Categories: The Immense Gothic Cathedral of WTF

8 Aug 2010, Comments (7)

HULK SMASH! ! !

Author: Helen

That’s a reference to Feminist Hulk, of course. And I was channelling Feminist Hulk on Friday reading he AGE on the train to work. It’s a worry when you’re in a crowded carriage and your tiny purple shorts start to split…

Picture of Kevin Rudd pulling his shirt apart to reveal a superhero costume with "Rudd to Gillard: I'll Save You"

No, no Disney damsel in distress narrative here at all.



I’d heard an excerpt from the Phillip Adams interview the night before so I was well aware that Kevin Rudd was going to stop sitting around in a sulk with the ALP logo erased from his placards and join the campaign properly, once he was physically up to it. As in, join the campaign. Like one of the merry band on the road to Mordor. But our news media chose to describe Rudd’s return through the lens of … Male White Hero returns to Rescue Damsel in Distress.

With a side serve of We Knew a Sheila wouldn’t be Up to the Job. Move outa the way, Gillard, and let the men do this properly.

HULK SMASH!!

Still from the spoof video Kevin Rudd "I will survive", juxtaposed with an ad for an article from the Business section

Tools getting you down? I know the feeling.



I didn’t put those images together – that was on the same page as the article headed “Ex-PM Rudd to PM Gillard: I will save you” by Michelle Grattan and Michael Gordon. Was a disgruntled subeditor making a veiled comment there? If they still have any, that is. And was there any evidence that Rudd actually said anything about “saving” anyone? There isn’t any in the article. But the actual journalists were all on song about the White Knight Rescue narrative.

This from Michelle Grattan, who I once respected so much:

“Knifed one day, needed the next…
…Move over Julia. Kevin’s here to help.
…Rudd looked positively prime ministerial when he spoke yesterday.

And the next day:

It’s the ultimate girl-meets boy encounter…His place or hers?

HURL!

…the woman who grabbed his job from him.
(John Faulkner was) a prime matchmaker for this bizarre marriage of convenience …

There’s more, but I’d really like to keep this nice Sunday dinner down.

So, Gillard can’t win. If Labor wins the election it’ll be “she couldn’t do it without Kevin10!1!”. If she loses, well, a chick just wasn’t up to it.

Headzup to the Oz media. You’ve already been called repeatedly on your crap (non) reporting. And I’m not Robinson Crusoe with my disillusionment and anger.

Shape up, please, before we end up with this.

Oh excellent! Electronic Frontiers Australia is targeting youngsters for its campaign against Stephen Conroy’s net filter with that old classic that never loses its appeal: Mothers are brainless twits!

OK, uninformed, ignorant, whatever. But certainly clueless. (And any web page concerning us should be wall-to-wall pink.)
As activists with children who have campaigned side by side (or so they thought) with EFA to educate others about why Conroy’s net filter won’t work, the writers at Hoyden are obviously pissed off. As an IT worker, net obsessive and opponent of the “clean feed” with two children, I’m also pissed off, insulted, and hurt. I’m also deeply disappointed with Akmal Saleh, who I dearly love. No, make that loved.

Mary:

This week’s “let’s explain technology in little words to our mothers award, boys” goes to Electronic Frontiers Australia’s It’s Time to Tell Mum campaign against the ALP’s filtering proposal.
Seriously, is there some kind of bingo card for “getting mothers involved” yet? Here some squares to get you started, thanks to “It’s Time to Tell Mum”: mothers are late technology adopters, mothers are uninterested in technology and toys for their own sake, mothers are solely responsible for the moral welfare of children, (which is lucky because) mothers are pretty much only interested in the moral welfare of children, (which is also lucky because) fathers and co-parents might as well not exist. Any more?

