Not invisible on Valentines Day.

Well now that we’ve got the silly season over with, one would hope that we would now be able to move on from the garish shop-fronts and the cloyingly sentimental ads for overpriced trash bombarding our TVs and radios. Apparently not. As soon as we’re done packing away the Christmas tinsel and cleaning up the wreckage from the New Years party, Valentines Day is upon us in all its sickly, sappy glory – shoving diamond rings and red roses down our throats in order to remind us that it’s impossible to show someone that you love them without being forced into credit-card debt.

Being newly single I will be spending much of the holiday injecting heart-shaped candies with powerful laxatives and cutting the heads off red roses, however I suspect that you smug coupled motherfuckers will likely be off doing something revoltingly romantic that will make the rest of us wish much pain and awkward sex upon your oblivious, love-blinded selves.

Forgive me, but what Scrooge was to Christmas – I am to Valentines Day. And not because I am becoming increasingly more reminiscent of Miss Havisham (Whoo! Two Dickens references in one paragraph. Fear my literary snob skills..) – All crass commercialisation of formerly religious festivals aside – if there was ever a holiday where GLBTI people were made to feel even more invisible, this is it. Endless portrayals of happy heteronormativity amid an orgy of tacky jewelry and revolting poetry. This is love. This is what a normal couple look like. No diamond rings for you dirty poofter deviants.

However, just because I’m a bitter and twisted old activist spinster – that doesn’t mean that February 14^th has to remain resented and for everyone else. After all – don’t like something? Change it. Reinvent it.

It’s Valentines Day for same-sex and gender-diverse couples too – and why should we not get to publicly celebrate our loving relationships?

2010 has been declared as the National Year of Action for Equal Marriage. Throughout the year, us uppity activist types will be organising events to put pressure on the Federal and State Governments to remove the 2004 ban on same-sex marriage, to invite the public to make a stand for equality and otherwise continuing to spread the homosexual agenda (which includes buying milk, spending time with family and being treated as something other than second class citizens).

This Valentines Day, Families for Freedom will be hosting a special Action for Marriage Equality – beginning with a rally and march through the Perth CBD and ending with a community festival featuring local musicians, stand-up comedians as well as a couple of drag-artists. Everyone is welcome to attend, and encouraged to wear red, white and pink to show support for all loving relationships.

So, therefore all you bastards that bother to read my psychobabble need to get your collective arses to Stirling Gardens at Noon on Sunday February 14^th .

For more info, check out our official website: www.families4freedom.info , track us down on Facebook or email us on families4freedom@gmail

We’ve been hamming up the promotion like whoa lately, and so far it looks as though after years of organising stuff like this we’re finally learning how actually make things work. We’re expecting around 600 people, but I’d love to see the better part of one thousand Perthites showing up in all their revolting Valentines glory.  We spent a coupla days filming our promotional YouTube video and it was finally uploaded today.

Yeah. That’s me. In all my shiny faced English glory. Shut the fuck up.

I really really want to see the blooper reel from this – because apparently just about everyone that was interviewed for this was totally incapable of reading their lines in a coherent fashion.

Anyway. This did the rounds of Facebook for all of two hours before some fucker decided to flag it as offensive. Actually, the entire FB event page for this action has been flagged as offensive, and therefore it can’t be shared between groups. Facebook are doing dick all to rectify it. Bastards.

Still – we’ll have the last laugh on the 14^th when we have an amazing event planned. That’s the best victory I can think of. (Although, horrific acts of comedy violence against Facebook homophobes is pretty awesome too…but I’ll keep that one to myself..)

So. Copy. Paste. Send! Forward this video to every carbon-based life form you have ever met, and encourage people to come along and show their support. Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Myspace, word of mouth, carrier pigeon, interpretive dance…what the fuck ever. Just talk to people – get them interested. Because as awesome as we activists are – we can’t do this without you guys.

Thanks – you guys make me happier than a dingo in a maternity ward.

Ah. Sexism. The gift that keeps on giving.

A couple of days ago Opposition Leader Tony Abbott made a few comments that will make for sure and certain that he’s off more than a few feminist Christmas card lists.

According to the interview Tony gave to Women’s Weekly magazine; ‘Women should treat their virginity as a gift that should not be given away lightly.’

Cue a deluge of outraged women baying for Tony’s blood. I may or may not have hit the roof as soon as I read that article. It took a good twenty minutes of my housemates talking sense into me that stopped me making this post in a fit of feminist hellfire. I’m rather glad they did – because a few days later a little clarification was given:

It turns out that he was not directly insinuating that women should be wholesome and pure until someone frogmarches them down the aisle (although you could probably be forgiven for interpreting his comments that way..) It was  meant to be advice that he would give to his own daughters – advice that he supposedly does not intend to be for every Australian Woman.

Actually, upon first glance his explanations do actually seem to make a lot of sense: Have respect for yourself and try to make sensible decisions. Can’t argue with that. However – upon closer inspection, there is still something that deeply troubles me about his statements.

First and foremost, the only mention that we have here is in regards to women’s virginity. Although I recognise that Abbot was speaking in regards to his own children (as he has no sons) and the question posed to him by the magazine was specifically about women; I do find the lack of clarification regarding the status of young men’s virginity to be rather telling. While it may not have seemed necessary at the time given how specific the original question was – I think it would have been prudent to have mentioned in later statements that Abbots beliefs extend to both men and women. Why? Because the alternative is assuming that his statements apply only to women, and even the insinuation of such a double standard is the last thing that Abbot needs right now.

The reason I say this is because so often when discussing sex and virginity, it is women ’s sexualities that are on the receiving end of most of the fire and brimstone that we associate with religious/conservative sexual politics, and while many institutions look down on all premarital sex as a whole as deviant or sinful – more often than not it is women that get the raw deal; and within this context that is something that cannot be ignored. After all, Abbott is a religious conservative – and this is certainly not the first time that he’s ruffled a few feminist feathers. Like it or not – but there is a pattern emerging here.

Whatever you may say about the genuine existence of a sexist double standard in Abbot’s rhetoric, his  assertion that virginity is a ‘gift’ is certainly something that should start a few alarm bells ringing:

“… it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving, and don’t give it to someone lightly,”

Umm. Really Tony? The greatest gift you can give someone is fifteen minutes of awkward, fumbling and painful sex? Someone’s setting their standards pretty low.. I mean – I remember losing my virginity. I was eighteen and had had one too many cocksucking cowboys – it was not exactly a memorable occasion.

I remember alternating between hoping that my inexperience wasn’t so obvious and staring at the ceiling. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t regret any of it, and for all the awkwardness I still had fun. But I’m kinda glad that I got the unpleasant initiation over with.  My virginity was nothing special to me. I’ve never mourned its loss – not for the experience and intimacy that I traded it for.

Of course – that was my experience. Others may feel differently about their v-plates, and that’s their right. However – whatever sentimentality you attach to your virginity, I am still deeply troubled by Abbott’s claim it is one’s virginity – rather than one’s intellect, love, compassion or generosity that is the greatest gift that a person can give. What, precisely IS so sacred about virginity? Why this fetishism of so-called ‘purity’? While Tony Abbot may have perfectly reasonable fears about his daughters, I fear that the message that he is sending about prioritising women’s ‘gifts’ is damaging.

