Call me a paleo-feminist if you must, Abbott is not good for women

Ah, Miranda. The voice of women everywhere:

As for Abbott's lack of female appeal, he's decisive, fit and virile, for starters, hardly a turn-off to women, although if we could make one request, it would be to pack away the budgie smugglers.

Abbott has no female appeal because of his desire to ensure that no woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body.

But she doesn't stop there.  This morning she declares that "women can't stand his blokeish, confrontational style."

Um, no.

Once again, Devine is completely oblivious (deliberately obtuse?) when it comes to the opinions of women in general and feminists specifically.

The fact is, Abbott's so-called woman trouble is with a particular subset of female - the aggressively secular, paleo-feminist, emasculating Australian broad, for whom unabashed red-blooded blokeishness is an affront of biblical proportions.

They are unrepresentative of women, and disproportionately influential, because they either work in the media or politics or have high-profile, heavily networked careers which mean they are quoted in the media, and their opinions sought after.

For them, abortion on demand, no matter what the circumstances, is a bedrock article of faith. This is the essence of their visceral, red-fanged rage against him. They hold firm to an outdated, 1970s view of feminism that requires unquestioning belief in abortion as a social good.

You know, call me crazy but isn't the right to control your own body something that should be a universal right?  Or, in Abbott's case, a God-given right?

I know, I know.  I'm just being a silly girl. What do I know?


Wait! I'm also a feminazi who thinks abortions should be available at the McDonalds drive through!!!!

According to Miranda, Abbott's opinions on abortion are mild. He doesn't want to ban it, he just wants to make sure they are harder to get. Oh, and obviously women who need them are less virtuous.

Abbott's pronouncements on abortion in the past have been considered, mild and unthreatening to the legal status of the procedure, but to paleo-feminists, the fact that he is a male practising Catholic who dares to express his private beliefs is secular apostasy punishable by social and political death.

[...]

''Every abortion is a tragedy and up to 100,000 abortions a year is this generation's legacy of unutterable shame,'' he said in 2006.

[...]

''Even those who think that abortion is a woman's right should be troubled by the fact that 100,000 Australian women choose to destroy their unborn babies every year … I fear there is no satisfactory answer to this question … Governments can't legislate for virtue but shouldn't be indifferent to it either.''

When a politician makes comments like that, it is threatening to the legal status of the procedure. Take QLD politics for one. Women are held hostage by antiquated laws and a government who is too scared to take a stand!

Let's not forget that until the government voted to strip then Health Minister Abbott of the right to maintain a ban on RU486, he had control over women's bodies to a certain degree. And he was not happy with that action.

Mr Abbott, who was fiery ahead of the vote, telling parliament Australia's abortion rate was seen by some as "almost ... a badge of liberation from old oppressions", accepted the defeat.

"I am disappointed that the bill has passed but am confident that the TGA will exercise its additional responsibilities with the utmost professionalism," Mr Abbott said in a statement.

He held a power that no one person should have the right to.

So, regardless of his ability to do actually do the job, or to successfully lead a major political party, we have to remember that at the moment - Tony Abbott is the alternative Prime Minister.  That's not so good for women in Australia.

That's the real reason why women don't like him.  They don't trust him. They know his record.

Hai

Yeah.  I know.  I KNOW.

Sorry.

But I can't say it won't happen again.

I've been terrible these past couple of months, haven't I?  Well ... whoops.

Suppose I should get everyone caught up.

Well, the biggest thing to happen is that Bron has moved in (temporarily).  That's right.  She moved up to Brisbane just to be with me (any other claims she makes are pure fantasy).  Should I tell her that I don't like her like that?

Last week was the Christmas party that I've been on the committee for all year.  And can I just say - NEVER AGAIN.  I had a mini breakdown last week when stressing over the music.  Was not pretty.

Although the party was great, even if I do say so myself.

Ummm...