Lauredhel:

Hello, EFA, we’re RIGHT HERE. Tigtog and I, and other Hoydens and Hoydenizens have been blogging about this proposed filter for over a year now, again and again. Somehow our current events awareness and capacity for political thought didn’t fall out of our vaginas with the baby(ies).
There’s a really strong side serve of “teh wimminz are the ones looking after children” infusing this also, which makes me wince every time.
Try genderflipping the campaign. Would the EFA have released the same campaign as “It’s Time To Tell Dad“? With cracks about dads doing nothing but watch Kerri-Anne Kennerley and Days of Our Lives? “Dads love gossip”?
“Even dads want an internet connection that’s faster, cheaper and more secure”?

See also.

Yeah, you can get on with saving Australia from the Clean Feed without me, young geeky hipsters at EFA. Since I only want to watch Good Morning Australia and gossip with the hairdresser, obviously I can no longer pretend to give a shit about your campaign, as I don’t need the internetz for those activities. I’ll be over here, crocheting a cucumber or something.

Advertising agency Fnuky’s online pitch says: “looking for an advertising agency? We’re not one.” Fair call. Advertising agencies are supposed to be about making people like their clients. Geordie Guy of EFA tries to salvage the trainwreck by defending the video with arguments which are ineffectual and wrong, but that’s beside the point – if we’re talking about marketing, once you’re using arguments (however specious) to argue your case against angry customers/supporters/target consumers, your marketing campaign has failed.

It would have been so easy, as others have pointed out, to make the campaign “tell your folks”, or “tell your olds”. At least that would have patronised older people equally.

29 May 2010, Comments (6)

Nasty email forwards

Author: Helen

How do you know when it’s getting closer to election time in Australia? By the incidences of unbelievable asshattery, douchebaggery and sheer fuckery which start popping up.

Yesterday one of my co-workers at the Ronnie James Dio Memorial Dogs home (and cattery) got an email with a variation (it’s mutating all the time) of this. (Scroll down for the May 2010 example.)

Charming!

Using google-fu, it took about three seconds to find out the history of this…piece of work.

What about the piece of work who made it and circulated it? What kind of person does this? Whoever you are, you are the very doyen of Douchebaggery. And you, the person who forwarded the thing. Yes, you. I hope you are thoroughly ashamed of yourself and not just for being pranked by some nasty email hoaxer with an agenda.

At least we know it’s getting closer to Election time. Stand by for more horrid examples of what backroom droids can cook up in their petri dishes.

The A-G has just announced that after much deliberation the Government has decided we’re not going to have a national Bill of Rights. We’re going to have a Framework instead, apparently. What that would mean I’m not sure. (My guess: Whatever the people administering the “framework” decide it is at any particular time.)

Not everyone is happy with this decision. Father [Frank] Brennan told The Age: ”I am disappointed that more coherent reasons for not adopting a human rights act were not offered by the government in light of the strong community sentiment for one.

Oh, Frank, Susan, you sillies! I have no background in Human Rights law or government whatsoever but the reason is as about as coherent as it gets. Having enthusiastically taken over the job of putting the indigenous unemployed of the Northern Territory on the Susso, they’ve been busily repainting and doing up the old Curtin gulag. Signing up to a Bill of Rights at this time would just lead to embarassing questions from all the wrong sort of people.

Move along.
 
 
 
Crossposted

22 Apr 2010, Comments (19)

Dinnergate!

Author: Helen

When laptops and notebook computers appeared in the land (and mobile phones started sprouting more features), a favourite advertising tactic was to portray young hipsters or rugged professionals sitting on a remote mountain peak, or resting their handsome calves in a deckchair (half-submerged in a sapphire sea) as they tapped away at their gadget of choice. Words like freedom and spontaneity were sloshed around. No more stuffy office!

It was perhaps about a nanosecond before people started to wake up to the ugly reverse side of this. Even at the top of that mountain peak, the office now followed you. We now have a situation, previously only known to slaves and indentured labourers, where there is no longer such a thing as time off. And if you can be “at the office” 24/7 with your gadgets, well, then soon perfect strangers might want to know what you do and where you go in your “free time”.

If you live outside the state of Victoria in Australia, you might not know that the ex-police Commissioner, Christine Nixon, has been roasted slowly over coals in court more than once in the last week for having the temerity to eat dinner (with no alcohol) on her day off. A “day off” during which she went to work.

