Reminder, there will be a Hoyden meetup on this Sunday, March 8.
Location: Guylian Belgian Chocolate Cafe, Opera Quays, East Circular Quay
Date and time: Sunday 8th March, 12:00 noon.
Who: There’s no level of existing involvement in Hoyden About Town required. Creators, commenters, lurkers, newcomers and familiar faces all welcome. Friends, partners and children all welcome.
Wet weather: it’s a partly indoor venue, so the meetup will go ahead as planned.
Circular Quay train station is a 400m walk away. Many bus lines terminate south of the Circular Quay train station, about a 500m walk away. Circular Quay is also the main terminal for Sydney Ferries.
The paid Sydney Opera House car park is the nearest parking venue with substantial spaces. Weekend parking is a flat $15.
The Cafe is step-free and has level floors. The Cafe staff tell me that the entire space is wheel accessible and there is an accessible toilet.
Children are welcome, but the Guylian Cafe does not have specifically children’s entertainment.
A quick should-be-obvious: respect people’s pseudonyms. Many people will use their meatspace name at the meetup (although if you want to introduce yourself by a pseudonym feel free). That doesn’t mean you can use their meatspace name if you blog/tweet about the meetup.
Again, should-be-obvious: if you come to the event please do not take photographs of participants without their express permission (or that of their parent/guardian in the case of young children). In particular, if you’re intending to publish it on the web or elsewhere let them know before taking the photograph.
Full photo credits: the photograph of East Circular Quay is by Kevin Gibbons/Australia Photos, licensed Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 on Flickr, and was cropped, colour-adjusted and rotated by the author of this post.
Share this post?
When I was on holidays recently a pop song called Jealous (link to lyrics) by American singer/songwriter Nick Jonas, from the group The Jonas Brothers, was on high rotation. After the first few plays I actually started listening to the lyrics and, dear reader, I was somewhat appalled at what I heard. It’s not a nasty song, it’s not a rapey song (unlike Blurred Lines), but it is a disturbing song. Here’s why:
The singer claims a right to act ‘hellish’, whatever that means, because he still gets jealous. I don’t believe jealousy gives you any rights actually, apart from the right to STFU and deal with your own shit. The relationship between the person who he is getting jealous over and himself is never clear. Is he husband/boyfriend/partner or ex/stalker/fan for whom the distinction between friends and fans does not exist? Even the film clip doesn’t make it any clearer. He doesn’t like how this person posts stuff on social media, he admits to being possessive, passive aggressive and puffing out his chest to defend what he sees as his territory. All this in a pop song. On high rotation. The overtones of control and violence are really worrying.
But I can’t say that this song is the worst offender in the ‘OFFS can you stop playing that crap please for the love of fluffy kittens’ stakes. One Direction make a good claim for that crown with their ‘Steal my girl’
Share this post?
At A life unexamined, the excellent Jo presents DUFC #82! Go have a read.
The next edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival is planned for 5 April, 2015, and will be hosted by Rebecca at Opinions @ bluebec.com. Submissions to rebecca [dot] dominguez [at] gmail [dot] com.
Submissions must be of posts of feminist interest by writers from Australia and New Zealand that were published in March. Submissions are due on 2 April at the latest, but it’ll be easier on Rebecca if you submit sooner rather than later. So submit early and often, please, and spread the word!
Share this post?
One of the organisers of a Liberal National Party International Women’s Day lunch, to be held at a club that excludes female members, has drawn comparisons between the event and an icon of the US civil rights movement.
Details of the lunch, to be held at Brisbane’s Tattersall’s Club on Friday, emerged on Wednesday to howls or ridicule.
In defending the choice to use Tattersall’s, LNP Women vice-president Peta Simpson cited Rosa Parks, the African-American woman who famously refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Alabama and became a symbol of the American civil rights movement.
“If she’d never gone on a bus and refused to stand up, who knows how long it would have taken that movement to start,” she said.
“This is the thing, nothing ever changes from the outside.
“If we say it’s a men-only club and we’re not going to go there because they do things we maybe don’t like, then that’s kind of just continuing on with the tradition.”
Ms Simpson said she could “think of no better place” to have the International Women’s Day lunch, if for no other reason than the symbolism.