Yeah.  That's about it, really.  Just the usual work and home crap.  I've been neglectful of this, of other blogs, of reading, of doing all kinds of things.  I apologise.  But I can't say it won't continue.

But I will try harder.  Promise.

Jebus

Seriously.  What the fucking fuck?

Labia is the new black!

Suzy Freeman-Green has a piece in The SMH today about how raunch culture is to blame for the increase in labioplasty.

With female genitals on display like never before, there's bizarre new pressure on them to conform to a uniform look. Recently, ABC news reported on concerns about the popularity of vaginal plastic surgery. More than 1200 Australian women a year are said to undergo a procedure known as labioplasty, which trims and reshapes the labia minora.

Dr Ted Weaver, president of the Royal Australian and NZ College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told me he believes this figure grossly underestimates the number of women getting ''designer vaginas''. Such surgery, he says, is dangerous, costly and largely unnecessary. (In rare cases, it may be medically required). Labioplasty can have damaging after effects including scarring, infection and painful sex. And despite the claims on some cosmetic surgery websites, he says there's no evidence it will improve your sex life.

Weaver believes labioplasty often preys on women's feelings of insecurity. Doctors should instead be trained to explain to them that genital appearance can vary greatly and surgery is not the answer. ''She doesn't have to conform to a picture that she might have noticed in a girlie magazine.'

As someone who has seen her fair share of vaginas* in either magazines or in porn, I can't say I've ever seen any that "conform" to a particular look. Sure, the pubic hair is commonly non-existent (to the point where when you do see it, it comes as a surprise), but as for the labia, it's pretty varied.

Or maybe I'm just seeing the wrong ones.

There's no doubt that raunch culture places pressure on women to look a certain way, but does this really extend to genitalia?  Personally, I'm placing bets on society's expectations of women as a whole, but primarily when it comes to sexual norms.

Growing up, girls are taught to be ashamed of both their bodies and sex.  That to want sex, to desire anything, is bad unless it benefits others.   How many women fail to tell their partner that they haven't had an orgasm?  How many women have never had an orgasm?

To want something sexually must mean that we're selfish, or slutty.

This shaming extends to our bodies.  We're always told they're never right.  That we can always be better.  So naturally, this insecurity would extend to genitalia.

A recent article in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology reported on a qualitatative study of six women who'd had labioplasty. (In Britain, the incidence of this surgery has doubled in the past five years). All felt as if their original genital appearance was odd. Yet most revealed uncertainty about what ''normal'' women's genitalia should look like.

The women reported anxiety about their sexual partners seeing or touching their genitals. While some spoke of discomfort, the authors noted that this, rather than appearance, might be emphasised as a way of legitimising their request for surgery. After the procedure, the women were less self-conscious, but their expectations of better sex were not necessarily met.

Importantly, the authors noted that the vagina is often negatively represented in wider culture and depicted as ''a viable site for beautification and normalisation''. Women's magazines ''present a social norm that women's genitalia should be invisible and that there should be a smooth curve between the thighs with no protruding labia''.

I'm not saying that there are women who don't benefit from labioplasty -- but frequently this is due to psychological or physiological reasons rather than desire to "conform" to specific look.

Of course, you will get women who think that they look weird and want surgery, but this again comes down to body shaming.

Lack of understanding of our own bodies is also a factor.  How many women reading this actually know what their labia look like?  Their clitoris? Have explored them for themselves?  (When I was a teenager a doctor told me that one of the best things a woman can do for herself is to watch what happens to her vagina when she masturbates.) We can be our own worst enemies.

It's not just women either, men have their own insecurities about their penises, and there are those who do have surgery to "correct" what they see as undesirable.

When you get down to it though, it comes back to what your mum always told you:  people are too busy with their own insecurities to focus on your perceived flaws.

So I disagree.  While the the desire for genital surgery can be partially due to the increased sexualisation of popular culture, I think there are much deeper reasons behind it.