A lot of the response to the feminist backlash to his statements have stated that Tony Abbot was just doing what any other responsible parent would do with their children. While there certainly is truth to the statement – and I do believe that Abbott is trying to do what he believes is right for his own kids, as much as I may question his motives – teaching your kids to be responsible, and teaching them over-glamorised views of virginity are not one and the same.

Of course – Julia Gillard was one of many women across the country that lost their collective shit over these statements. While her comment that Abbot had finally ‘Confirmed the worst fears of Australian Women’ may have been  a little dramatic – Liberal frontbencher George Brandis has decided to add another patronising  gem to the already significant collection of quotes this debacle has generated.

Long story short – Julia Gillard is not a parent (Or, Grand High Conservative Fuckwad Bill Heffernan would have it: ‘Deliberately Barren‘) therefore she couldn’t possibly understand how parents feel, and should just quit with her uppity feminist ways.

Well George – I’m not a parent, never intend to be. But I am the eldest of four siblings and understand just as well the importance of teaching teenagers to be safe, responsible and respectful. I also understand the importance of teaching young people to feel secure and unashamed of their sexualities, and to be able to make informed decisions about their own bodies for themselves. I find Julia Gillard’s parental status irrelevant in the situation – and furthermore, I believe Abbott’s comments to be incredibly unhelpful for facilitating genuinely respectful and empowering attitudes towards sexuality. Having self-respect and behaving in a responsible manner does not mean guarding one’s virginity like pandora’s box – and the sooner we stop responding to young people’s sexualities with pearl-clutching hysteria and sexist-blanket solutions – the better.

Anyway – on a ‘ so-bad-it’s-hilarious’ sidenote, it appears that Australia has sunk even further into misogynistic miasma by banning small breasts and depictions of female ejaculation in pornography.

Yeah. For reals. I swear we are just one stubby of VB and statue of Joh Bjelke-Petersen away from becoming the motley crew of beer-swilling, backwater, sexist ockers that everyone seems to think we are. Because – yunno, titties maketh the sheila, and women’s orgasms are totally icky..

Little anecdote: When I was in Year 9, I had a classmate whom I will refer to as ‘E’. E and I rarely spoke – but the one thing that always struck me about her was that even at the tender age of thirteen, she looked about twenty. Even without make-up and high-heels, I was sure that E would never have problems getting into clubs. She was definitely one of our year’s ‘early bloomers’ – she got her period before most of us, and was easily a D-cup before she was fifteen.

My point is that there is more that defines women as adult and sexually mature than their breast size.  ’E’ could easily have been mistaken for an adult by the way she appeared and acted -and using the breast size of models as a rule of thumb to gauge their appropriateness makes about as much sense as using phrenology to ascertain ‘criminal inclinations’ by the shape of a person’s head. And if the rules state that anything that anything that ‘appears’ to be of or relating to children – then why isn’t the onus on removing school-girl outfits and ‘Lolita’ themed porn? Surely, SURELY that direct sexualised infantalisation of adult women is more problematic than the depiction of natural female body types?

Don’t even get me started on the banning of female ejaculation. Having had a female lover who regularly made more mess than any guy I’ve ever been with – I can definitely tell you that female ejaculation is not a fucking myth. Also – aren’t money-shots one of the most popular aspects of mainstream pornography? There are thousands of depictions of male ejaculation in porn – often featuring tasteless, degrading (and yet totally legal) footage of women ending up with it all over their faces. Classy.

The Australian Sex Party sums it up better than I can. But seriously, what brain-dead, paper-pushing misogynist prude thought this bullshit up?

Urgh. Time for cigarettes and tacky zombie flicks. At least the crappy dialogue is funny in movies…

A prodigal return.

Well. I’m back.

I had thought about abandoning this blog for good, but with every infuriating headline that came my way I figured that there was no way that my blog-senses could stop tingling for long.

I’ve been back in the country for just under a week now, following a fortnights  stint in the US.  I spent a week in San Francisco and then headed down to Los Angeles to see my sister and her dad (my mother’s second husband).  Long story short – the place is amazing. I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I am now totally and utterly in love with California. Lovely weather, genuinely friendly and helpful people, devastatingly gorgeous countryside and best of all – drinks were cheap as fuck.

Seriously – in Oz you’ll fork out about eight, maybe nine bucks for a measly 30ml shot. In San Francisco, you pay half of that and get about four times the amount of booze. I may or may not have narrowly avoided throwing up in a cab on my first night out in the city and woke up with epic panda eyes the next morning… I’m a very classy broad you know…

I made the mandatory pilgrimage to the Castro. I was both very impressed and highly disappointed by San Francisco’s Gay Mecca:  The entire place is completely Queer dominated – rainbow flags and gay bars every half block, ‘No to Prop 8′ signs everywhere and effigies of Harvey Milk splashed around like some big pouf messiah. Great atmosphere, cheap drinks and lovely lovely people.

Unfortunately, it is also ENTIRELY male dominated. I saw one lesbian couple in the entire time that I was there, and for all the bars and gay-sex shops that I passed, I found only one teensey little dive of a Dyke bar called ‘The Lexington’ about six blocks away from the main strip. Rather disappointed by this.

However, one thing that did strike me was how switched on everyone was. I’m used to being the obnoxious activisty type that bores everyone else with totally unfun conversations about bigotry, queerphobia and politics – but here people were really passionate, well informed and delighted that there were non-Californians that were so engaged in what was going on.

It was really refreshing – although, I daresay that people do have a habit of  pulling their heads out of their arses once they’ve had their rights taken from them.  I cannot fathom how horrible it would be to have my rights taken from me so soon after fighting so hard to achieve equality.

I was in San Francisco for the first day of the Supreme Court trials. While I was not at the Court House (which I kinda regret..) I did spend my last full day in the Castro – and the atmosphere was tense. There is so much riding on these trials – if Judge Walter decides to uphold the November 2008 ban, it will ruin any chance of  introducing same-sex marriage in California for years to come.

I’ve found an awesome site that offers day-by-day accounts of what is going on in the Courtroom : What witnesses are being called, what issues are being discussed, what strategies are being used by the lawyers and so on. It also offers very interesting articles and opinion pieces about the progress of the trial.

There’s also a fairly good summary of the proceedings so far here, for those of you that really can’t be arsed wading through dozens of blog entries.

It seems that the defense lawyers are focusing on the following strategies: Proving that same-sex marriage is unnecessary given that Californian GLBTI couples are already adequately protected by state law and domestic partnership schemes,  that marriage is for the protection of children and for procreation, that same-sex marriage dilutes traditional marriage, that homosexuals choose their inclinations and lifestyles and thus do not need same-sex marriage and lastly that the academics and experts on marriage and discrimination called by the plaintiffs are biased.

All of them are highly unoriginal and can be debunked with the simplest application of logic and human decency. However, the last one is the one that interests me greatly: The insinuation that the Ivy League professors and academics who have dedicated many many years of study and research into the nature of discrimination against GLBTI people and the history of marriage are only professing their views on the witness stand because of their own personal views.

I have never once come across an argument against same-sex marriage that cannot be dismissed by the simple and cool use of logic and facts. Of course, a good deal of emotion and personal feelings also come into play – but my feeling is that as academics, their job is (hopefully) to research the issue in its entirety and then make a logical conclusion based upon the evidence presented. Of course, I am not discounting the fact that these witnesses may also have very strong personal feelings on the subject – but that side of the case has already been covered with the emotive testimonies from the plantiffs themselves who discussed the impact of homophobia on their lives, as well as a lesbian couple from Berkley who talked about their desire to be treated as equals.  These academic witnesses were called as professionals – people that have studied these issues as a whole and thus have been able conclude – purely from cold-hard evidence and professional experience that continuing to discriminate against same-sex and gender-diverse couples is inappropriate, unconstitutional and above all: thoroughly illogical.