As her detractors will point out, it was no more than her duty to go to work on a day of catastrophic bushfires, as she was a senior figure (not the senior figure, as they’d like you to believe) in the Emergency Services. But she did. I’m not the only person to find the hatefest engendered by her decision to break for dinner in a hotel!! (or, as one ABC commenter breathlessly said, a pub!) somewhat bizarre.

I don’t need to defend her, as Jeff Sparrow and Moira Rayner have done a great job here and here. Nixon attacked bullying and corruption when she was Police commissioner and made some powerful enemies. But let’s just think of it in terms of the 24/7 worker here. So she went for a meal at a pub with two friends (ZOMG the Roman decadence), on what would normally be her day off. I’m assuming here that a public figure like Nixon would have her phone on her all the time. If she wasn’t actually in the office, what did it actually matter? And what difference did it make that she was in “A Pub”!!1! The way the journos made it sound, you’d think we were back in Victorian times where it was unseemly for a Lady to set foot in Such a Place. You can imagine how differently it would have been spun by a male police honcho. “We repaired to the pub to refuel and made it our centre of operations for a couple of hours.”

As it was, as a rotund and middle-aged woman, she was pilloried with images of Food and Eating and everything Fatty-fat-fat, which is also, for women, code for lazy and sluttish. Of course, there are no fat men in the higher echelons of the Emergency services. It was instructive to see the equal and opposite reaction to the fainting Julia Gillard (and also, no-one in the armed forces faints on parade…right?) This time the link to the article is “Gillard must remember to eat!” But that’s different, because you see, she’s the society-approved shape!

Also, outsourcing your meal to the local, rather than spending more time buying ingredients and cooking, seems like an efficient thing to do on a day when you might well have more to do. But, you know, while people are all foaming about Responsibility, they’re really just after a really good performance. In the theatrical sense.

FX Holden summed it up perfectly.

She should have commissioned a khaki, Steve /Bindi Irwin outfit, complete with hat, rolled up the sleeves and had a TV camera follow her out to the Dandenongs where she should have handed out sandwiches,to CFA volunteers, shook a few hands, grabbed a hose and splashed a bit of water on a burnback, rubbed a bit of ash across her sweaty face and said to camera “Geez I’m too busy here fightn’ fires to talk to youse”
Then she’d be a hero.
Would have helped the effort not one bit and may have even caused resources to be diverted from real effort.
But she wouldn’t have been under fire at the RC from bloody lawyers, none of who have run anything more complicated than asking their PA to get their wife a birthday present.

Next time you read a “why aren’t there more women in the top positions” article (complete with comments mansplaining that feminism was all a mistake and where is the female Beethoven), remember that somewhere a woman might be weighing up a choice to apply for one of those positions. And she’ll know that she’ll be judged, not only on everything she does whether she’s at work that day or not, but on her appearance. But if she uses her day off to do anything about her appearance, or to eat, that’s wrong too, if all hell should break loose before she realises it. And if she’s not built to the required fuckability-template of the day, that’ll be fully taken in to account in our shallow and insecure society.

Yes, I’m looking at the Australian Liberal party, who have gleefully piled onto Peter Garrett and called for his resignation over the Insulation scheme debacle (which is predictably being called Insulationgate), but don’t seem to know that their arses are on fire.

Now, sure, I’m predisposed to like the guy. But let it be known I’m not particularly keen to fight Garrett’s corner as a minister in the Labor government. I’m the Voter who Cannot Love*, after all. He, like Julia, has broken my heart over environmental and Arts policies. No, I don’t think parachute-in celebrity politicians are necessarily a good thing, and I also think he’s overfaced. He was given too much responsibility, too quickly. The fact that every right wing hack was automatically programmed to hate him was just icing on the cake.

Should he move aside into a less demanding portfolio to gain more experience? Should he sit down and have a big think about whether the realpolitik of the Labor tent has negated his entire life’s work on environmental issues? Yes and yes. Should he stand aside because his position has become completely untenable and he’s electoral poison? Or because, in some quaint and symbolic way, in the Westminster system a Minister is required to fall on his or her sword for the actions of other people? Probably. But should he stand aside, or be sacked, because he bears some kind of moral responsibility for the four workplace deaths that have happened since the inception of the insulation scheme? That is such a pack of horse hockey I’m unable to contain my rage.