Quite frankly, as a privileged white woman myself (but not an LNP member), this is beyond embarrassing. These women are married or partnered or related to some of the most powerful men in the country. Having lunch at a club that will remain members only, and members with a male member at that, will not change anything significantly for even themselves much less less privileged women. I don’t think that LNP ladies will become symbols of change for having lunch at an establishment that already lets them dine there, albeit in the company of a man who is a member. Booking the venue for a women’s event doesn’t do anything to force the club to change its sexist membership policy.
Rosa Park’s actions, which went well beyond refusing to give up a seat on a bus and started well before that day, forced society to see black people as people deserving of a seat on the bus and as members of American society. Regardless of whether Tattersall’s finally do allow women to be members, it will still be a small number of elites who make the cut. Rosa Park’s was fighting for all black Americans, not a privileged few who enjoyed lifestyles and riches well beyond that of ordinary folk. To invoke her name for such a ridiculous reason, not to mention having no idea of either her history of that of the US civil rights movement*, diminishes her actions and the outcomes of her work.
*I don’t know much either, but I do know that Rosa Parks didn’t just get on a bus one day and decide to sit where she liked.
Share this post?
This is stuff regular readers likely already know, but it’s nice to have links to stuff for others. Two recent op-eds from the NYT discuss how decision makers in a wide range of gatekeeper roles are more likely to make discretionary accommodations for some people than others while not noticing that this is what they’re doing:
This elegant experiment follows in a tradition of audit testing, in which social scientists have sent testers of different races to, for example, bargain over the price of new cars or old baseball cards. But the Australian study is the first, to my knowledge, to focus on discretionary accommodations. It’s less likely these days to find people in positions of authority, even at lower levels of decision making, consciously denying minorities rights. But it is easier to imagine decision makers, like the bus drivers, granting extra privileges and accommodations to nonminorities. Discriminatory gifts are more likely than discriminatory denials.
A police officer is an out-and-out bigot if she targets innocent blacks for speeding tickets. But an officer who is more likely to give a pass to white motorists who exceed the speed limit than to black ones is also discriminating, even if with little or no conscious awareness. This is one reason the Twitter hashtag #crimingwhilewhite is so powerful: It draws attention to the racially biased exercise of discretion by police officers, prosecutors and judges, which results in whites getting a pass for the kinds of offenses for which minorities are punished.
Nicholas Kristof: Straight Talk for White Men –
Supermarket shoppers are more likely to buy French wine when French music is playing, and to buy German wine when they hear German music. That’s true even though only 14 percent of shoppers say they noticed the music, a study finds.
Researchers discovered that candidates for medical school interviewed on sunny days received much higher ratings than those interviewed on rainy days. Being interviewed on a rainy day was a setback equivalent to having an MCAT score 10 percent lower, according to a new book called “Everyday Bias,” by Howard J. Ross.
Those studies are a reminder that we humans are perhaps less rational than we would like to think, and more prone to the buffeting of unconscious influences. That’s something for those of us who are white men to reflect on when we’re accused of “privilege.”
Both these pieces repeat the most important point about privilege that just doesn’t seem to sink in for some people: social privilege is not about our individual choices, it’s about what social systems tout as “normal” for everybody but nonetheless deny to some and not others. We don’t tend to perceive something we’ve never been denied as a benefit, it’s just part of the background. The dozens of times every single day that some of us are given a “free pass” or at least “the benefit of the doubt” by a decision maker because of our skin colour or our gender or our name or our accent/dialect or other signifiers of various status stereotypes sail right by most of us who receive them – as per a metaphor Kristof uses in his column, these discretionary accommodations are some people’s never-noticed tailwinds while simultaneously being other people’s always-noticed headwinds. Blocking the headwinds to make the race fairer also means blocking the tailwinds, and it’s the loss of the boost previously given by those tailwinds that is then decried as “unfair”.
Share this post?
Well, hasn’t this been a deeply shameful week for the behaviour of the government? OK, so that doesn’t really distinguish it from other weeks, let’s go with a week unprecedented in its shamefulness, according to former Disability Commissioner Graeme Innes.
Gillian Triggs has proved herself so far above the pitiful scrabblings of the shrivelled souls who want her to stop saying that we shouldn’t subject children to institutional abuse that she has forced them to reveal themselves for what they are. I can’t imagine how much grit it would take to outlast that baying pack, but it seems to be coming from the absoluteness of her conviction on the topic. The impression is distinct that she is doing this for the children, not for herself.