I’ve found an interesting article which concerns the response of the religious right to the appeals process, and the potential of a victory for the plantiffs in which the Supreme Court determines that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.  According to Conservative Group Defense Alliance Fund, overturning Proposition 8 insinuates a lack of democracy, the oppression of the majority by a vocal minority and the inability for Americans to stand up to what is apparently a ‘threat’ to marriage. Here’s what they have to say:

A federal court decision overturning Proposition 8 may not only eliminate Californians’ right to reaffirm marriage in the state constitution, but may ultimately nullify marriage laws in 45 states, including the 30 states in which voters adopted state constitutional amendments, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996.

First of all – quit using the term ‘re-affirm marriage’.  Marriage, as it currently stands in law (between a man and a woman) is not, and never has been under threat. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not in any way jeopardise the legitimacy or intimacy of heterosexual marriages – how could it? What happens in someone else’s relationship cannot possibly affect anyone else’s marriage. Marriage does not need ‘re-affirmation’ it needs re definition. Also, referring to the Defense of Marriage act seems to be a little out of place, as this was an Act that was instigated by the Clinton establishment and was not the result of democratic voting. Also, just because something was introduced into law previously – that does not make it a good or a relevant law, either now or at the time of its introduction.

Also at stake is:

• Whether voters can collectively decide through the democratic process that marriage between one man and woman should be protected.

Again. Marriage does not need protecting.  Allowing us filthy Queers to have equal relationship recognition will not do a thing except making marriage equal and accessible.  We won’t sully your perfect, pristine members-only club – Scouts honour.

• Whether Americans will be forced to forfeit the core of their democracy by allowing a small group of wealthy activists to impose their will on a state or an entire nation.

The hypocrisy of this statement is astonishing. There is nothing democratic about needlessly stripping people of their rights because of your bigotry. In fact – Proposition 8 was the classic example of a small but highly vocal minority of religious conservatives that used their immense wealth and power to run a campaign of fear that did nothing but imposed their will on an already marginalised group.

• Whether marriage will remain a unique institution that promotes the important interests of children and society or be transformed into nothing but a legal arrangement based only on the desires of the adults involved.

It’s actually none of your damned business why people get married. Some do it for love, some do it for lifelong companionship, some do it because there are kids involved. What marriage is to individual couples is their own business. We don’t restrict childless couples from marrying, nor do we disallow gold-digging supermodels from marrying octogenarian billionaires for money. We do not question whether the couple actually love each other, whether they intend on having children or even if they will remain monogamous. Marriage is not a sacred institution, and its definitions are certainly not universal There is nothing to be gained by keeping it an exclusive institution.

• Whether voters may freely consider their own moral and religious views about marriage—or any other subject—when casting their ballots or be forced by violence and intimidation to remain silent about their deepest convictions.

I’m sorry – but when was the last time you saw Gay Marriage Proponents using violence or intimidation in order to further their cause?* As opposed to vehemently homophobic religious and lobby groups that attempted to paint GLBTI people as deviants, pedophiles and a threat to the American way of life. Groups that picket Pride Parades and Queer weddings in order to send messages of hate – individuals that threaten violence into anyone that does not fit into their heteronormative delusions. The amount of harassment, bigotry and discrimination that same-sex attracted and gender-diverse people continue to face as the result of the actions of these fear-mongering bigots is enormous. I’m yet to come across a Gay Marriage campaign that actively advocated violence, harassment and prejudice towards those that did not agree with their beliefs.

*( I will accept that the behavior of some GLBTI activists in scapegoating the African-American community in the aftermath of Prop 8 was definitely intimidation and utterly unacceptable. However – I maintain that they are an insignificant proportion of those that advocate for same-sex marriage and certainly are not representative of the Equal Marriage movement as a whole..)

No matter how you look at it, Proposition 8 is a little piece of American history, and I will continue to follow the trial and report back with my own interpretations. Even though I’m not even American, I was devastated the day it passed, and I dearly hope that a sense of justice, equality and logic unbiased by bigotry will prevail.

I will make another entry today about Australia Day as I feel that it is necessary. But for now, Imma go drink Margaritas in the sunshine and read some of my trashy vampire pulp fiction.

It’s good to be back.

Two steps back, one step forward.

Well fuck me sideways – after two attempts to get these bloody laws implemented in the ACT, the Federal Government has finally allowed the same-sex civil ceremonies legislation to pass.

To be honest I really was not expecting that. The civil unions were blocked completely by the Howard Government when they were first introduced back in 2006, and Rudd allowed the relationship register only after heavily amending it so that the formal ceremonies were not included in the Bill last year. I am very very impressed.

Ok, Ok. So they´re watered down ´special laws´ that apply only to same-sex couples (i.e: heterosexual couples can´t get hitched under these laws because, apparently – then that would make them too ´marriage like´ …yeah – it confuses me too. See  rant in previous entries…) but given the history of this Bill and how long it has taken for something that is arguably so small to be put in place, it´s fairly significant in terms of what this means for the progress of GLBTI equality in Australia – politically and socially. The situation isn´t perfect (Hell – it won´t be perfect until there is ONE law for EVERYONE – regardless of sexuality or gender identity) but, it´s a start, and like so much of the little babysteps that we´ve seen over the last few years – it´s putting us just that little bit closer to where we should be.

That said – unfortunately – Today also heralds some very bad news:

The report of the  Senate Enquiry into Senator Hanson-Young´s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 by the Legal and Consitutional Affairs Legislation Committee was released today.

Long story short: The committee has recommended that the bill NOT be passed.

28,000 submissions. 11,000 were in favour of the Bill. 17,000 opposed it.  I did not expect that. I knew that  the religious right – Bill Heffernen, Cardinel Pell and their ilk – would be rallying the troops in response, but I never in a million years would have expected that they would outnumber the supporters of the Bill by such a significant margin.

I suppose it is in part due to the arrogance that comes with having the privilege of living in a Queer-friendly environment. You know that bigotry exists, you see it in the headlines almost daily. You kow that there are people out there who would normally make up a small but vocal (and very powerful) minority that the average Aussie wouldn´t really give two stuffs about – we write them off as being fringe loonies that provide the occasional outrage that borders on amusement with their bible-thumping antics.

But then – stuff like this happens – and I confess – I am a little frightened. I underestimated them.

The thing that I am afraid of is that in times to come the anti-marriage campaigners will use the fact that the majority of submissions to the enquiry were negative as a means to convince the public that they are far more representative of the status quo and that supporters of same-sex marriage are nothing more than a pesky  vocal minority (When in fact, according to Galaxy polls conducted earlier this year – nearly 60% of Australians support same-same marriage). It´s a sad fact that in situations like this, the apathy of the general populous will dictate that only those that feel particularly passionately about a particular issue will contribute to the argument – and in this case, it looks as though those that stood to further stigmatise and discriminate were the ones with the most power and money necessary to gain the upper hand in submissions.

The wording of the Australian  Christian Lobby and other anti-same-sex marriage proponents are much the same as they always have been: Blah blah blah sacred union blah blah blah tradition of marriage farty farty kids need role models of both genders blah blah shoot me now. We´ve heard their hateful jargon for too long now and I won´t waste time in responding to it as I will just be repeating myself.