* when using the term "vagina" in post, I am actually referring to the vulva, clitoris, labia and vaginal opening.  Easier to be general than specific all the time though.  So "vagina" it is!

By all means, be a feminist, but you'll be a freak

Britain has a Miranda Devine, and his name is Quentin Letts:

Women drink because they are trying to show how free they are. Here, sisters, is an unwelcome dividend of female emancipation.

Liberation has led to loucheness, a way of life which brings its own imprisonment.

Emmeline Pankhurst would be horrified, but this is where the remorseless quest for rights has taken the fairer sex. It has overshot liberty and landed in a sweaty jungle where women are equal to men in squalor and excess.

They are expected to get as plastered as the blokes and any girl who sticks to a nice pineapple juice will be unfairly mocked as 'frigid'.

This just makes me sigh.

It's a common argument made by people who, whatever their reason, feel the need to put the boot into feminism.  And what a worn out old shoe that is getting to be.

Who do we have to blame for all this behaviour?  Well, Germain Greer of course! Now, I'm no Greer fan.  In fact I can barely tolerate her, but I think it is a bit extreme to put her face to this.

Greer's primary concern is sexual equality.  Forget social, racial, or any of the other aspects of feminism, she is about sexual freedom.  Very much a product of her generation.

Sexual liberation was a huge thing in the 60s and 70s.  With sex being such a taboo subject for so long, it's easy to see how many people would have moved to the opposite end of the scale, but is that, and feminism on the whole, really to blame for the behaviour of young women (and men) in the 21st century?

Hell no.

Many would point to Kinsey as being the (mainstream) catalyst for the sexual revolution.  Then in the 70s, with Shere Hite's timely report on female sexuality, it was taken to a higher level -- so, when people think of feminism in that era, they think about sex.  This is a misconception that carries through to today.

Letts is taking the proclamations of one woman -- someone who not only doesn't speak for the movement that has no spokesperson, but who has a very narrow view of feminism -- and ascribing them to an entire social phenomena.

I mean, how could parents possibly be held partially responsible for the way their children have grown up when it is the feminists who are telling them that it is OK to do whatever they want?!  Like it or not, we are products of our upbringing.  We are influenced by our family, our friends. These are the primary behavioural cues that we take. 

They have lost the centuries-old idea of being demure in public. The sort of slender-lipped, self-questioning, hesitant lover played by Celia Johnson in David Lean's 1945 film Brief Encounter is now found only in recently arrived immigrant families.

The native British girls have become fat-faced 'ladettes', goose pimples rising on the skin of their exposed thighs as they clack-clack-clack along the pavement en route to the weekend disco, destination bonk.

Demure?  Call me a hairy-legged sex-crazed man-hating feminist whore, but the word "demure" conjures up visions of girls and women being told they aren't as smart as men, should be seen and not heard, should get back in the kitchen and do women's work.

So fuck being demure.

As I've mentioned before, there is a double standard that still exists that determines that women should be in control while men are studs who should be allowed to run free.  Who do they think these girls are having sex with?  Granted, some will with each other, but ultimately it takes (at least) two.  So I don't see how this can be entirely held up as being the fault of feminism, when the only claim it can make is that these women now feel free to behave however they choose.

So, as usual, someone with a grudge against women behaving "like men" has their knickers in a knot and decides to blame feminism.

It's not just about sex, either.

Feminism is to blame for rising statistics in violence against women.

Well yes, I'd agree with that.

Because women feel more empowered to report it.  As do the men who suffer from violence from women.

But no, it's because men don't feel constrained by the patriarchy anymore either!  Those feminists, they opened the door to permitting men to show open disrespect of women.  Before, it was pure subtlety.  The little women didn't feel at all condescended to when told they couldn't participate in something because they wouldn't understand.

But the loss of dignity they entailed meant that the standing of women deteriorated.

With that, the conduct of men worsened. They no longer felt they owed their female acquaintances any sort of behavioural discount.