The steadfastness of the President of the Human Rights Commission in the face of every possible form of disparagement has been breathtaking. This is a woman who will not be messed with, and her opponents are only succeeding in embarrassing themselves. They so clearly have nothing whatever on her, and they are never, ever going to unsettle her enough for her to open up even the smallest error of phrasing for them to pounce on. This is pushing them, bit by bit, towards outright lying as every slight and insinuation rings so hollow, they look for a way to back them up, find nothing, and grasp a little bit further.
What my vagrant mind keeps returning to is that old play A Man For All Seasons. Watching the travesty of the Murdoch press and LNP members clawing for some way to imply that Triggs sought, in effect, a bribe, I am reminded of the scene where Cromwell claims he has evidence that Sir Thomas More accepted bribes, and Norfolk exclaims, “Goddammit, he was the only judge since Cato who didn’t!” Consider Senator MacDonald, cast in the role of a less clever Cromwell, trying to give George Brandis, as a less suave Henry VIII, the annulment he is looking for, and only succeeding in painting them all into a cramped and splintery corner. With a big floodlight on it. I only hope, for everyone’s sake, that they can find no one to take the role of Richard Rich, the witness in this clip:
As has been pointed out repeatedly, all this serves as too great a distraction from the only thing we should be taking about – the children still imprisoned. Therefore, the best thing we can do in these circumstances is to take seriously the message on the frontispiece of the Forgotten Children report itself: “The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information provided in this publication.” Calls for action don’t come any clearer. So here is the PDF of the full report, in the hope that we will all show our support for Gillian Triggs by doing exactly that.
Share this post?
Shannon Hale – No Boys Allowed: School visits as a woman writer – schools keep deciding that boys won’t/shouldn’t want to hear her speak about writing, while also deciding that whenever a male author visits the same school that girls will be just as interested in that author as the boys.
The belief that boys won’t like books with female protagonists, that they will refuse to read them, the shaming that happens (from peers, parents, teachers, often right in front of me) when they do, the idea that girls should read about and understand boys but that boys don’t have to read about girls, that boys aren’t expected to understand and empathize with the female population of the world….this belief directly leads to rape culture. To a culture that tells boys and men, it doesn’t matter how the girl feels, what she wants. You don’t have to wonder. She is here to please you. She is here to do what you want. No one expects you to have to empathize with girls and women. As far as you need be concerned, they have no interior life.
At this recent school visit, near the end I left time for questions. Not one student had a question. In 12 years and 200-300 presentations, I’ve never had that happen. So I filled in the last 5 minutes reading them the first few chapters of The Princess in Black, showing them slides of the illustrations. BTW I’ve never met a boy who didn’t like this book.
After the presentation, I signed books for the students who had pre-ordered my books (all girls), but one 3rd grade boy hung around.
“Did you want to ask her a question?” a teacher asked.
“Yes,” he said nervously, “but not now. I’ll wait till everyone is gone.”
He just wanted a copy of one of her Princess books, but he didn’t want anyone else to hear him ask her for it.
Looking for an index image for this post, I found this post from 2013 – Boys don’t read Girl Books and other lies my Society Told Me (plus it has Avatar: The Last Airbender GIFs):
I can’t stress how easy this “experiment” was. I mean, it was easy because I started early, before all the societal sexism could sink in. But it’s not like my brother’s Y chromosome was allergic to “girl” cooties. So whenever I read a Robert Lipsyte, say, spouting the old ” teenage girls will read books about boys, teenage boys will rarely read books with predominately female characters” line, I roll my eyes pretty hard.
You know what? I’ve got a teenage boy in my life, and he reads “girl” stuff just fine. My outlandish theory is that if boys aren’t belittled for reading books about girls, if they’re not taught that girls are lesser, if they’re not teased about cooties, if we don’t teach them to fear the feminine… they’d probably like more “girl” stuff.
Boys don’t read “girl” books because they’re taught, in a thousand small, subtle, insidious ways, that they’re not supposed to.
What if boys weren’t ashamed to read books that were coded “girly” because they didn’t think it was shameful to be a girl? (thanks, Iggy Pop!)
What if we taught them something else?
Think about it.
There’s also the problem of boys avoiding reading entirely, not just stories with female protagonists. Last I heard general wisdom is that the very best way to encourage boys to read is for them to encounter men who read – not just reading to the boys, but reading for their own pleasure in places where the boys can see them doing it. Imagine if the world was full of men shamelessly reading books with female protagonists just as often as those with male protagonists! Wouldn’t that be luvverly.
Share this post?
