The Nope Series: Tony Abbot - Post 1

Inspired by the creator of the above image, titled: "The Audacity of Nope," here is the first in an ongoing series on the audacity of attrocious Abbott. I have to admit, when Abbott was elected to lead the Liberal Party*, I was.... amused. Brought up by staunch -anti-Liberal parents, I thought - fantastic - the Liberals don't have a hope in hell of being re-elected.
The amusement was shortlived.

Abbott has proceeded to strut in front of the media spreading his patriarchial, nasty, simple-minded filth nation wide. The latest for Tony sure is a doozy. Apparently, in view of the fact that homelessness is a choice, Abbott does not support Rudd's push for halving homelessness by 2020. Interestingly, this is yet another point that Turnbull supported. (I'm starting to see Turnbull in a great light).

Hold on just a second... homelessness as choice. I guess it depends on what you view as choice. The choice for many young homeless people who choose between being beaten and/or sexually abused within their home and that of a cold, hard existence without the guaruntee of a nightly beating on the street.

Or, perhaps Abbott is referring to the choice made by the hundreds of homeless people who suffer from untreated mental illnesses - who of course choose to remain homeless, when due to their condition (whether that be mental or financial) are unable to afford treatment (whatever that may be) or able to take productive control of their existence. Indeed, I wonder what Abbott thinks about the ''choice'' many mental health inpatients who were released with the massive closures in psychiatric wards in the last ten years (under the Howard Government)

Tony doesn't do things by halves - that's not the manly way. To further support, his lack of support, Tony went all biblical on us:

"The poor you have with you always..."

 Now  - SWM have a fabulous history of using the great book as a backup for their patriachial supremecy. Let's follow the logic here - there are always going to be poor people - so, there isn't any reason to help them - even Jesus said so.

But - wait a second - Jesus thinks that we shouldn't help the poor?  OMFG - great reading of the bible there Tony. No wonder Tony wants to institute reading of the bible in school children - clearly this is something that good catholic Tony could have done with himself. (note the sarcasm here - I don't agree with institutionalised reading of the bible at all) Or perhaps Tony has issues with interpretation - perhaps a decent literacy program could aide with that. For a fabulous take-down of this, grounded in biblical interpretation, please hop over to Tony Abbott, the poor and Jesus.


 
I'm a little behind the baton here, for a roundup of Tony's utterances, please visit Hoyden about Town's, Tony Said What Now thread.


____________________________________________________________________
For any American readers, the Liberal Party in Australian politics is the equivalent of the Rebulican Party. Simply put, Liberal = liberal economics and the rights of the white, male individual.

Image by Cinephobia / CC BY-NC 2.0

Children with Disabilities in Australia

On a whim I brought a copy of Marie Claire, earlier this week. As per usual (I do this maybe twice a year - for reasons unknown to me) I was generally dissapointed. Pictures of too skinny women, expensive clothes and makeup - boring...  However, there was one article and a related petition that I am driven to share with my small audience.
One of this month's features for Marie Claire is a harrowing article on the closure of Kingsden School in Sydney - the only (I believe) boarding school for disabled children open in Australia, due to a withdrawal of funds from Anglicare (a funding body of the Anglican Church). The article provides a truly saddening exposure to the financial and emotional costs that are associated with raising severely disabled children with so very little support. Indeed, according to Marie Claire, families with severely disabled children:

 Typically receive just $105 in benefits a week, plus a lump sum of $1000 a year.

 Gee - I can see how that is such a benefit to receive.

Rather than rehash the article, click on the link above. If you believe that we as a society should support people with a disability and their families and believe that Kingsden should remain open, please sign the petition created by Marie Claire here

Image by Ashkyd / CC BY 2.0

Of Teachers and Tests

The Australian media is currently in a flurry about the refusal by some teachers to take part in the next round of National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) scheduled for May. Here is the situation in its greatest simplicity (by my understanding):

• All school children will take a standardised test
• Those results will be published
• Teachers of 'underperforming' schools will be punished accordingly, for failing our children!

Indeed, according to a commentator at the Gold Coast Bulletin, this will "empower parents," enabling them to judge how "teachers are teaching their children."

That's one take.

Another take is a little more cynical. While it is certain that these tests will highlight underperforming schools, the results shouldn't come as a suprise and won't necessarily demonstrate teaching standards. Here's my prediction: these tests will highlight what we should already know. The underperforming schools will be those situated in low socio-economic areas, and especially those areas with a high population of refugees. While, I would imagine that high scoring schools will be private educational facilities.

Why?
First and foremost, low socio-economic status does not equal dumb. It does, however mean that the children in these areas come from homes that are statistically more likely to not have a high level of parental education and a host of other societal problems. In areas with a high population of refugees, the students may also face cultural and language barriers - not to mention the post-traumatic nature of being a refugee; coming from a hell hole and, once being 'processed' being thrown into Australian society with what amounts to sweet FA government support. (Money doesn't count)

Oh, and lest we forget - these lower socio-economic schools receive less government funding than those fancy private institutions that upper middle classians pay $15,000 a year to attend.

And you know what - the government knows this.

However, by framing this issue as somehow the teachers fault it deflects the attention away from issues of say: government funding. Indeed, I find it convenient that before the results of testing are released the government has already framed the blame so to speak.