Statistics suggest that violent behaviour against women - and even by women against men - has risen. If women were to be treated equally, as Miss Greer demanded, surely it became no worse to hit a woman than a geezer. So certain cavemen seemed to think.

The very notion of being a gent became redundant if men and women were the same.

So really, feminists are to blame when your partner strikes you.  Did someone tell Rhianna?

Letts goes on to indulge himself some more and infer that women who are ridiculed and vilified for behaving as though they are equal to men are stupid.

There was an arrogance to Germaine Greer's sermonising, a privileged blindness to the fact that gender liberation might be amusing for a university graduate such as herself, but was less practicable for poorer, less cerebral women.

What about the low-paid shop-girl who followed Miss Greer's creed, bedded numerous men and then found herself up the spout and shunned in her provincial town as the local 'bicycle'?

Why hold the people of the "provincial town" responsible for their behaviour when she bought it on herself by sleeping around?

And finally, naturally, feminists are bad for the family.

And so the institution of marriage, which has done more than anything over the centuries to glue society together, is weakened.

This suits the equality freaks. They hate marriage. All that 'love, honour and obey' stuff shivers their timbers. Yet married couples stay together longer, produce stabler children and generally have a kinder, happier time than their cohabiting counterparts.

How different things might have been if Germaine Greer had become a happily married mother. But she was that rare bird (dangerous word), a sexual nomad, in sway to the new, her own experience of marriage being a three-week dalliance - and even during that she managed to be unfaithful.

Feminist freaks! Marriage destroyers!  Society killers! 

Why can't you be more demure?  It would do society the world of good.

Lawrence Springborg makes baby Jeebus cry

(Actually, he makes everyone cry)

Single?  Gay?  Want a kid but need to access surrogacy?  No can do if Lawrence Springborg has his way.

Under the laws he introduced, only married and defacto heterosexual couples who have been together for at least two years would legally be able to have a child by surrogate.

"The Bill will make certain that young Queenslanders born through an eligible surrogacy arrangement will be cared for in a safe, stable and nurturing family and home life right through their childhood,"' Mr Springborg said.

"The Bill also makes it clear that the only form of surrogacy which will be legal, will be non-commercial and for heterosexual couples only. Same sex and single surrogacy arrangements will remain illegal."

But why?  Oh why?

The Borg is protectin' y'all from "social engineers who wish to use the opportunity to redefine the mainstream understanding of family".  Duh.

The thing you gotta understand about the LNP in Queensland is that they love to live in the past.  Teh wimmins can't be having abortions if they so choose; teh poofs can't be having kids if they want.  It's their way of protecting the sanctity of the 18th century.  Because someone's got to.

Someone has to stand up for the rights of the poor, downtrodden hetero couples who want kids.  Because no-one else ever does.  Married straights can't walk the streets of Brisbane with their kids without suffering looks from pregnant women who wish they weren't up the duff.  Or from facing ridicule when they walk into a shopping centre and look for the parents room, only to find that teh gays have taken it over for their weekly rainbow cupcake stall.

Oh, the humanity!

Won't someone think of the straight couples just this one time‽

Pre-existing conditions for all!

I've been following the health-care debate in the US over the past few months with interest. Not just because I'm curious about what will happen (I'll probably do a post on Saturday's passing of the health-care bill in the House of Reps this weekend. Stupak amendment centric.) but because of the stories that are coming out of it.

We all know that health care in the US is abysmal.  What is utterly appalling however, is the lengths to which companies will go to either not cover people, nor not pay out their claims.

A campaign that has come out of all this is A Woman Is Not A Pre-existing Condition. 

That such a campaign even has to exist speaks volumes.  Women (and men, too) have been told that certain aspects/situations in their lives come under the "pre-existing condition" clause, and therefore they are either unable to be covered at all, or they have to jump through ridiculous hoops in order to obtain health coverage.

Take, for example, Chris Turner.  She was raped and went to her doctor to get antiretrovirals HIV because it was unknown whether her rapist used a condom.