However, it´s the closing statements of the committee are the worst -

¨5.12 The Committee has much sympathy with the views put by those in support of the Bill, and in particular the importance of supporting same-sex attracted people, who have suffered considerable inequality over many years, to prosper on an equal footing with heterosexual Australians. The committee hopes that its recommendation to review relationship recognition arrangements, and implement a nationally consistent framework for relationships, will promote this outcome.¨

Save your false sympathies and sychophantic snivelling.  If you had genuine support for GLBTI people and equal rights then you would never have recommended that this Bill be rejected. Also – the implementation of a natinally consistent relationships scheme is already ALP policy – so your suggestions are neither new nor helpful. Stop filibustering, and stop trying to pretend that you´re supportive of equality while still pandering to the ´seperate but equal’ bullshit we´ve been fed so much of.

¨5.14: While the committee agrees that the current definition of ´marriage´ in the Marriage Act 1961 is appopriate, other types of relationships play an important part in Australian Society and deserve recognition.

Thanks so much for that. Patronising cuntrags.

..For this reason, the committees recommendation not to alter the definition of marriage should not be taken as a lack of support for same-sex couples

Really? Because for a moment there I thought that you just recommended the rejection of a Bill that would ensure support for same-sex couples…

However, the committee considers that the current definition is a clear and well-recognised legal term which should be preserved. The committee recommends that the Bill not be passed.

Wait – so, you propose that this Bill should be thrown out because of a legal definition? And an outdated legal definition at that…? Why should it be preserved? Just because something is preserved in law that doesn´t make it good or beneficial for anyone. What in the merry hell is wrong with you?

Thankfully – this will not impede the Bill being debated in Senate next year. I seriously doubt that it will actually succeed once it gets there- but at least it will generate some decent debate and bring the issue back into the public eye. In the meantime – I´ll be the one chainsmoking in the corner.

Actually, the timing couldn´t be better – as it comes just two days before the Launch of the National Year of Action. This Saturday 28th, us homo-loving commie scumbags are gathering en-masse across the country to protest homophobia, demand marriage equality and generally make a bit of a kerfuffle. The Perth crew – as usual are doing things a little bit differently  and instead of doing a big shouty rally (which requires endless paperwork, promotion, money and clearances the likes of which we have neither the time nor the resources to secure at present..) we´re doing a mass public flashmob and speakout in the city, followed by a fundraising filmscreening (organised by yours truly!) later that evening.It´s taken a fair amount of stress and work to organise, and I´m fairly impressed by how fast we managed to pull together what is shaping up to be a pretty cool event, even if I must say so myself.

But, for those of you who are lazy or have crap interwubz speed – the details for the Perth Launch of the National Year of Action for Marriage Equality are as follows:

Full details are on the Families for Freedom website:

Flashmob and speakout -

2pm (I advise you get there about ten to) at the entrance to London Court, Hay Street Mall.

METHOD: At the 2pm chime of the London Court clock, we will convene underneath it! Then, in pairs, diverse couples (same-sex, opposite-sex, queer, and gender diverse) will stage marriage ‘proposals’, with an individual from each pair getting down on one knee, and asking their partener (or friend) to marry them. We’ll be holding up a banner to identify the campaign and there will be fliers handed out to confused or interested onlookers! Neat or semi-formal attire is recommended for maximum visual impact!

This will be followed by a ’snap action’ march of the participants down Hay Street and Murray Street malls. We’ll be engaging the public to raise interest in the campaign, to help in building support for larger marches that will take place around February.

Families For Freedom Film Screening

5.30pm, Cinema Paradiso – 164 James Street Northbridge.

Tickets are $15 (which includes a ticket to the film as well as a free glass of wine, beer or soft drink) and can be purchased from your friendly neighbourhood queer officer. Call Kitty on 0414846153 for more information.

The evening will be scheduled as such:

5.30pm – Drinks and nibbles (if you want to pick up your ticket on the night, it is advised that you arrive just before this time)

6.00pm – Speakers

6.30pm – Screening of ‘Sister Smile’.

(check out this review of ´Sister Smile´ by the West Australian here for more information about the film)

So – all of you motherfuckers need to get your collective arses up to London Court and then to The Paradiso on the 28th. The events will be small scale and may be plagued with religious fundie trolls – but at the end of the day it isn´t about how huge a crowd turns up or how many rainbow banners you get to wave.  It´s about the opportunity to engage people that would not have paid attention before – it´s about finding new ways to get the message out there that there are still gross inequalities facing GLBTI people and that it will take more than just a few passionately spoken words into a microphone to solve them . This is a fight that we cannot win by ourselves – so we depend on the entire community – gay, straight, cisgendered, trans, married, single, monogamous and poly, liberal and conservative  to achieve our goals. We need to be innovative, creative and unafraid to make mistakes and learn from them. Next year will be an amazing year – and I´m getting really excited that I will get to be a part of it.

 

Wait…we did something…right..?! 0.o*

Well,I’m astonished. It looks like we managed to come to a semi-reasonable solution to the Oceanic Viking Crisis. Well – it’s not as good as it should be, but I’m still quite impressed, especially given how bleak the headlines looked just a few days ago (Barnaby Joyce and Stephen Smith? I’m looking at YOU!)

It’s before eleven and I’m on my second glass of wine for the day (My philosophy is that if it’s before noon then it’s part of the night before, therefore it’s not too early to start drinking..) so I really cannot be bothered elaborating. I’m just glad that we’ve agreed to resettle the asylum seekers (Albeit, not necessarily in Australia) and that a good number of them have already been recognised by the UNHCR as genuine refugees – with the likelihood of more being granted refugee status. They’ll be given English lessons, counselling and help finding work in their new homes.

I’m also very pleased to see that the Government is working to use existing immigration programs so that Sri Lankan refugees can come to Australia legally. If they are genuine about this policy, then we can avoid being locking up refugees in detention centres for years on end, while still targeting people smugglers that take advantage of refugees – thus avoiding the trap of punishing genuine asylum seekers rather than going after the big fish that exploit them.   I can say that for once I’m not spitting with fury at this. My attack womb of humanitarian outrage is – for the moment, reasonably contented. For now.

Well. It was until I read about the same-sex surrogacy debate going on in Queensland. If you ask me, Lawrence Springborg is just begging for a bitchslapping. Preferably with a tetanus-infected nail-studded plank. Anally.

Who  are you to tell people whether or not they are ‘good enough’ to have a family? How the suffering FUCK is it any of your business about how other people’s children are raised – provided that they are in a safe and nurturing environment? Where do these cuntrags get off telling people that they’ve never met, in situations and environments they know nothing about what ‘family’ should be.

Pull your head out of your arse, dicksmear -  and recognise that the world is wider than your hetero-nuclear bullshit. God forbid you might actually learn something and become less of a narrow-minded wankstain.

Imma go drink summore. I need to be a little bit pissed to deal with asshattery on such a grand scale…

I think I just broke my profanity lobe. Totally worth it.

Beaurocracy of Vogonic proportions….