Fascinating article on how even some of the most extensively educated minds can struggle with the counter-intuitive nature of statistics, and how freely those struggles can result in storms of condescension and mockery when the person they consider to be incorrect is a woman: The Time Everyone “Corrected” the World’s Smartest Woman
When vos Savant politely responded to a reader’s inquiry on the Monty Hall Problem, a then-relatively-unknown probability puzzle, she never could’ve imagined what would unfold: though her answer was correct, she received over 10,000 letters, many from noted scholars and Ph.Ds, informing her that she was a hare-brained idiot.
What ensued for vos Savant was a nightmarish journey, rife with name-calling, gender-based assumptions, and academic persecution.
The Monty Hall Problem had been known and genially discussed in specalist journals since 1975 with no aspersions cast on the conclusion (and was anyway a reiteration of similar problems dating back to 1889 at least). But when Marilyn vos Savant wrote about it in 1990 for her column in Parade magazine, outrage ensued.
Though her answer was correct, a vast swath of academics responded with outrage. In the proceeding months, vos Savant received more than 10,000 letters — including a pair from the Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information, and a Research Mathematical Statistician from the National Institutes of Health — all of which contended that she was entirely incompetent
You can read samples of these letters in the article, which then goes on to explain in detail and with infographics why vos Savant was nonetheless right all along.
More than 25 years later, arguments over the Monty Hall Problem’s semantics and vos Savant’s response still pervade — mainly centering around the intricacies of the host’s actions.
“Our brains are just not wired to do probability problems very well, so I’m not surprised there were mistakes,” Stanford stats professor Persi Diaconis told a reporter, years ago. “[But] the strict argument would be that the question cannot be answered without knowing the motivation of the host.”
Eventually though, many of those who’d written in to correct vos Savant’s math backpedaled and ceded that they were in error.
An exercise proposed by vos Savant to better understand the problem was soon integrated in thousands of classrooms across the nation. Computer models were built that corroborated her logic, and support for her intellect was gradually restored. Whereas only 8% of readers had previously believed her logic to be true, this number had risen to 56% by the end of 1992, writes vos Savant; among academics, 35% initial support rose to 71%.
I particularly like the maths professor who wrote back to apologise for his earlier criticism, noting that he was “now eating humble pie” and that it had been “an intense professional embarrassment”.
Share this post?
Interesting story on this week’s Catalyst program: Most people remove ticks incorrectly, and by doing so they vastly increase their chances of developing life-threatening allergic reactions.
NARRATION: It’s an incredible story of scientific detective work with implications for anyone who visits the coast…
Assoc Professor Sheryl van Nunen: We have the highest prevalence in the world.
NARRATION: ..or ever has to remove a tick.
Dr Andrew Ratchford: They are surprised when we tell them that probably the reason is because they’ve been removing the ticks incorrectly.
Dr Jonica Newby: The truth is, if you’ve ever been bitten by a tick you may already have a mild version of MMA and not even realise it.
NARRATION: But it’s not just meat allergy you have to worry about. A growing number of people are becoming allergic to the tick bite itself. And it’s so severe they end up here.
Dr Jonica Newby: Believe it or not, acute life-threatening anaphylaxis to a tick bite is now 25 times as common around here as a severe reaction to a bee sting and it’s a medical emergency.
Dr Andrew Ratchford: People have had bites for 20 years and then all of a sudden this year they’ll come in with an anaphylactic reaction.
Dr Jonica Newby: Bit surprising to them, I imagine. Are people shocked when you explain what it is?
Dr Andrew Ratchford: They are and also shocked when we tell them that probably the reason is because they’ve been removing ticks incorrectly.
Tweezers are tick squeezers – freeze, don’t squeeze (aka Dab, don’t grab)
Also, take more precautions with insect repellents and protective clothing in tick zones.
There’s a lot more information in the full program transcript (or catch the episode on iView).
Share this post?
NB: updated 2015/02/23 with links (below) re Abbott’s counter-terrorism czar announcement
Those who are familiar with my history of skepticism regarding libertarianism will be unsurprised that I don’t see eye to eye with LDP Senator David Leyonhjelm on a range of issues, but I do agree with most of the arguments he’s been making since last year about the Abbott government’s proposal to mandate that Australian ISPs implement long-term metadata retention. Those arguments do, of course, bear a strong similarity to the arguments long made by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam and others – but it’s good that someone from another party is also making them.