Or women who have had caesarean-sections are likely to have them again and therefore those previous pregnancies are pre-existing conditions. Oh, but they'll cover you if you'll undergo sterilisation.

Are you, or have you ever been in a relationship in which you suffered domestic violence?  Pre-existing condition.

Oh, and babies are denied coverage as well.

What if you've got coverage and experience an emergency.  Like, say, a bleeding nipple?

When Daly City resident Rosalinda Miran-Ramirez woke up one morning in April to find her left breast bleeding from the nipple, she panicked. The shirt she had been sleeping in was saturated with blood. So her husband took her to the emergency room at Seton Medical Center.

"In my mind I know something serious is going on," said Miran-Ramirez. "I need to see a doctor."

Doctors found a tumor and initially told her she had breast cancer. A biopsy later proved that assumption false; the tumor was benign.

But Miran-Ramirez said the real shock came when her insurance company, Blue Shield of California HMO, which had initially approved the claim for the emergency room visit, reversed course and sent her a new bill three months later requiring her to pay the total charges for that visit: $2,791.00.

Why? Documents from Blue Shield indicate the company had reviewed the case and determined Miran-Ramirez "reasonably should have known that an emergency did not exist."

"I am like how can they say that it was not an emergency? Like, my breast was bleeding! I am not a clinical person but if your breast is bleeding, for me that's an emergency," she said.

So she appealed. And she was denied again This time Blue Shield told her she hadn't been in "any acute distress."

I'm not so sure about you, but if I woke up to find one of my nipples bleeding I'd a) be distressed and, b) consider it an emergency.

Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition.  Being a human being is not a pre-existing condition.

Song for a Sunday

True Blood is an awesome show and one of the highlights is the theme song.  It took a couple of episodes before I let it really sink in and now I love it.

Enjoy:

So, one night I went walking

Been busy / lacking inspiration these past few weeks, so haven't written.  Heaps has been going on, but I won't write about it.

Instead, let me tell you what I got up to last night.

Miss-a-ree, Melly and I left work at 4:30 yesterday and caught a bus over to Southbank.  We were heading to the MS Moonlight Walk.

The walk is an annual event that raises money for MS.  This year's goal was $80,000.  As at 5:30 last night, the MS Society was only $10,000 off that.  I don't (knowingly) know anyone with MS, but when I found out Miss-a-ree was doing the walk, I decided to join her.  I'm glad I did.

How far were we walking?  10km.

(click to enlarge)

This was also my first charity walk. Talk about diving in at the deep end.

I was a little concerned that I'd hit about halfway and just want to give up. But, I'm happy to say, I didn't feel like that until about the last 1 km.  At roughly the 8 km mark I started to feel it in my upper thighs, and once we got over the Goodwill Bridge, you didn't really have to say much for me to just start reacting a little hysterically. (Granted, probably not helped by Melly's "dancing".)  I really had to push myself for about the last half a kilometre.

But, about one and three-quarter hours later, we made it across the finish line.

First mistake was stopping.

Second was finding a bench and sitting down.

Third was listening to the scary woman singing.

Forth was getting home and realising that I didn't have any bubble bath.  In retrospect, this was probably a good thing -- I'm not sure if I'd have been able to get out once I got in.

Interestingly, I'm nowhere near as sore today as I expected.  Oh, I'm still sore, but aside from realising I have muscles behind my knees, it's not really anything I've not felt before (particularly after packing and unpacking the house in January this year).  It's a particularly satisfying soreness though.

The course itself was partially unknown to me.  While I've walked from Ivory Street, down the boardwalk, through the gardens and over the Goodwill Bridge (not all in the one walk), I've never gone along Kangaroo Point or walked over the Story Bridge.  So that was good.

I regret not taking pictures.  But I had a good pace going and didn't want to falter in case I just decided I couldn't do it any more.

Before the start, however, I took this photo of one of the teams:

We had ourselves a steampunk team!  The outfits were brilliant.  I think they may have been from Energex (if the lanyard I spotted on one of them was anything to go by.)

