Recent Posts
Upholding the values of feminism can, at times, be a labyrinth. To adhere to some basic modern principles of feminism is tricky because the situations in which we can choose to apply the beliefs of feminism can quite quickly turn into conundrums. Where gender roles and status are flagged as ‘issues’ within a certain circumstance or wider issue, navigating what you believe to correspond with a wider set of values that you think you ought to believe in can be a post-modern nightmare.
‘Women in politics’ is one such area that presents, for myself, a series of ambiguous feelings. Fundamentally, of course, it doesn’t. I am a proponent of the school for representation, as essentially female issues cannot be determined by those who are not female. Indeed, in a similar vein, indigenous issues should not be decided upon by those who are not indigenous. This seems to be in line with ideas of democracy, were representation and Locke’s ‘social contract’ are its raison d’être.
What I am talking about, specifically, is the nature of discussion around female representation. One of the good points of the new Labor government is the comparitevly high level of female representation in the cabinet, with women attached to powerful portfolios. Kevin Rudd himself highlighted this positive step. Which leaves me in a quandary: feminists should be pleased at the progress, but at the same time, should this not just be accepted? The female politicians are granted their positions based on merit, and their positions should be highlighted because of their talent or appropriateness, not because they can collectively be grouped as female.
I’m looking forward to a time where the status of females has progressed so far that female political representation is not even considered an issue. I wish for a time where it’s not a big deal that females are in powerful positions, that it is inherently felt as a natural, ‘given’ situation. Mind you, when a single, childless female politician is described as ‘deliberately barren’, it seems as if we have a way to go before equality is really felt between the sexes.
In Victoria, Australia, there is a man. He is an opinionated man. He is a provocative man. He is an employed man. He is a columnist in the state’s most widely read newspaper. His name is Andrew Bolt.
Theories about journalism suggest that media is the cornerstone of democracy (as in free press), this sometimes coming into conflict with the ethical heart of journalism - objectivity. Free speech requires saying whatever one feels, whilst objectivity necessarily requires restraint. Now, where does an opinionate columnist fit into this tricky little conundrum?
The Herald Sun is an absolute disgrace. There goes any chance of me getting a job there, but I don’t care. It is so obviously biased, and its pin-up boy Bolt is the personification of the paper’s general prejudice. Of course, this is hardly surprising given the ownership of the newspaper. Any communications theorist will espouse ‘synergies’ of multinational corporations as being partially responsible for the dilapidation of journalisms objective role. Nobody is contending that old Rupert ‘I’m an American’ Murdoch has no vested interests in the politics of his homeland, that’s for sure.
The absolute unimportant minutiae that this newspaper reports on are embarrassing. Front page stuff: Delta Goodrem and her boyfriend – they’re getting married! Hoorah! Hoorah! Break open the Jacob’s Creek and have a drink to celebrate the most boring woman in the world shacking up with the most boring man! And by god, Katie Holmes has a new hairdo! What will Tom say?
One would think that this country hasn’t just had an election that changed the government for the first time in 12 years. Oh but of course. Right-wing conservative media have no care for a Labor government! Although some, interestingly enough, do…
Bolt earlier this week claimed that conservatism is not dead because Labor had to shift to conservatism in order to win some votes. Now, I agree in parts. There was a shift away from the left, but this is an election. They do what they do to get votes. They went with what they knew had worked in previous elections. I’m pretty damn sure they ain’t gonna stay conservative. Not with Peter Garrett in the cabinet. Come on! He’ll be apologizing to the indigenous all over the place. God love him. The point is, Bolt’s conservatism remained intact if he could demonstrate his support for the new government’s ostensibly conservative ticker (though, support for the new government in general is out of the question).
However, post-election Bolt opinions demonstrate the diabolically misleading comments he was making pre-election. He deigns to inform his readers that the Liberal party is in shambles. Its arrogance and lack of true leadership made them lose the election.
Hmm I wonder what Bolt had to say before the election. Oh on November 7, he said that ‘since it's wrong to say working families have never had it so good, I have a question for Rudd: What year exactly did they have it better? No, I can't remember, either’. I reckon that sounds like a pretty fair endorsement for the government of the day? No room for mentioning the Liberal’s lack of talent or ideas in this opinion piece, anyway.
One day before the election, he basically gave up hope, but condemned Labor voters (not afraid to alienate some of his audience) as weird. ‘How strange this election is,’ he wrote, ‘It's not just that voters seem ready to sack a government that's left them richer than ever. That's weird enough…’
Meanwhile, on November 26, two days after the election, he stated that ‘the Liberals' problems are simple but deadly: at every level they lack talent, ideas, power, money and idealism. Worse, just when many people are searching for a moral purpose, the federal party seems tainted by racism and the meanest opportunism’.
Mind you, this is the complete opposite of what he was saying before they lost. Before they lost, he was encouraging us to vote for them and slagging out the opposition! Despite all the bad qualities he perceived in the Liberal party, he only bothered to divulge them after the election. He held back on the perceived faults of the Liberal party throughout the campaign. He certainly didn’t hold back on Labors faults though, before and after! It’s all so deceptive.