— Laurie Patton (@LJPatton) February 18, 2015
In response to a joint Commonwealth and New South Wales report into last December’s Sydney siege, Mr Abbott yesterday warned that an “era of terror” meant Australia would need to reconsider “where it draws the balance” between personal freedom and community safety.
“Precisely where we draw the line in the era of terrorism will need to be reconsidered,” he said.
“We need to ask ourselves, at what stage do we need to change the tipping point from protection of the individual to the safety of the community?”
I’m acquainted with a chap who used to be in ASIO (he outed himself years ago and did a comedy show about it even). He’s been increasingly apprehensive about the ever-expanding funding and powers given to ASIO in recent years.
DAVID LEYONHJELM: Ben Franklin said back in the 18th century those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
PETA DONALD: From the crossbenches, Senator David Leyonhjelm doesn’t like the sound of what’s coming and believes he has allies within Government ranks.
DAVID LEYONHJELM: Giving up our liberty in order to protect us from those who want to take our liberty basically means the terrorists win. And, you know, there are plenty in the Liberal side of things who would share that view but the problem with party discipline is that they are unable to say it.
PETA DONALD: One expert argues Australia’s counter-terrorism laws are already strong.
Professor Greg Barton from Monash University says what’s really needed is better case management of those who become radicalised.
GREG BARTON: Catching those things and tracking people, keeping an eye on them, intervening where it’s appropriate; those are all things we do in an ad hoc fashion but not systematically.
What news story/commentary/analysis has grabbed your attention lately?
As usual for media circus threads, please share your bouquets and brickbats for particular items in the mass media, or highlight cogent analysis or pointed twitterstorms etc in new media. Discuss any current sociopolitical issue (the theme of each edition is merely for discussion-starter purposes – all current news items are on topic!).
Share this post?
When culture and faith collide . . . nothing is sacred
In the Aboriginal missions of far northern Australia, it was a battle between saving souls and saving traditional culture.
Every Secret Thing is a rough, tough, hilarious portrayal of the Bush Mob and the Mission Mob, and the hapless clergy trying to convert them. In these tales, everyone is fair game.
At once playful and sharp, Marie Munkara’s wonderfully original stories cast a taunting new light on the mission era in Australia.
‘told with biting wit and riotous humour’
Judges’ comments, Queensland Premier’s Literary Awards (2008)
I intended to read this book for the 2015 Australian Women Writers challenge, but as I realised I had read it before, that was not to be.
However, in the spirit of the challenge – and because it is a must-read, and excellent with it – I am including this as an extra review.
Every Secret Thing is written as an account, told by anecdote, of the development of the relationship between the bush mob and the mission mob – the latter have set up the mission somewhere in northern Australia, not too far from a town referred to as Big Joint, with the purpose of Christianising and “civilising” the bush mob.
The various anecdotes tell, humorously, disputes and misunderstandings between the bush mob and the mission mob, and within each, with everyone’s flaws exposed and with the joke generally being on the mission mob – at least at first. The kids confound the visiting Bishop with their logic (why would Adam and Eve eat the apple instead of the snake when the snake would taste better?); Augustine and Methuselah outsmart Brother Michael and make off with various livestock in The Brotherhood; Pwomiga gives deliberate, and hilarious, mistranslations in Wurruwataka.
But as the book goes on, the stories become more and more bittersweet. The dark undercurrent which is evident from the beginning, such as oblique references to child sexual abuse, become stronger and more explicit, such as the story of Tapalinga and Perpetua, two members of the Stolen Generations, in The Garden of Eden. And the ending, which I won’t spoil, is very black indeed.
We have far too few stories about the mission mob/bush mob interaction from the perspective of the bush mob. What I think is particularly valuable about a book like this is that it treats the bush mob’s life pre-mission-mob as the baseline, and the interactions with the intruders, the parts of European culture/industralisation the bush mob accept or reject are explained, and make sense, in that context. For example, if you have always cooked over an open fire, why would you automatically recognise an oven as a device for cooking as opposed to a convenient storage space – or den for newborn puppies? To my mind, this is an effective method of refuting the proposition that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders are (or were before the coming of the white man) backwards, uncivilised, stupid and lawless. And whatever else, it is refreshing to start from this perspective instead of the perspective which uses the European Australian attitude as the default position.
This was a book I was very pleased to read again, and it is a book I think is a must-read for all Australians.
This is an extra review for the 2015 Australian Women Writers Challenge. You can see my full list of books here. You can find a full list of my reviews, and other posts relevant to the challenge, here.