There were also Stormtroopers.

All-in-all it was a lot of fun.

That's awesome -- but what about the rest of us?

A report into the "state of young people" shows disturbing levels of mental and physical illness among Australian teenagers.

The study was commissioned by the Federal Government and was launched this morning by the Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis.

ABC

Naturally, I want to focus on the mental-illness side of this.

I think it is pretty damn awesome that the government is recognising mental-illness in teenagers.  That is when the signs will generally start to appear -- partially caused by increased pressure to perform well at whatever you do.  Add bullying and all the normal teenage baggage and you're just ripe for it.

As an aside, I realised a couple of months ago that when I was 15 I actually had a hypomanic episode.  Was it the first?  I don't know.  But now that I see it for what it actually was, it makes all kinds of sense.  But I digress.

I applaud the government for wanting to tackle mental-illness in youth. 

But what about the rest of us?

Back in March I ranted about the preposterous approach the LNP said they would take should they win the QLD election.

I stand by everything I said there -- including the criticism of the state government.  Sadly, this criticism can be extended to the federal government as well.

There is also the ongoing expense.  Not just for people suffering from mental-illness, but for anyone who has a chronic health condition that must be managed with the help of medical intervention.  But nothing is done.

Mental-illness continues to be mostly ignored by government despite continual evidence that it is becoming diagnosed more frequently.  Sure, some of the diagnoses are erroneous, but that doesn't make the increase illegitimate.

Dealing with depression etc in teens is a fantastic start.  But there is so much more that should be done for the community at large.

Because I can

You all know I love Salma.  This was what did it back when I was an innocent:

Older woman / younger man - not weird

Let's get one thing straight from the outset.

This is a cougar:

This is not:

It amazes me in this day and age that society still feels the need to label women in a disparaging way.

What do I mean? Well, for years a woman with many sexual partners was called a "slut" (even a "whore"), yet a man in the same situation was a "stud". For the most part nowadays, unless you are stuck back in the 20th century, the "slut" label is applied to both or neither sex. Huge step forward.

But now, a new label - cougar - is all the rage. For the record, I loathe the term. It implies that any woman who is attracted to / sleeps with / has a relationship with a younger guy* is a predator.

Get the fuck out.

It buys into the belief that older women are unattractive, while playing on the shame that society thrusts upon us for having the temerity to age. And single women in their 30s or older?  Must be desperate / feel the ticking of that biological clock.  Gah!

What has caused this little tirade of mine?  An article in the NYT talking about a study that finds the older woman / younger man to be more acceptable than one would expect.

“For a long time we’ve been fed this idea that women should look for a man to take care of her, a man that is more educated, has a better job and makes more money,” said Sandra L. Caron, a professor of family relations and human sexuality at the University of Maine. “That might be fine and dandy if you’re in high school and have this fairy tale Prince Charming. But when you look at adult women, most are self-sufficient and they don’t have to look for that.”

Dr. Caron is an author of a 2006 study of couples in which the wife is at least 10 years older, which found surprisingly positive attitudes among the couples, although fear of stigma and insecurity about aging for the women, in particular, were common.

The study, published in the Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, reported that the couples thought their age difference mattered more to the outside world than to them, and that the men were more strongly drawn to the relationships at the start because of physical attraction.

Consistent with most other research and what many relationship experts are saying about these connections, the authors found that women liked the vitality the younger man brought into their lives, and men liked the maturity and confidence in the women, although generational differences sometimes made both partners uncomfortable. Others have also cited infidelity as a stronger possibility in any relationship with a large age difference.

“Initially I thought I would find more issues,” said Nichole R. Proulx, the lead author of the study, who is a marriage and family therapist in Maine. “But it’s a relationship like any other, despite what society might say. I thought I’d find that he looks at her like his mother, more inequality, more power struggles.”