This way - when the results are in there will be no major impetus on the government to actually investigate the outcomes and perhaps divert funding and instigate programs where they are needed most. Rather - they will save themselves money by docking individual teachers pay.

How fucking cheap.

The 17th Down Under Feminists' Carnival

The 17th Down Under Feminists' Carnival is up and running over at Ideologically Impure. I'm thrilled to be in such good company and would like commend the Queen for all the hard work. Although I have not worked my way through all the posts - two highlights strike out:

• Full Rock Spider: A Six Step Guide, provides a scathing overview of paedophilia, celebrity and apologetics. Claire brilliantly links the current Roman Polanksi debacle to previous instances of celebrity paedophilia and notes the vast differences in societies reactions between that of sexy celebrity versus home grown kiddie fiddlers.
  
• 100 Sci-Fi Women: squee! Full of fabulous sci-fi women over at Godard's Letterbox. Go read it!

Family Guy and the Popularisation of Sexism

I have a confession to make: I watch Family Guy and for the most part enjoy it. It's shallow, cheap humour; easy to follow, no great philosophy - and to be honest, I put it on when I'm stressed and don't want want to think, get into bed and fall asleep.
Sure, I've always been aware that it is sexist, racist, fatist, ableist, homophobic - and whatever other form of bigotry that I have forgotten. However, in the past, I managed to compartmentalise those aspects.

As Seth McFalan has stated, the majority of the highly offensive shite dribbles out of Peter's mouth and it's meant to be derided and is often in stark contrast to Brian's position. However, the shows sexism has always been far more implicit and in becoming increasingly explicit. For this post, I am going to focus upon the implicit sexism presented by the characterisation of Lois.

Implicit Sexism: The Characterisation of Lois
At a very basic level, Lois is the loyal and beautiful (house)wife of an overweight, useless and unintelligent oaf. Pretty standard trope, but hey, if you let that rile you to the point of rage, your popular cultural pickings are few. Lois is built up as a dream wife, of sorts.

Beautiful
Lois' beauty is constantly reinforced. She was Miss Teen Rhode Island, had a brief stint as a model, is objectified by many of Peters friends and Brian is an inconsistent not so secret admirer. Lois' own children admire her beauty - often as a point to contrast Meg's unattractiveness.

She ain't a golddigger
Lois loves Peter unconditionally and through choosing to marry him, has divorced herself from a life of luxury through alienating her wealthy and 'landed' family. This 'good woman' stereotype works in contrast with the negative characterisation of women as gold diggers who pursue and marry men for their future financial security. Indeed, Lois must be perfectly happy with what she has; if she deviates from this she is firmly put back in her place with accepting only that which Peter can provide. In Breaking Out is Hard to Do, after shoplifting a ham, Lois becomes kleptomanic in her desire to acquire luxury items. Her frenzied theivery lands her in jail, throwing the familial bliss into chaotic disorder. The lesson here: women want, want, want and their consumeristic desire must be kurbed as it is dangerous, uncontrollable and destructive. Live with what your husband can provide and be happy with it! (Nevermind that he buys a horse, a rocket or whatever - with no obvious impact on the family - and it is his money anyway.)

Home is where a wife is: now don't get me wrong; I'm not bagging Lois for being a housewife - it's a hell of a lotta work, and heaven stop me before I ever volunteer myself to look after all of the unpaid drudgery. The problem aspect of Lois' portrayal is that any attempt to enter workforce is either misguided or dangerous to the family or Lois herself.
In FOX-y Lady, Lois accepts a role at Fox News, after the previous reporter is fired when a new type of television exposes her wrinkles (because news reporters must be beautiful and a wrinkled woman is hideous). Brian admonishes Lois for accepting the role on the basis that Fox is an incredibly bias network. Lois, demonstrating her typical naievity, passes off Brian and decides to give them a chance. The rest of the episode is devoted to essentially showing up Lois misguided trust and Fox news itself.
Even more concerning is Model Misbehaviour, in which Lois decides to follow her earlier ambitions to become a model that we thwarted by her father. At first, Lois' success is lauded - Peter is proud to be 'hitting that.' However, as the episode progresses - the danger presents itself. Lois loses weight, takes up smoking, hangs out a celebrity events and flaunts herself (much to Peter's alarm). It's interesting that Lois' 'dangerous behaviour' seems to be correlated in the episode with the fact that she is acting outside of Peter's control. Moral of the story - Lois must return to staying at home, covering herself up and devoting herself to the family.

In discussing this with my partner, I think the thing that bothers me most about Lois is that she is designed to appeal to wants and desires of young men. She is beautiful and yet controlled, devoted and doesn't demand anything of them; alot of her bad behaviour is related to when she isn't devoted to the family or when she wishes more for herself. To my mind, these are very male centered fears - what if my wife decides she wants more than I can provide? What if she overtakes me? She'll bleed me dry with her high maintenance ways if she is encouraged.
I realise that alot of these traits are mirrored by Marge in the Simpsons. However, personally, there is something much more disturbing in their presentation in Lois.

So tell me - I am off the mark here? What's your take on Lois as a feminist? Does she make you cringe?