Yeah, so – all my frustrated ranting about Barnaby Joyce’s bigoted, unfeeling asshattery earlier has now just been transerred onto Foreign Minister Stephen Smith after his scarily blasé remarks about how easy it would be to extend security clearances so that the Oceanic Viking may remain in Indonesian waters another week. The 78 Tamil asylum seekers have now spent 25 days at sea, and the cost to the taxpayer at keeping them in limbo is spiralling out of control – not to mention the ever so teensey, iddy bit of a HUMANITARIAN CRISIS HERE?!

And the whole time Smith’s priorities seem to be making sure that no more brown people have the audacity to seek a better life for themselves without actually examining precisely why there has been such a huge increase in Sri Lankan asylum seekers lately? It pisses me off that our Government seems to be more concerned with keeping people out of our country than they are with actually assisting in reducing the need to leave. People in desperate situations will always find a way around authorities, and they will always take ridiculous risks if they think that they can find a way out – that will not stop. If our government was truly the beacon of humanitarianism that it likes to boast that it is, then maybe they would commit to actually supporting Sri Lanka rebuild after the civil war and ensure a better standard of living for the Tamil population. What is needed is something other than a bandaid solution.

Simply saying to  Sri Lanka: ‘Scooze me – but can u plz to be stoppin wif teh refugees nao? kthnxbai’ is fucking ridiculous. Until the bigger picture is recognised and something is done to properly resettle the Tamils into safe and dignified lives, trying to ‘nip the problem in the bud’ is going to be about as effective and painless as douching with sulfuric acid.

At least this John MacCarthy bloke seems to have his head screwed on a little better than Stephen Smith. I’m glad that he does recognise that  the need for humanitarian aid and resettlement  is just as important as targetting those that do profit from people smuggling and exploit the desperation of those that are trying to flee persecution and poverty.

Normally I don’t read the West Australian on account of it being a right-wing rag with severe priority issues (four page spread about the footy on the front page and then a poxy little article seven pages back about North Korea threatening to make the world go kablooey…yeah, I was confused too..) but I’m kind of addicted to the word puzzles underneath the comics. So, flipping through the paper two days ago in search of my crossword fix I made the mistake of pausing on the ‘letters to the editor’ section.

Dear lefties, fellow activists and human rights campaigners. Those of you that are not conservative, bigoted fucks living in happy,  true-blue, suburban ,white, middle-class heterosexual aussie oblivion and denial – I suggest that you avoid ever having to read this section of ANY Australian news paper (The West in particular) if you want your faith in humanity and your blood pressure to remain as they are. I will not elaborate any further – but let me just say how very dearly I would like to seal these fuckers up in vats of their own racist filth after reading some of the comments from the public. People suck..

However – in NON sucky-homicide-incuding news: The ACT has now jumped on the bandwagon with Tasmania in legalising same-sex ceremonies. Hurrah, and thank felching CHRIST it’s about effing time! It only took what – three goes to get this bill through (Both Howard and Rudd have previously blocked action by the ACT to introduce civil union schemes because of their clauses allowing ceremonies that apparently ‘mimick marriage’) and I’m very impressed and happy that at last same-sex couples in the ACT will be able to have a formally recognised ceremony. Because – why the hell should they not?  Same-sex relationships are no more or less valid,loving or committed than heterosexual ones – there is no real difference between a gay and a straight union besides the social attitudes that we have towards them. Love is love – and all relationships deserve the same respect and ability to be formally recognised  rather than being kept on the quiet and huddled away from the delicate eyes of a public who will apparently be instantly struck blind and buggered by rabid weasels at the sight of a Queer wedding.

This article is interesting though, and points out the risk of intervention by the Federal Government:

Shadow Attorney-General Vicki Dunne says the legislation will be blocked by the Commonwealth. “It is almost certain the Commonwealth will intervene,” she said.

“It still sounds like a marriage and it still feels like a marriage and therefore it probably is a marriage.”

Oh noez! Not a gay marriage! Everyone head for the hills before they start thinking they’re actually entitled to human rights!

Yeah, am I the only one thinking that maybe the Commonwealth needs to put on it’s big-boy pants and harden the fuck up over the fact that us faggots are apparently being included in their so-called ’sacred instution’? Seriously – do we not have bigger things to do than worry about than a couple of Friends of Dorothy mincing their way down the aisle?

Besides, this legislation – although definitely positive in many ways – doesn’t really do a huge amount to bridge the divide between gay and straight. In fact, and I hate to say it – but it may actually reinforce the ’seperate but equal’ jargon that has haunted GLBTI politics for so long. Unlike in Tasmania, these civil ceremonies are for same-sex couples ONLY, leaving heterosexual, trans* and intersexed couples out.

For some reason, allowing a heterosexual couple with a civil partnership and a statutory ceremony was ‘too marriage-like’ and therefore in violation of the Marriage Act.

Um. Whut?!

Under exactly the same bill, a same-sex couple can have a civil partnership and legal ceremony and – according to the lawyers that advised the Government about the specifics of this Bill – is totally constitutional. But change the sex of one of the people involved and PRESTO! It’s ‘too marriage like’ and thus contravenes the Marriage Act. IS ANYONE ELSE LOST HERE!? Am I too fucking idealistic to assume that legislation of this kind should exist to -oh, I don’t know remove discrimination instead of reinforcing it? Like – seriously, angry emoticons don’t even begin to express how much this pisses me off…

Is heterosexism that deeply entrenched into our politics that we automatically assume that any heterosexual coupling – married, de facto or whatever – is ‘marriage-like’? Like – is that seriously all that we are capable of envisioning marriage as?! To the extent that we even further isolate the GLBTI community from the rest of society?

Fuck me sideways, I just do not get it…

Rodney Croome can probably explain it a little better. I’ve spent too long on the net today,  and need to go put some pants on so I can get my laptop fixed.

But first, my frustration and vitriol needs a convenient (if slightly irrelevant) outlet.  Today’s mental punching bag: The Vatican.

It is my housemate and colleague Shane’s life dream to one day travel to the Vatican and have hot, sweaty, blasphemous man-sex there. Preferably on top of something sacred. Totally insensitive and inappropriate, but I see it as tit for tat – the Catholic Church wants to treat us like insects? Then we are well within our rights for a petty little bit of vengeful catharsis.

Fuck your misogynist, Queerphobic, greedy hypocrisy. Actually – fuck any instituion that tells me that I’m going to hell for having the audacity to speak my mind and live a free and happy life unburdened by guilt or nonsensical obligation. I will make it my personal vendetta to both literally and metaphorically urinate all over your sacred cows and petty, judgemental bullshit. Then I will steal your funny hat and dance naked on your altars while scattering condoms to the adoring crowds before scampering off to get me some hot Italian nun-action.

Until next time!

Refugee FAIL.

So, by ‘I’ll update this thing in a few days’ I evidently actually meant ‘I’ll dick about and think about making an entry for about a week before getting around to it.’ Your loins will tremble before my devastating professionalism and efficiency.

However, in the meantime I’ve been working my arse off to pay for my trip to San Francisco next January (I may have come a little bit just typing that..), pretending to study, playing naked pool with my sexfiend housemates and helping to plan the next phase of the fiendish homoseksooahl agenda. My attack womb is tired. But not tired enough – there are still people to do and outdated heteronormative insitutions to redefine!

There have been a few things that have come to my attention over the last few weeks that I think are now too outdated and done to death – the case of the Bangladeshi couple that may have to have sex in front of a tribunal to prove that they are gay is one of them. If you need me to explain precisely why this situation is so shocking and wrong, you are a truly  heartless, callous and unworthy cuntrag – and my passive-aggressive smiley face and I will hunt you down, stab you in the face and urinate into the open wound.