Looks at her like his mother? What happened to being attracted to someone because of who they are? A younger guy won't see an older woman as a mother figure any more than a woman sees an older man as a father figure. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but the assumption that it is the primary attraction is insulting to both parties.

The term cougar raises hackles among women who say the image of a wild animal, however sleek and beautiful, prowling for victims — or an army of Mrs. Robinsons on the march for men young enough to be their sons — is demeaning. Ms. Moore, who has been married to Mr. Kutcher for four years, has been described as a cougar, but so have sex-starved women slinking through bars for young men to satisfy nothing but physical needs.

According to the Urban Dictionary, which lists many definitions of cougar too unsavory to print, the cougar woman is generally at least 35 — and always on the hunt — while many of the Hollywood and tabloid depictions put the women in their 40s, 50s and even 60s. Sociologists studying these relationships generally are looking at women of those ages involved with men 10 to 15 years younger.

The older woman, if she is what some relationship experts refer to as the “Samantha prototype,” a reference to the “Sex and the City” character who has a strong sexual appetite for younger men — and anyone else for that matter — may well be looking merely for a boy toy.

Even I, who didn't watch Sex and the City, know that Samantha had her most fulfilling (and genuine) relationship with a younger man.

Age disparity does not automatically discount an attraction between two adults.  There's this crazy idea, let me run it by you, that people are attracted to others over the long term due to their compatibility.  A shocking concept, I know, but one that the article seems to completely ignore.

Hmmm.  Let's try to understand these couples.  I know! They're together because it "makes perfect sense when it comes to life expectancy, with women outliving men by an average of five years."

*headdesk*

Rebecca Traister in Salon hates the term "cougar" as much as I do:

Original "Cougar" author Valerie Gibson has claimed that the term was coined as derogatory (no shit!), in reference to older women who went out drinking and went home with whatever guys were left at the end of the night -- like the weakest members of the pack, see? And even though women are making extravagant efforts to reclaim it as empowering, it remains offensive and dehumanizing on almost every level, as "Daily Show" senior women's issues commentator Kristin Schaal illustrated in a piece in which she had an animal handler carry a grown woman to the news desk, Jack Hanna style, so that Jon Stewart could examine her up close: "Do you want to hold her, Jon?"

I won't lie. The possibility of having a relationship with a much younger man makes me a little uncomfortable. How could it not, given how we are bombarded with such negativity about such relationships?  But I wouldn't let it stop me.  Screw society.  If you're happy with the person you're with, why does age (or yes, even gender) have to matter?  It doesn't.

Susan Sarandon, a woman I have admired for many years, happens to be in a relationship with Tim Robbins who is 12 years younger than her.  From all that I've read and seen, they couldn't be happier.  And that is the whole point of relationships, not age differences.

As Traister so succinctly puts it: "People fall in love. They couple. They are sometimes the same age, sometimes not."





* It's easier for me to stick with heterosexual relationships in this discussion, but please be aware the gay community has their own variety of slang for age disparity in relationships.

Song(s) for a Sunday

Jazz.

I've always liked it, never been much for following it hugely though.  Since I was 18 I've loved George Clinton / Parliament and the variations thereof.  My introduction to Clinton was via the not all that great Jeremy Piven film, PCU: Pit Party.  The song?  Atomic Dog:



It's been sampled all over the place, so don't be surprised if it sounds familiar in places.

I was introduced to Weather Report by a friend and I have to admit that after listening to a few things on YouTube, I love them as much as Clinton and co.  My introduction to them was this:

Apologies

Sooooo sorry about not posting much of late.  I've been distracted by other things.

I've got about 6 half-written posts in draft, I just need to pull my finger out and actually finish them.

Not enough hours in the day. 

Song for a Sunday

Woke up this morning in a rip-snorter of a foul mood and a desire to listen to this:

Got wood?

It's always annoying when you send a text, write a tweet or blogpost, make a comment on Facecock and realise just as you post it that there is a typo.

