pictures.

#confusedcatsinsolidaritywithhijabis Sorry, i couldn't resist.