Share this post?
I find it very difficult to sit around doing nothing with my hands. My solution to this problem is crotchet. I will crotchet anywhere, any time. I have been approached at festivals with comments such as “hey, you’re that lady I saw crotcheting at the [insert gig]”. It’s a great conversation starter, although people usually ask me what I am knitting. A friend once took a picture of me crotcheting away and then was amazed at the blur my hands made in the photo (although I the photo was taken in indoor lighting and I still think any movement would have produced a blur.)
I mostly favour fairly simple patterns that I can take my eyes off so that I can pay attention to something else at the same time. This is part of the reason I prefer crotchet to knitting. (Also, crotchet is much easier to transport – if your hook comes out of your work, it is a matter of moments to pick it back up again, even if there has been some unravelling.)
The I-can-do-it-with-my-eyes-closed thing is also part of why I have a few standard favourite patterns. But sometimes I will work out a new pattern – rarely entirely from scratch; I use general pattern books and other patterns and take bits and pieces from them to make what I want. Ravelry is also a good source of new patterns when I’m feeling bored or at a loss.
At the moment, I am making a rug, using a pattern I have designed based on two other patterns and a bit of figuring-it-out.
But the pattern set out below is an old standard favourite cushion/rug pattern, the pattern I tend to use to teach people how to crotchet. I’ve made half a dozen rugs to this pattern over time.
If you do not know how to crotchet already: it’s pretty easy, and there are lots of resources (including YouTube videos) online, so I won’t set out a lesson here.
Be warned: if you are using North American resources, they use a different notation. What we call a double stitch, they call single; what we call treble, they call double; what we call double treble, they call treble.
How about you? What stitchery or yarncraft are you up to/are you interested in?
Foundation: 4 ch, slip stitch to close.
Row 1: 3 ch, 2 tr in ring. *1 ch, 3 tr in ring* rep * to * twice. 1 ch, slip stitch in third ch at start of row.
Row 2: 4 ch. *3 tr, 1 ch, 3 tr, 1 ch in next ch gap* rep * to * twice. 3 tr, 1 ch, 2 tr in last ch gap, slip stitch in third ch at start of row.
Row 3: 3 ch, 2 tr in first ch gap. 1 ch. In next ch gap (corner): 3 tr, 1 ch, 3 tr. 1 ch. In next ch gap (centre): 3 tr. 1 ch. Continue this pattern (ie 3 tr in each centre ch gap; 3 tr, 1 ch, 3 tr in each corner ch gap, with 1 ch between each set of stitches) around row. End with 1 ch, slip stitch in third ch at start of row.
Row 4: 4 ch. 3 tr in next ch gap. 1 ch. Continue as for Row 3 (ie 3 tr in each side ch gap; 3 tr, 1 ch, 3 tr in each corner ch gap, with 1 ch between each set of stitches). End with 2 tr in the ch stitch next to the first 4 chains, slip stitch into third ch at start of row.
Continue in this way with odd rows following pattern for Row 3 and even rows following pattern for Row 4.
First, if you are changing colours, it is best to have each colour in an even number of rows, because:
– single rows of a colour look a bit weird with this pattern
– the changeover is neater at the end of an even row (for a similar reason, I recommend finishing on an even row).
Second, worsted weight is basically the perfect yarn for this pattern, with a hook from anywhere between 4.5 mm and 6 mm, depending on your natural tension and how loose you want the pattern to be.
Share this post?
Our Open Thread this weekend is hosted by this otter doing its Smaug impression, as captioned on The Daily Otter. Photo by Rob Oo.
Please feel free to use this thread to natter about anything your heart desires. Is there anything great happening in your life? Anything you want to get off your chest? Reading a good book (or a bad one)? Anything in the news that you’d like to discuss? What have you created lately? Commiserations, felicitations, temptations, contemplations, speculations?
Share this post?
At The Hand Mirror, the marvellous Julie presents DUFC #81! Go have a read.
The next edition of the Down Under Feminists Carnival is planned for 5 March, 2015, and will be hosted by Jo at A life unexamined. Submissions to jo.alifeunexamined [at] gmail [dot] com.
Submissions must be of posts of feminist interest by writers from Australia and New Zealand that were published in February. Submissions are due on 2 March at the latest, but it’ll be easier on Jo if you submit sooner rather than later. So submit early and often, please, and spread the word!
Check out the Down Under Feminists Carnival homepage for more information.