This afternoon I sent the following text to a friend of mine: "But I think they'll notice the tent in your pants".

However, before I hit send I realised I'd actually left off a crucial letter and was about to comment on the "ent" in his pants.

I corrected it of course, but now wish I'd left that "t" off.  If nothing else, I'm sure he would have appreciated the comparison.

Brain blurt

Life has been weird over these past few weeks.

Understandable, since they've not been exactly run-of-the-mill, but it has had its surprises.  And a good kind of weird.

(Actually, I want to take this moment to give a shout out to those friends of mine who have helped keep me sane over these past few weeks.  You guys are awesome.  And thank you to the people who have sent me messages - I've really appreciated them.  xx)

I've taken just over two weeks off work because of the death of my grandma.  I think that normally one week would suffice but I was worried about my mood and the possibility that I wouldn't really be hit with reality until after the funeral.  And I was right.  I've been fluctuating in and out of potential depression and hypomania for about a week now.  I'm a bit concerned that it won't be over by the time I head back to work (Thursday) but some of that is also my fault - I've not been taking care of myself the way I should.

Take sleeping for example.  I think I've mentioned before that if I don't get enough sleep I have to be careful about not slipping into a manic episode.  Overall I've been pretty good, but I've been very lax in the "keeping to a regular sleep schedule" thing.  And when I do go to bed at a decent hour with the intention of falling asleep, it doesn't come.  I can't shut off my brain.  Again, another manic sign.

BUT, aside from the sleep thing, and the major irrits that come with it, things have been better than expected.  I've been avoiding people, for the most part.  This helps keep the irritability low, since it is inevitable that someone will do something that will shit me.  I've not been beating myself up about not doing stuff that I plan to do. Taking each day as it comes, so to speak.  Of course, the house is a mess and could do with a clean but what's a little mess compared to the other?  I just won't let anyone in if they come knocking on my door!

And then there are the headaches.  Caused, in part by the lack of sleep, but mostly (I think) because I've been spending far too much time on this here computer box thing.  Of course, complaining about this while using said computer box thing doesn't help.  But I'll run away from it in fear when I've posted this.  I promise.

So now that I think about it, the purpose of this post was to just have a whinge.  Nothing new, then.

Best that I go, then.  Sit on the lounge and read a book and/or watch tele.  Stay away you evil temptress, Internets!  Stay away!!!!!11!!1!

Vatican: Everyone else is doing it, why can't we?

(Logo for the 1973 Catholic Church's Archdiocesan Youth Commission)

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

He added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

The statement concluded: "As the Catholic church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it."

guardian.co.uk

Apparently  the Catholic Church is conveniently forgetting that 1.5% - 5% of sexual abuse is 1.5% - 5% too much.

No one is denying that they are the only church to harbour paedophiles - the Vatican is not the only organisation to do so.  What they appear to not understand is the hypocrisy in their behaviour.

The Catholic Church likes to believe they are the only ones who can tell you what is moral and right.  They are the most outspoken of the Christian faiths in this regard.  You can't have sex outside of marriage; you can't use contraception.  Fall pregnant and have an abortion and you're going to Hell.  Indulge in some same-sex lovin' and you're gonna burn, baby.  These are just some of their dictates relating to sex.

When an organisation whose mainstay is to moralise does not pass judgement on any of their own who violate their so-called laws, it's understandable that people are going to vilify them.  They will receive the bulk of the negative attention.

Of course, sophistry is what the Catholic Church does best, so not only are they basically asking everyone to leave them alooooooooooone, they also say: BTW we're not harboring paedophiles thankyouverymuch - they're ephebophiles and that makes it all A-OK!

Tell that to the children who have had their lives marred by sexual abuse.  I don't believe linguistics is going to make any difference to them.

Meanwhile Poland, the country where the last Pope was born (and who, ironically, want Polanski to be freed), will now be castrating paedophiles*.


* Before the outrage begins, I don't believe castration is the answer, either.