Article written by

tigtog (aka Viv) is the founder of this blog. She lives in Sydney, Australia: husband, 2 kids, cat, house, garden, just enough wine-racks and (sigh) far too few bookshelves.

18 Responses

Page 1 of 1
  1. Chris
    Chris at |

    I think that excising the mainland from the migration zone is an appalling decision. Its times like this that make me ponder if we’d actually get more humane treatment of asylum seekers under an Liberal government. At least then we’d have an opposition that protested against these sorts of policies rather than one that just eggs the government on to further extremes.

    When is the ALP going to realise that no matter how far they go the Opposition under Abbott is always to going to demand they go a little bit further and portray them in public as not having done enough?

  2. MrRabbit
    MrRabbit at |

    A. How can you excise the mainland from the migration zone? It makes no sense to me. I’m so disgusted. It’s getting really hard to tell who is least evil, Liberal or Labor. It’s why I can’t vote for either of them.

    B. There was a recent discussion on Feministe.us about street harrassment of queer men, which degenerated as discussions often do, but this report reinforces connections between sexual harrassment of women (queer and nonqueer) and of men who dare deviate from our strict gender codes (who may also be queer or not queer).

    C. Shonky awards out: shocking! Mould killers don’t kill mould. But vinegar does. It makes the mould explode! I feel so mean now, cleaning my shower.

  3. Jo Tamar
    Jo Tamar at |

    @Chris, re the decision to excise the mainland from the migration zone: yes, absolutely appalling. Also truly absurd, isn’t it? I wondered when I saw it if it was 1 April or if someone had picked something up from The Onion.

  4. Jo
    Jo at |

    That sexual harassment point in really telling. Obviously the stats still show that women are overwhelmingly the targets of harassment. But maybe the thing under attack isn’t so much women anymore but femininity. Or maybe it was right from the start. Women who “get ahead” are typically seen as those who are less stereotypically feminine. And men who may perform aspects of what is traditionally deemed “femininity” are getting mocked all the more. Backlash, anyone?

  5. Rebekka
    Rebekka at |

    But maybe the thing under attack isn’t so much women anymore but femininity. Or maybe it was right from the start. Women who “get ahead” are typically seen as those who are less stereotypically feminine. And men who may perform aspects of what is traditionally deemed “femininity” are getting mocked all the more.

    As a woman who’s not particularly stereotypically feminine, I’d dispute this. I’ve not experienced sexual harassment at work, but I’ve certainly experienced discrimination, and in my experience that’s all about being female and nothing to do with being feminine (or not).

  6. Jo
    Jo at |

    Hmm, maybe you’re right Rebekka. There is definitely a thing of femininity = woman = baaaaad thing though. Urgh, sexual harassment/discrimination is the worst.

  7. Chris
    Chris at |

    Jo @ 3 – I was very surprised by the announcement, but apparently it was one of the recommendations from the Houston report. Still very disappointed.

    Jo/Rebekkah – the femininity angle was suggested by Broderick in an attempt to explain the growing number of discrimination cases where men are victims. I doubt it explains all the cases though. Anyone who sticks out from the “norm”, for whatever reason is at increased risk – the sexual aspect of the harassment is just the weapon.

  8. tigtog
    tigtog at |

    Jo, I suspect it’s more about policing a very traditional/rigid gender binary. Expecting women to be supportive/submissive and men to be competitive/agressive for a start, and (a) punishing those who don’t fit neatly within those bounds, and (b) expecting the submissive women to put up with sexual suggestiveness from their bosses.

    Which means pretty much that no matter what a woman does, it’s likely that somebody will see her as a target deserving of either hostility or “seduction”, while for the men it’s mostly being non-macho that makes them a target (from their male co-workers anyway).

  9. tigtog
    tigtog at |

    I haven’t actually watched an episode of Kitchen Cabinet, but I think I maybe should start, because it looks like sometimes the pollie doesn’t realise what they’re revealing about themselves. Tonight Annabel Crabb ate with Barnaby Joyce:


    According to another tweet I saw but can’t find again, Barnaby also gave himself the seat with the view.

  10. David Irving (no relation)
    David Irving (no relation) at |

    I just watched Senator Joist with Ms Crabb. He’s a [redacted], but so’s she, frankly. He tried to come over all philosophical. It didn’t work, although it may have fooled Ms Crabb.

    Moderator note: try and find a more creative insult than a gendered slur, please, next time?
  11. Chris
    Chris at |

    tigtog @ 9 – The Joe Hockey one is worth catching if it’s still on iView. Discovered that the Minister for Defence (Brendan Nelson) was living in a converted garage that only had enough power to run either the heater *or* the lights in a Canberra winter (he was going through a divorce and so couldn’t afford anything else). This is where defence personnel used to visit him at night to get his permission for various things….

  12. Aphie
    Aphie at |

    Kind of enjoyed Triple J’s Hack edition yesterday on the whole excising issue, in that they let a racist caller carry on in such a way as to point out just how stupid he was, inviting a Turkish refugee to comment on the “back door” crap, and then getting a very measured elder politician (can’t remember her name, sorry!) to comment on the “one liners being thrown around, when it’s a very complex issue” ending with commentary about human lives and dignity being worth more than politics.

  13. Rebekka
    Rebekka at |

    Jo, I suspect it’s more about policing a very traditional/rigid gender binary.

    Yes, that – the thought was trying to happen in my brain but I wasn’t quite getting there.

    There is definitely a thing of femininity = woman = baaaaad thing though.

    Not sure about this one either Jo. My feeling is more what Tigtog was suggesting – femininity is good for women (we’re conforming to our socially approved role) but bad for blokes (they need to be manly).

  14. Mindy
    Mindy at |

    There is definitely a thing of femininity = woman = baaaaad thing though.

    Perhaps not so much baaaad thing, unless you are a bloke in which case yes definitely, but a less valued thing?

  15. Orlando
    Orlando at |

    Femininity is a member of that class of things, along with motherhood, hotness, and so on, that will make you more valuable as a woman at the same time as it makes you less valuable as a person. The savage paradox of womanhood.

  16. tigtog
    tigtog at |

    That’s a well made point, Orlando. Gender roles not only perpetuate a double-standard regarding what behaviour by whom is considered appropriate, they’re also a double-edged blade in exactly that way: femininity-conforming makes one perceived as a more valuable helpmeet, but feminine submissiveness also makes one be perceived as incapable of independent endeavour and thus undeserving of the respect given to those assumed to have the potential for independent endeavour.

    There’s a reciprocal (not necessarily equivalent or exactly opposite) double-edged blade going on with the gender expectations surrounding masculinity, of course.

    Anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into the gender binary boxes is going to disturb many people who find traditionalist expectations comforting.

  17. Rebekka
    Rebekka at |

    Excellent point, Orlando.

  18. David Irving (no relation)
    David Irving (no relation) at |

    Fair cop, moderator. Perhaps I should have used “lackwit”. It conveys most of my meaning.

Comments are closed.