My language is crass and unnecessary, but frankly I think that the way that Australia treats it’s refugees as a whole is fucking shocking, and it is occasions like this that merit such colourful language. This is not just me reserving my outrage for the one esoteric ‘Queer case’ (although, I admit that it is what attracted my attention in the first place..) but simply using it as just one example of the disgusting racism that still permeates the faux-multicultural facade of the Lucky Country.

Refugee issues aren’t really ones that I’ve been heavily involved in during my time as an activist – but it’s something that I’m becoming more and more interested in. The latest fiasco surrounding the 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers aboard the Customs Vessel The Oceanic Viking has sparked off another public furor surrounding refugees – and frankly the more I hear the less faith I have in humanity.

The Indonesians want nothing to do with them, and we seem to be perpetually umming and ahhing about whether or not we should take them. To me it seems like a fairly straightforward solution – do what we are obliged to do by the UNHCR Convention and Protocol for the Status of Refugees and actually do something to ensure that these people are humanely treated and their claims for asylum are effectively and fairly processed so that maybe, just maybe they can have a hope of a better standard living. Yunno – the one that they’re entitled to as human beings.

Of course – Dear old Johnny Howard has bobbed up amid the sea of xenophobic effluence like to spout his vile diatribe. I find it amusing that he has the audacity to talk about efficient uses of funding when nearly $310 million was spent by the Office of Immigration and Citizenship (which, by the way was once known as the Department of Immigration and Multiculturalism) over a period of seven years on keeping refugees in Offshore Processing Centres where they usually ended up rotting for years on end. Not to mention the mindbogglingly stupid ‘reintegration package’ that equipped refugees with lots of shiny pennies and shipped them back home on the proviso that they rescind their application for asylum. Thus, effectively ‘removing’ the problem of lots of unwelcome brown people polluting our perfect white washed denial.

Howard’s Government had an absolutely appalling track record when it came to refugees, and I find it pretty rich indeed that he’s now clambering up on his high horse. No Johnny. You most certainly did NOT stop the boats. You just stopped their occupants from ever having a decent chance of a better life by locking them up in detention centres for years on end. That’s not an effective or a humane policy.

It’s Barnaby Joyce however that takes out the ‘Fuckhead of the Week’ award by suggesting that the 78 Sri Lankans should all just bugger off home. Yunno – the place with all the persecution, poverty and death that they were desperate to escape in the first place. So easy to be flippant when you’re a privileged white boy isn’t it? Ensuring that asylum seekers are appropriately processed and humanely treated is not, not NOT a sign of weakness you fascist wankstain…. It’s a sign of compassion and the ability to take responsibility and initiative. These  people are Tamil refugees fleeing unbelievable poverty and oppression – and you have the audacity to treat them as a means of making a political point…?! There is not enough ‘Fuck you’ in the world….

Weirdly enough, WA’s own Colin Barnett seems to actually have a fairly reasonable stance on this issue…..I’m a little taken aback; The Premier has come up with something OTHER than ignorant,self-entitled prejudiced bullshit…?! (I know, I’m scared too…:S) Of course – it would be best if they were actually processed on Australian soil in an environment that doesn’t resemble a prison – but we really can’t expect that much of a radical suggestion from Colin just yet…

Australia takes only a fraction of the world’s refugees – and we are simply not doing enough. I fail to see how anyone is genuinely threatened by their presence. They are not the ‘job-stealing, terrorist- boat-people-boogey-men’ that I have heard them described as, and the only thing that we have to lose is our atrocious reputation.

Anyway – focussing on the positives: There’s this fuckawesome fact sheet that is definitely recommended reading for anyone with a remote interest in refugee issues. Get Up are pretty much the best thing since cunnilingus, and they’re really effective organisers and campaigners.

 

Right. I think that’s satiated my uppity activist need for ranty productivity for today. I think Imma go pass out somewhere now…Tonight is my first night sober in the better part of a week, so I’m looking forward to a highly enjoyable non-hungover morning tomorrow.  Until next time – I encourage you all to fart in the general direction of Barnaby ‘Racist-Asshat’ Joyce.

 

Andrea Dworkin can suck my left one..

I LIIIVE! I return alive from the deep dark beyond! Let this day be henceforth known as Easter and proceed to fill your children up with sugar and preservatives!

Anyway. So I’m totally crap at keeping this goshdarned thing updated. Not for lack of material, but simply because me and my feminist attack-womb of immense productivity have been more than a little occupied of late. Yes Yes, Kitty. Fuck off with your excuses and give me head   get to the point….

Within the next few days I will actually make an actual blog post (Yunno – with politics and research and shit..) but, for now because I’m feeling like a self-indulgent little harpy, you will have to content yourself with this article what I done wrote for my dear friend Hannah over at her awesome new blog The Dollrag.

Anyway – without further ado, I give you: PORN!

An Obscenity Of One’s Own

My name is Kitty. I’m a feminist, and I love porn.

 It may seem that the above statement is anachronistic, an oxymoron; Pornography is exploitation and objectification of women for consumption of a male audience and profit of a patriarchal society; it is the antithesis of everything that feminism stands for. Right?

 Well. That depends on who you ask. And also what you mean by ‘Porn.’ To be a little more specific – I’d say that I love the potential of porn. I’ll explain:

 An unfortunate misconception about feminists is that they all think the same way.

Most of us soapbox-humping, article-spewing, tofu-munching activist types are wearily aware of the tired old stereotype of feminists as universally joyless, man-hating, fanatically politically correct, ball busting femme-Nazis. Great for comic-relief, but there’s not much room for diversity…

 I digress a little – but my point is that feminism and feminist philosophies are as varied and as diverse as the women (and men!) that espouse them. There is no one ‘type’ of feminism, and there is no one ‘type’ of feminist. I’d be very worried if there were..

 This is precisely why I take umbrage at the assertion that feminism and pornography are mutually exclusive concepts. In this article, I shall incorporate both my own experience from working in the sex industry as well as writings of other feminists to support my belief that it is not only possible to be a feminist and still enjoy pornography – but also for pornography itself to be a means of empowerment and liberation for women.

 I am not one to deny that pornography is a means of exploitation and objectification. I am not, for a second going to argue that the porn industry is (at present) a rich fountain of female empowerment and liberation. Because it is not – well, not for the most part. The truth is that pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide and that it is for the most part, controlled nearly exclusively by men. However – there are a few points that frequently surface within feminist critiques of pornography that I should like to refute:

 Firstly – the accusation that pornography itself encourages violence.

 The anti-pornography  feminists of the mid 1970s  were the first to write about the supposed connection between pornography and male violence (Segal, 1990). However, I have a feeling that I will ruffle a few feathers when I come out and say candidly that there is actually no conclusive evidence to prove that pornography itself causes violence towards women (Jensen, 2004). Studies undertaken in the 1970’s actually found a negative correlation between the consumption of pornography and sexualised violence (Kutchinsky ,1973) and the US Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was also unable to find any evidence of changes in behaviour following short or long-term exposure to pornographic material (Kutchinsky, 1973).

 However, some feminist theorists of the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, actually go further than stating that pornography encourages violence, they maintain that pornography IS violence (Segal, 1990). In fact, according to this wacky duo, pornography lies behind not only all forms of female oppression – but is also responsible for all forms of violence, brutality and murder throughout human history (Dworkin, 1981).