Gosh, it’s touching that the Liberal party has suddenly discovered workplace deaths in the building industry. When they were in power, those despised Unions were constantly trying to tell them. About forty people a year, more or less, die in Australia every year. Are the other thirty-six people who died in Australia in the last year chopped liver, just because they don’t come with a Ministerial scalp? I don’t hear any outrage in doorstop interviews about them.

The four people (some of them boys) died for the usual reason: because their employers ignored occupational health and safety practice (as well as ordinary common sense). The employer of the worker who died in October could possibly claim ignorance about the metal fasteners used with metal foil insulation close to wiring. The others couldn’t, because Garrett didn’t do nothing: he moved to ban the fasteners in November. Two more workers died as a direct result of the employer ignoring a new regulation which Garrett himself had put in place, as well as one from heat stroke, again the employer’s responsibility. To quote one commenter, the responsibility to run a safe workplace lies with the employers.

Now we have the Liberals shouting that Peter Garrett should have micromanaged the scheme to the point of overseeing every employer, perhaps, I don’t know, climbing into every roof space himself. This is the same Liberal party mainly composed of people who see every government regulation as a slippery slope to socialism. This is the Liberal party whose constituency is business groups which oppose industry regulation as “anti-business”.

These are the people who claim to espouse a doctrine of individual responsibility, but because it suits them at the moment, they’re willing to abandon that. “If you don’t like my principles, I have others”, I guess? See Also, the invisible hand of the Market sorting things out? When push comes to shove, this incident has shown that they really know it’s a crock.

So, Libs, if you want to claim your prize Ministerial Scalp at the prize desk, I think you should have to fess up that the despised unions were right all along and that government oversight of private industry is totes necessary (and that at the moment you’re calling for government micromanagement on a scale hardly known except in command economies). Also, that conservatives are for Individual Responsibility, except where you can blame something on someone you don’t like.

Also, that your arses are on fire.
 
 
 
 
*Just like Chilly, the Elf who Cannot Love.

You probably thought this post was going to be about this, but it’s another instance of “what were they thinking?”

I accidentally clicked on this while I was reading something on a site with ads. Do you ever do that? and then bitterly regret it?

Can you imagine walking into your study, or living room, or whatever and being confronted with.. Aaiiieeeee! Yikes!
 
It\'s personalised Ernie!

Yes, you are correct, that’s an … urn. For the Disembodied Head’s ashes.

That’d be your boyfriend, newlywed (ex)husband, nephew or grandkid depending on your age group, and still with the deer-in-headlights expression from the moment he turned around and saw the truck, the handbrake of which he’d neglected to secure, rolling toward him. W. T. F. If you’re an introvert and want to send any potential visitor screaming into the night, this product is highly recommended. Still, if I owned one of them, I’d be running screaming into the night myself.

2 Jul 2009, Comments (9)

We’ve been here before

Author: Helen

A couple are living in the same house. A child dies of catastrophic neglect. The mother is a prescription drug abuser and unable to cope with a (special needs) child, with heaven knows what other things going on, but clearly quite mentally incompetent.

The mother is charged with murder, but the father is charged only with manslaughter.

Where is this feeling of deja vu coming from?

Oh yes, this.

One year later:

The father’s defence was that his wife was the only person who could feed and care for their daughter because of her autism, and the mother had never indicated there was a problem with the girl.

What. a. crock.

The father is completely invisible in this account, except as “and her husband” at the beginning of the article. I did see a brief glimpse of him on the news, face pixillated, blaming the Department of Community Services. There’s a certain type of person that will find someone else to blame, no matter how damning the evidence.

So, let me get this straight: you’re an adult living in the same house with your married or de-facto long term partner, and your partner is not coping to the extent where she allows one child to die slowly over a period of weeks or months (with comcomitant disappearance of child, urine stench, etc); you demonstrate a shocking and callous lack of care towards both your daughter and her obviously unwell mother. And you’re considered less culpable.

