Did Tony really put that onion in the right place?

Honestly, it just shits me more every time I think about it. Refusing to provide basic services to remote Aboriginal communities. Did Tony not notice in the midst of the gustatory sensation of the onion that it's a little contradictory to announce a $200, 000, 000 subsidy to enable Tasmanian producers to export competitively with mainland producers whilst complaining that remote communities were unsustainable? You see, this isn't competition. It is supporting producers that would be otherwise unsustainable in the free market. Now, I'm not exactly a neoliberal economist, but I do think that neoliberal economists should accept that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So until they stop diesel fuel subsidies to mining magnates (incidently, Gina earns my annual income in 3.3 minutes, http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/) and other myriad subsidies and tax breaks to people and industries generally doing a heck of a lot better and costing a heck of a lot more than remote Aboriginal communities, well, I think Tony should shove that onion up the other end of his digestive tract.

Hello kidney!

I love kidneys. I really came to love my kidneys the first time I worked in a dialysis unit. To be blunt, dialysis sucks. 3 days a week for 5 hours, you are connected up to a machine that is no where near as mobile as you own kidneys, ie, you are stuck in a chair whilst it does what your kidneys have nicely done for you for all the preceding years.  To add insult to injury, you should see the size of the needles they have to use to connect you up to the machine. And the surgery to create a fistula of an artery and vein to put said enormous needle in. And the scar tissue that builds up until you have a massive lump growing out of your arm from it. When you want to go away, you have to find another dialysis centre to attend because you can't go more than a day or 2 without your 5 hours of compulsory leisure time bonding with the dialysis machine.

Chronic kidney failure requiring dialysis in our indigenous population is something horrendous like 4 times the rate of the rest of us. And then, they are more likely to live far from the necessary services and be more concerned about accessing services that have often not been culturally appropriate. Whenever I get the chance, I tell people to look after their kidneys, because they do us amazing favours every moment of every day. Modern lifestyle illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension trash your kidneys.

 Chronic kidney failure massively reduces your quality of life. Dialysis increases your risk for nasty blood infections. And kidney failure will eventually kill you. It's particularly tragic that Aboriginal Australians suffer so much from it. Indigenous Australians suffer from massive social-economic problems that impact on their health as well as frequently having limited access to health care and facing culturally insensitive services. Low birth weight, malnutrition, challenging living conditions, high rates of infections, tobacco and alcohol use and the rapid change in diet and lifestyle resulting from dispossession and resultant modern lifestyle illnesses all increase their risk for kidney failure and it's just crap that as a society we like to blame individuals rather than looking at the social context in which this happens. Yet new diagnoses of 10 times the rate of other Australians, even higher in remote communities, are not exactly an individual problem. New diagnoses is those aged 34-55 are especially high. I'm sure you don't need me to point it out, but that's young. Really bloody young. These people are sentenced to life-with-machine and all our government wants to do is complain about the meagre support they provide to remote communities. Maybe real support could actually help cut back these horrific figures.

If we called them towns, would they be treated differently?

The WA government has said it will "close" up to 150 remote Aboriginal communities. Really? Just close them down like they were a shop going out of business?  Now, I get that Colin is premier of a bloody large state with a very dispersed population. I should hope he knew that before he took on the job. I'm sure it is difficult and expensive to provide services to all those remote people, but that doesn't mean you can just close down a few inconveniently remote communities. Anyone in rural Australia could name a few remote towns of small populations that are difficult and expensive to maintain. Over the last 10 years, Victoria has had to run pipelines to most of the north west of the state and provide treated water to umpteen small towns. Did they propose that Noradjuha had to be closed down and the 10 or so households move into Horsham or Nati? Of course not. Noradajuha still has water, mail delivery, garbage collection, a school bus run.

Aboriginal communities typically have schools, general stores, health centres, not to mention homes. Maybe a police station, footy ground, community hall. That sounds an awful lot like a town to me. But by calling them Aboriginal communities (which in and of itself there is nothing wrong with, and maybe the residents even prefer it), it conjures up in the mind of your average ignorant Australian of people living in dirt and humpies. And maybe some do and they like it. Good on them. But I suspect it is a strategy on behalf of the government to separate these homes of indigenous people from what most Australians call towns and try and avoid the appropriate outrage. Because really, our governments support a lot of expensive to maintain stuff. Most of it is for much richer people, organisations, communities and companies than some  isolated communities that already do in tough in myriad ways. Indigenous people do want to live in remote communities for social, family, cultural and health reasons amongst others. Suddenly making them homeless and trying to herd them into slightly larger, still very remote communities may look like it saves a small amount in services, but is going to cost a huge amount in trauma to these people and in managing the high risk of arising social and health problems. And like the NT intervention, when would governments ever risk doing these things to nice white people?

Great, so now misogyny is all the fault of women too

In https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-love/201502/12-ways-spot-misogynist, Berit Broogard tells us "Misogyny is typically an unconscious hatred that men form early in life, often as a result of a trauma involving a female figure they trusted. An abusive or negligent mother, sister, teacher or girlfriend can plant a seed deep down in their brain’s subcortical matter."  Fantastic. I never realised that patriarchy is actually the response of traumatised men to abuse by women. Throughout history, men have been forced to develop laws, religions, cultures and structures restricting and oppressing women, to infantalise, objectify and rape them,  all because their Mummy didn't love them enough. Hang on, who neglected or abused their Mummy so that she was unable to love them enough? 

I'm sorry, but this is hogswallop. Misogyny exists because we live in a society that allows and enables it. In fact, one that has required it. That rewarded it. Blaming women for men that abuse women sounds suspiciously like a bit more misogyny. Men who behave like this do so because they believe it is acceptable. Because they are rewarded for it with pats on the back from their peers and women who tolerate it. If women's abuse of men creates misogyny, well, the rate of misandry out there should be through the roof. Now, if only I stopped spanking my partner, maybe the patriarchy would all go away ...

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?