The media is so powerful. As Spiderman said, with great power comes great responsibility. Opinion writers can be dangerous if they are not balanced with an opposing view of an equally talented writer and debater. Bolt is clearly talented, his arguments can be so circuitous at times that he confounds his readers by baffling them with bullshit. Another trick he employs is ferociously debating narrow trivialities, shifting attention away from the wider argument and its pertinence and significance. But if you look at the Herald Sun, Jill Singer is the only one who comes close to being able to represent the lefties, and she is given nowhere near the amount of column inches that their conservative puppet receives.
I don’t see him defending his beloved Liberals now, after they got a total shellacking. I must say I’m disappointed in him. There is an old saying if you mud wrestle a pig, you’re both going to get dirty but the pigs going to love it. I thought Bolt was that pig. He is as weak as the politicians he comments on. It’s all a bit gutless, don’t you think?
Ok and that is the end of this rant. I will leave the Bolt bashing to the secondary school students across the state studying ‘issues’.
Now, I’m no economist. No siree Bob. I’ll leave understanding the economy to accountants and stockbrokers and people who wear nice suits to offset their lack of personality. In fact, in my time studying economics at school I learnt how to pour a pint of Guinness. Two years well spent! I do, however, know a thing or two about politics, and I continue to be baffled about issues residing in the intersection between politics and economics.
Ok, so if you believe the BS, the Liberal party are fiscally conservative, and apparently more able to competently manage our economy. I’m sorry - feel free to call me stupid, ignorant, lacking in understanding or erudition etc etc etc – but I was under the impression that our economy relies on the market.
As far as I can tell, the Australian government has control over what they spend, but not what we spend. To an economic laywoman such as myself, all this talk about the government keeping interest rates low seems incongruous with the fact that the reserve bank sets interest rates. The stock market gauges the demand and supply of gold and oil and all those scarce natural resources that are apparently “so important”. The Australian dollar is likewise determined. Employment rates hinge upon demands of goods and services, which depends upon a public of consumers (including, not exclusively, the government). If anything, the Liberal government implementing a goods and services tax seemed unlikely to encourage people to spend more, limiting the capacity for economic growth.
So when talking about economic management, all they are talking about is the extent to which government is ‘small’ or ‘big’ - on spending? Limited government economically means less imput by government into the economy, but it also means restrictions to our social welfare net and spending on important societal realms such as health and education. And this is a good thing... how?!
Of course, the media laps up all this talk about the economy, because every mo-fo in Australia seems concerned about it. Like its something tangible that can be controlled, like it actually exists, like its something that can tied down with a leash and given a biscuit every now again for behaving itself. Oh how the media loved the tirades against the unions! I think we can all agree that trade unions can be self-interested bullies... but any collective organisation that seeks to protect workers not big business is better than the alternatives.
Alternatives like the WorkChoices system, which seeks to strip workers of their entitlement amid contentions that working seven days and eliminating weekends is some sort of modern reality. Capitalism seems to me the newest form of feudalism. What are we doing now, living to work? That’s what they did in the middle ages! Why don’t we bring back surfs and slaves and capital punishment and time telling mechanisms that involve massive slabs of rock placed in the middle of a field? When are we supposed to have fun? When are we supposed to recover from our hangovers? Trying to vacate ol’ struggles town at work is nigh on impossible.
Call me a commie, but limited government vis a vis the economy strips away at our safety net, which is justified by some via the continuing rhetoric about ‘dole bludgers ripping off honest, hard-working Australians’. I’m sorry, but there are two major things wrong with this discourse. First: ‘hard-working Australians’ is a total oxymoron. (HA!) Second: total reliance on the market to provide jobs for those who need them is fundamentally unsound. The means by which people live is not protected against the ebbs and flows of the market without welfare and social justice.
And don’t get me started on the treatment of those whom legitimately cannot work. Imagine how they must feel, having to justify their lack of paid employment. There is such a stigma attached to not working in this society, who would not want to work? Ok, there are some lazy, selfish bums who spoil the social welfare argument for everyone (you know who you are, you bong-smoking, cock-stroking, Playstation three-playing deadshits) but I think Marx was somewhat on the money: unemployment equals alienation. Mind you, the argument’s natural progression to suggesting that those who can’t work should is certainly not part of my adapted ‘red under the bed’ agenda.
So if the government can control our economy by limited spending (allegedly), then I say screw the economy. Keep those centrelink cheques flying. I want to see a government that doesn’t impinge so much on our social liberties, but spends bucketloads to ensure we have the monetary capabilities to do as we will. Stop making laws about little bullshit trivialities and creating more nightmarish red tape, and start spreading the health, education and social justice love. So what if we end up like Germany in the 1930’s, lugging wheelbarrows of cash to pay for chuppa chupp? Would that be so bad? Oh, hang on…
Regardless, my point remains. Talk of government and the economy is steeped in rhetoric and lacking in depth. Superficialities are what politicians do best; scratch a little deeper and there is nary an iota of evidence in sight to back up their baseless, pointless, boring talk.
I love election day. It’s our day. Citizen’s day. We get to employ our rights to participate in democracy. To employ a group of people to make the important decisions we collectively cannot make for ourselves. To choose appropriate ways to spend the money we provide for the smooth running of our grand national society. To competently represent ‘Australia’ on the international stage.
Yeah, right. I do actually love election day, that’s no lie. I delude myself into thinking my vote counts, like I’m playing a role in the democratic process. But really, when it comes to voting generally we are voting against something, not for something. Voting is often posited in completely negative terms
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (3)
Read More
Comment by bec cameron
on How to back a winning horse by flogging a dead one
Terrifying, really.