I’d say he failed both of them. But it seems the Law here in Australia is still blindly essentialist. Or an Ass. Or both.

19 May 2009, Comments (10)

B-I-N-G-O

Author: Helen

For those of you who don’t live in Australia, this is about the Australian rugby team who “sexually assaulted” / “had group sex with” a nineteen year old girl in New Zealand a few years ago (according to our very coy media terminology.) The only player identified so far is Matthew Johns. The incident was reported in an ABC documentary program, Four Corners (Transcript here, and some followup information here.) For further reading, I’d recommend these posts at Radical Rayedish and Hoyden.

For once, the response to the news about the “group sex”, (as they call it), garnered a stronger response than the usual limp slap on the wrist. Matthew Johns was stood down from playing and coaching. He has been made to apologise, twice, on television for hurting his family (although not the victim of the group attack) and was sacked from a lucrative talking heads gig. And all hell has broken loose.

Over the last week or two we’ve all had more than enough in both the internet and mainstream press to fill up our bingo cards several times over. What were you doing out dressed like that?…Hearing this must be so hard for his family!He’s rich. I think we all know what she’s after, hmmm?What did she expect, going off with the two guys?

Where Johns is not being portrayed as a victimised hero (Dear god, he’s only human! How many of us haven’t … Um, well, YMMV), the commentary on what he and the rest of the NRL fraternity get up to is infused with strangely essentialist arguments. One can’t help that suspect that the Evpsych rubbish that filters into the mainstream media is picked up and distorted by people who simply want to justify their behaviour. Radical Rayedish picked up on this astoundingly self-serving and stupid comment by a senior NRL official, who, with a million motivational courses and a dash of pseudoscience under the belt, tries to get all psychological on us:

STEVE BURRASTON, CEO NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS: These guys are pumped up, they are playing a very aggressive game and they are putting their bodies on the line, it’s fearless. …When we want them on the field we want them to be aggressive. They’ve got to make tackles, they’ve got to be fearless, then we want them to do things that other people don’t do. So we attract an aggressive, young, risk taking male. We give him a shower, put a suit on him and then say now we want you to be, you know, a submissive male. We want you to go out there and not have any problems, it’s very difficult to do that.

EXCUSE ME.
Burraston throws up his hands (What can you do?) because apparently, we must allow top sportsmen to use young girls as their personal meatsock, otherwise we have no choice but to make them into submissive males, which you just know he would have described as f**king p**fters except that he knew he was being interviewed by the ABC. What a steaming pile of crap that is.

And there we have it. The obverse of the misogynist distortions of the notion of consent where the woman falls on the wrong side of the madonna/whore complex (she was up for sex with Johns and one other, therefore, she shouldn’t have complained when the rest of the team jumped in, is pretty much the default position.) This is the idea of the manly man as a force that cannot control itself, and requires constant input from women on the right side of the madonna-whore complex to keep him in line. The fact that this is hardly complimentary to the men themselves escapes many commenters, as does the fact that this makes them close ideological kin to the wahabist nutters to whom they claim to be so superior (uncovered meat, anyone?)

But I notice these arguments aren’t used so much for men in other settings. We don’t, for instance, see high-risk-taking rock climbers, parachutists, ocean yachtsmen and sea kayakers regularly fronting up to the cameras pretending to apologise for their latest “gang bang” or euphemism du jour. I’m not sure how Mr Burraston would explain this one. Going around in a pack, poor socialisation, and being paid far too much money and being fawned upon constantly would probably explain more than any faux-psychological excuse based on the need for extra aggression to run around after a leather bladder.

9 Apr 2009, Comments (11)

Pratt, you’re a prat.

Author: Helen

Me (Watching football) Oh, he’s a nice looking guy. But unfortunately wearing the North Melbourne jumper. Thugs!*
SO: No, it’s not true any more. They’ve changed!

Ah mmm, no.

And don’t tell me their oh-so-sincere apology had nothing to do with keeping their major sponsor.