To quote Dworkin directly, Pornography is apparently akin to ‘Dachau brought into the bedroom and celebrated’ (Dworkin, 1981).

Ignoring the insensitive and inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust, I’d like to point out the inherent danger in this statement: It is a generalisation of all forms of pornography, of all representations of sexual activity as abusive, exploitative and dangerous. Thankfully, much of the backlash to this outlandish statement came from feminists themselves during the early 1980s – believing that the cultural contempt for women far outdated the commercial growth of pornography, and that to blame women’s powerlessness solely upon their portrayals within sexually explicit materials is to downplay the far larger problems inherent within our society – ignoring the inherent misogyny in our political, legal, social, religious, economic and educational systems (Segal, 1990). I must say – I agree emphatically.

 In some ways I find this assertion that pornography causes rape as disturbing as genuine rape apologists – because it is taking all of the responsibility away from those that commit sexualised violence and placing it on a convenient scapegoat. ‘Pornography made me Rape’ – it’s pretty much the sexualised equivalent of the Twinkie defence.  Rapists and abusers make a choice to harm, humiliate, demean and disempower their victims – to claim that they are themselves helpless victims left powerless by the porno bogey man is to release them from any moral delinquency and thereby excuse themselves from punishment. All the while, consenting adults who have made a conscious, free choice to make or view pornography get the blame.

Can someone tell me how this is at all logical – or respectful to those that have actually experienced abuse and violence?

 Dworkin’s statement alone is an insult to the free choice made by any woman that ever happily, and without coercion or threat removed her clothing – either for the camera or for a live audience. Having both modelled for erotic photography and spent three years working as an exotic dancer myself (and known many other sex workers, porn starlets and strippers with similar experiences) I can safely say that there are indeed countless women that are quite happy to do so – and, believe it or not, actually find empowerment and liberation from such apparently abusive activities.

 Part of feminism is the notion of choice – it is the ability to make decisions for oneself about what we do with our bodies and our lives in a free and respectful environment. It’s about having our choices and our autonomy respected as the conscious decisions of intelligent and capable beings. Whether that choice involves staying home with kids, having a career or even ejaculating on camera – we really CAN have it all!

 Insulting and illogical rhetoric aside, it seems that Dworkin herself was one of the main head-kickers in the formation of something called the Minneapolis Ordinance – a piece of legislation passed in Minneapolis in 1983 that allowed for the pursuit of legal prosecution against any individual or organisation by persons claiming that they had been damaged as a result of pornography. Can anyone else see the tidal wave of trouble that this would open up?

 While it is certainly true that there have been many, many women who have suffered genuine abuse and exploitation as a result of being coerced and manipulated (either by poverty, addiction or abusive men) into participating in pornography – My problem here lies within what is defined as pornography.

 According to the Minneapolis Ordinance, the definition of pornography is as follows: ‘Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following: (i) women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or (ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or (iii) women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or (iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or (v)women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or (vi)women’s body parts—-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks—-are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or (vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or (viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or (ix) woman are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.’’ (Dworkin & MacKinnon, 1988)

My belief here is that Dworkin and MacKinnon are incapable of imagining that it is indeed possible for sexually explicit material to be free of abuse or exploitation. Their assertion is that there is no pornography without violence, and thus – all pornography should be looked upon as a breach of Civil Rights and a felony. Frankly – I beg to differ.

Previously I made the assertion that there is no conclusive evidence directly linking pornography itself to violence; I stand by that statement – however one thing I will concede is that pornography certainly has the power to change our attitudes towards sex and towards women (Jensen, 1994). The portrayal of women in pornography as existing for men’s pleasure, of being instantly accessible and subordinate is not uncommon and it is not something that I am comfortable with. However – there is a quote from feminist writer Ruth Wallsgrove that states: ‘I believe we should not agitate for more laws against pornography, but should rather stand up together and say what we feel about it, and what we feel about our own sexuality, and force men to re-examine their own attitudes to sex and women implicit in their consumption of porn (Wallsgrove, 1977). And I will say that I agree, and that we need to take that a step further.

Pornography itself is neither demeaning nor is it empowering. It is neither exploitative nor is it liberating. What makes the difference between abusive, misogynistic material and genuinely consensual, respectful, erotic entertainment is the people that have made it. It is how the actresses and actors are treated, it is what health and safety precautions are taken, it is how much input performers are given into the creation of the product, it is how our culture perceives what pornography should be and who views it. It is who buys the pornography, who produces it who they produce it for and why.

 At the end of the day porn is just another business – business with cumshots, dildos and rim-jobs, but business just the same. Business responds to the wants of the market, and the market is a reflection of society. At the moment our society still dictates that women shouldn’t be sexually expressive or assertive, and that the only good wank is a male wank. Bollocks to that I say!

 The assumption is that women aren’t interested in porn – but did anyone actually stop to ask? I’d hazard a guess that many women dislike porn not because they find it abusive – but because so much of it IS male dominated and the vast majority of it is tailored to what is supposedly male fantasy which, even I admit is often pretty distasteful. Women like sex too – just as much as men do. So, where’s our slice of the cake?

 Pornography is a reflection of some parts of our natures that conventionally remain hidden, but will always find an outlet somewhere where we think we are safe and unseen and anonymous. Pornography has been around since our ancestors first took a blackened stick of charcoal and scratched obscenities onto cave walls. It exists in some form or another in every culture and has done at every point in time. To ban and to censor it will not only ensure that it will crop up unregulated and dangerous in bootlegged form, but it also means that it will never have any chance to evolve into what it should or could be. Personally – I’d love to see a porno industry that was vastly populated by women – strong, gorgeous, sexy brave, smart women that wanted to make smut on their own terms. Women that love getting fucked and filmed, getting fucked and filmed because they want to – not because some slime-ball director has told them to.

 I live for the day when female producers and directors that can inject a little originality and class into the plastic fantastic wasteland. Porn with women, made by women for women. Now – if that isn’t empowerment, I don’t know what is. It is taking the power back from those that dominate and suppress – and turning it around on them. It is forcing the hitherto compliant market to re-examine what women’s sexualities are – rather than what they would like them to be. Does that make me idealistic? Of course it does – but why should that be a deterrent? The alternative is doing nothing at all…

 Porn is here to stay. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. But recognise that you can either hate it – or you can change it for the better. Grab the cameras and the towels ladies – we’ve got work to do!

Nice one Colin..

Yes I’m still alive. Shut the fuck up – it’s been a busy month. Assignments due every other week, the F4F  Picnic looming ever closer and finally being sent out on Prac.

More on that in a bit though.

Yesterday the Guild Projects and Activities officer Bridget came hurtling into the office and informed us that WA Premier Colin Barnett had struck again. Something about denying the Greens resources or something..

Turns out that he’s gone further than that – He’s actually denied them party status.

Despite the fact that they have five seats in Parliament, and are slowly gaining power in the WA Senate  – Barnett is refusing to acknowledge their status as a political party, and therefore deny them the $450,000 in funding and five extra staff members to which they are entitled.  Not only this, but has declined to actually specify a reason as to why, and is refusing to allow the Greens to talk to his lawyers.

Naturally – the Greens are not happy chappies and will be pursuing legal action.

Barnett has declined to make any comment to the media as of yet. And really – I’m wondering what planet he spends most of his time on to think that this was a reasonable or appropriate thing to do. It’s a very underhanded policy – if you can’t get rid of them outright, just starve them of funding and resources until they fade into obscurity or go bust. It’s not only undemocratic, it’s thoroughly inconsistent: When the Nationals were in the same position they were allocated the same funding.  Then again, consistency isn’t really something that we’ve come to expect of Colin is it? He seemed to conveniently forget his 2005 Family First policy when questioned about repealing the WA 2002 reforms that granted GLBTI couples equal de facto status and equalised the age of consent for gay men. But I digress.

I’m suprised at how little media there is surrounding this. Disappointed as well – I’d have thought that such a blatantly undemocratic and unethical move by our own Premier would have gotten a little bit more attention. Apparently not.

However – to balance it out here’s a little bit of good news from Tasmania:

Ever the trailblazers of GLBTI law, the lovely Taswegians have once again set the standard for the rest of us by improving their civil partnership legislation. From November 1st, same-sex couples in Tasmania will be able to have their commitment ceremonies formalised and presided over by registered marriage celebrants.

It doesn’t sound much -but this is actually pretty significant. Since the ban on same sex marriage five years ago, any attempt to pass same-sex relationship recognition/civil union/partnership etc legislation in individual states and territories has been very heavily scruntinised by the beaurocratic meanie-heads in Government who seem to have an unhealthy fixation with ‘protecting marriage’. Every time an attempt is made to recognise same-sex relationships, a huge fuss is made about whether or not it ‘mimicks marriage’.  It was why the Federal Government stepped in at the last minute during the 2006 attempt in the ACT to introduce civil unions – wasn’t because two dudes getting hitched would have signalled Armageddon, but because of a clause in the proposed bill that would have allowed same-sex couples to have formal ceremonies that were presided over by a registered celebrant – a cluase which, according to the law monkeys would have ‘mimicked marriage’ which is pretty much a first-class citizen only affair.(Yeah, they are THAT anal..)

Anyway -  I’m not sure how the clever little bastards in Tassie did it – but they did.

I supspect it had something to do with creating a new category of officials that are legally able to preside over same-sex partnership ceremonies and then instantly recognising rabbis, priests, secular celebrants, ship captains and anyone else with the legal ability to perform marriages as belonging to that new category. Very sneaky – but damned clever. And I suspect that that is what has made all the difference.

Now, instead of simply rocking up to the registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and registering your relationship like you would a dog – you can actually have a celebrant like a priest, rabbi etc formally bless your union in a public ceremony. Really, it isn’t much – but what it does mean is that same-sex couples in Tasmania now can have the full dignity that heterosexuals are automatically entitled to. They get to have a legally recognised wedding ceremony. They get to have what everyone else has. It’s one step closer to closing that gap, one less thing that makes the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ quite so distinct.

The most important thing about campaigns for GLBTI equality is the ability to change and alter definitions and institutions so that they adapt to ever evolving social climates and attitudes. Every day terms and concepts being expanded so that they are more inclusive and more relevant: Marriage, family, partner, husband, wife, man, woman…I could go on.

That’s what I see this as – it’s changing from a way for GLBTI couples to register their relationships on the books to a means by which they can be publically and formally recognised as a couple. It changes the definition of ‘wedding’ to something a little bit less exclusive.

This entry must be cut short I fear as the Shane beast and his boy are dragging me by the dreadlocks to the nearest pub to celebrate it being a day that ends with a Y. I shall return. But first – BOOZE!

Queerphobia and reason #49437 why John Howard is a bigoted wassock..

 

Fuck me sideways…I’m so goddamned tired. I may be slightly hung-over following a glass or five of red and late-night viewings of Keating: The Musical last night - and 9am meetings with the University equity staff (seriously – who the fuck schedules a meeting with a student rep so bloody early…?!) so kindly bear with me.

The fact that Johnny Howard was no friend to the GLBTI community isn’t exactly frontpage news anymore – actually, on just about anything progressive or compassionate he is definitely not a star pupil. Which is why, when I read of his opposition to an Australian Bill of Rights I wasn’t at all suprised. But – when I found out that one of his primary concerns for his opposition is that if instated – a Bill of Rights would allow for same-sex marriage. Heavens to Betsy!

Ahh. Howard.  I’d forgotton what a nasty, smug little cretin you are. As much as I feel that Rudd has betrayed his election promises of real and progressive change – it’s always nice to know that we could have done so much worse.

Oh no, we can’t have a Bill of Rights (Despite the fact that Australia is the only Westernised Nation in the World NOT to have one..) because then TEH GHEYS WOULD MARRY AND THEN THE WORLD WOULD END MMKAY?!!

Seriously? Like, are we that fucking paranoid about poofters being treated as anything other than second class citizens that we’ll deliberately block a piece of legislation that would not only bring us into line with every other westernised nation in the world – but it will also be instrumental in addressing and preventing any more of the egregious human rights abuses that our country has for been sweeping under the carpet all these years.  Think what having a Bill of Rights would mean:  A real step forward in terms of Indigenous issues – healthcare, housing, education, reinstating the anti-discrimination legislation  suspended during the NT intervention. It could mean that maybe we’ll stop locking up refugees and asylum seekers in detention centres in the middle of the desert for years on end – it could mean that we’ll stop trying to introduce laws that invade our privacy and right to self determination like Senator Conroy’s Internet Filtering Scheme… Christ I could go on and on.

But no – we can’t possibly introduce anything like that - because little Johnny Howard is a little bit squeamish about two sheilas getting hitched. God forbid that life is made easier for the disadvantaged and minorities – or that our country is seen as progressive and compassionate rather than as a bunch of  kangaroo-humping, beer-swilling, Yank-worshipping, bigoted hicks.

Also – on the subject of hateful, beaurocratic wank-stains – the two WA transmen that I was raving about a couple of posts ago are now at risk of having their landmark courtcase overturned because Christian Porter didn’t have his prozac-flakes this morning.

Having legally won the right to be legally recognised as male prior to full gender-reassignment surgery (which, in this case would mean a complete hysterectomy..)  – it may well be a little early to start chilling that champagne, because the WA Attorney General is having a hissy fit over details that – frankly, aren’t any of his fucking business.

Hysterectomies aren’t easy procedures – nor are they without adverse side effects or heavy price-tags. I’m wondering how the decision to go through with such invasive surgery should be anyone else’s decision but the individuals – and holding something as crucial as the appropriate legal recognition of gender-identity to ransom in order to satisfy one ignorant politician’s definition of what constitutes ‘male’ or ‘female’  flies directly in the face of a person’s right to self determination and their means of identity and expression.

There’s more to being male or female than the collection of squishy bits between your legs. Neither the presence of a uterus, nor my ability to bear children are what define me as a woman. It isn’t my XX chromosomes, it isn’t my sexual preferences and it sure as fuck isn’t anyone else’s affair.  So fucking what – a couple of transsexuals still have internal girlparts. Don’t we have better things to be worrying about?  Like, I don’t know…climate change, the economy, which middle eastern country to invade next…? Does Christian Porter really lie awake at night, unable to sleep because there are people running around that don’t fit into his comfortable little gender binary? What a thrilling life he must lead..

Seriously -Fuck you all and your patriarchal, heterosexist, transphobic bullshit gender binaries. Keep your goddamned laws off my body and out of my bedroom – and I promise not to staple your eyelids to the ceiling..

 

 

Seriously – what the fuck are you people afraid of?