Doug Pollard

Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA


Joined June 13th 2008

Number of Posts:
247

Number of Comments:
126

Karma:
10



Tags & Posts

Bookmark Tags



Popular Tags

Blogs

Doug Pollard's Blogs

4795 Vote(s)
101 Comment(s)
69 Post(s)
13288 Vote(s)
329 Comment(s)
223 Post(s)

I mentor these bloggers

Learn more about the Orble Mentoring Program.


I do not mentor any bloggers.

Recent Posts

SHAMESHAME TOP 25 Part II

November 1st 2009 09:05
Portia & Ellen
Ellen & Portia

It’s that time of year again, time to nominate the 25 allegedly most influential fags and dykes in Australia.

I like the idea of celebrating success in environments where it’s tough and challenging to be out and gay. But looking back over previous lists, some inclusions seem, well, strange.

Like Portia De Rossi, holding down a really challenging gig as a same-sex celebrity wife.

Of course some clearly deserve celebrating, like Love Makes a Family’s Felicity Marlowe, or GLLO Melinda Edwards.

And Matthew Mitcham clearly had some influence, even though Olympic pool sports are already as gay as ice-dancing, or ballroom dancing (with only marginally skimpier costumes).

And please don’t try to make me call the latter ‘dance sports’, or I shall have to start calling three-act ballets ‘triathlons’ – it’s a gay sport, get over it. We let you join in, if you can camp it up enough, don’t we?

But to get back to the subject: there are ‘influential’ out gays and lesbians – even on the SameSame lists - who refuse to use their influence. Won’t front up at rallies to say a few words, sing a song, or just be there, except maybe for a fat fee. Who resent the suggestion that ‘just because they’re gay,’ they have an obligation to ‘give back’ to their own people. Who trot out the line that they ‘don’t want to become a gay poster boy/girl’.

I have my own list of these selfish freeloaders, but I thought it would be more fun to ask people, who’s on yours? So last week on my radio program Freshly Doug (Thursday 9 till Noon, Joy 94.9 Melbourne, streaming live over the web) I launched “The ShameShame Top 25 Influential Gays & Lesbians Who Do Jack Schitt for GLBTI.”

It was an interesting exercise. There were nominees who divided opinion, like Molly Meldrum, who was liked for no discernible reason, but also criticised for saying nothing. At least, nothing anyone could understand.

On the one hand John Michael Howson was panned as ‘simply awful’, a ‘tame poofter’ on shock-jock station 3AW, while others were proud to have him on our side.

Alan Jones was a somewhat less divisive nominee – no-one had a good word for him, with or without his prostate.

Nor for Penny Wong, for putting her career before her community, and for being an out lesbian cabinet member, yet refusing to speak out publicly in support of our rights, and even endorsing the governments ‘separate but equal’ policies.

And Bob Brown may be Green but we think he should be Pinker, leading a pro-gay party but not using that party’s Senate strength effectively on our behalf.

Jonathan Welch and Julie McCrossin each got a serve for ‘pretending to care about the poor’, as one unhappy listener put it, refusing to speak out against the governments failure to grandfather the changes to aged pensions that hit elderly gay couples hard.

High Court Justice Virginia Bell copped it for being ‘a poor replacement for Michael Kirby’ who seems ‘uncomfortable publicly acknowledging her sexuality, let alone advocating for it’.

Some people nominated the Lobbies, for dropping everything else and homing in blindly on gay marriage to the exclusion of almost all else. Others disliked wasting time on 'Orwellian' ideas like 'hate crime' and 'hate speech'. Better call it 'thoughtcrime' and be honest about it.

Do these lists really matter? Isn’t the SameSame awards ceremony just another of those feel-good intra-community events like Divas, Rainbows, Prides, which like all circle-jerks are fun at the time but ultimately a wasted opportunity? Is it anything more than a self-serving publicity stunt to drive web traffic to a not especially interesting website that sources most of its content second hand, unacknowledged and unpaid?

Why else include out, gay and influential nominees who refuse to use their influence for our benefit, like Wong and Brown, or who are simply celebrities who happen to be gay, like Tony Sheldon. He’s a wonderful performer and a lovely man, but really, does being a gay man in musical theatre who leaps into drag at the drop of a handbag really make him ‘influential’?

These cynical inclusions diminish the honour being done to those who really do work hard on our behalf and achieve their influence by doing so. They are the ones really worth celebrating.

(You can see the original ShameShame nominations and comments to date – and add your own - on the Freshly Doug blog at Really Long Link or add a comment below)
34
Vote
   


Making Money Online

November 1st 2009 03:18
Show me the money!
Show me the money! (pic: Knox News)


Rupert Murdoch has been complaining of late that no-one will pay him for all the stuff he puts online. For once in my life, I sympathise with the Great Satan of Media. Three times in as many weeks I’ve been asked to work on websites, and none of them want to pay.

Site 1- Australia: This lot actually got in touch with me and asked me to come in for a meeting.

“Write what you like! Consolidate content from anywhere on the web. We have a terrific technical team, we’ll help you create amazing video blogs and make really cool podcasts.”

“We're offering you a partnership. We know there’s a huge gay market out there, the advertisers will come if we can tap it, you can help us do that.”

Well, sorry guys, I say, but the only gay thing on the web that makes money is sex, and I don’t really do sex. You know, a buff shirtless 20yr old in a jockstrap making a gay video blog might hit the big time like you want, but a rising-60 bear with a belly and manboobs – not so much.

“Oh, it can’t be anything to do with sex. It’s got to be tasteful. Serious. And classy. You have the right profile. You’re quality. We have top flight blue chip advertisers raring to go, begging us to get this off the ground - but they won’t be associated with anything involving gay sex. All you have to do is figure out what will bring in the punters – without sex – and we’ll bring in the advertisers. And we’ll split the revenue with you.”

Yeah, right. But there's no salary. So what if I work the aforementioned man-boobs off for nothing, create the site, and the punters and therefore the advertisers don’t come? How long am I expected to work for nothing before you show me the door – with nothing? No deal.

Site 2 - USA: This was via email.

“Come over to us and we’ll market and promote you around the world. We’ll get you a book deal. A movie deal. You could be the next big thing. We’ll split the book royalties. We’ll take care of all the movie deals.”

See Site 1: Writer works for nothing, unless the site makes money, in which case he hands over most of it to publisher. No deal.

Site 3 – Aus: Gay.

Has ‘vacancies’ for writers, photographers. Sells ad space but doesn’t pay for content – unless you count tickets, CDs, DVDs for reviewers. Otherwise it’s just a namecheck. Most of the writing is superficial rewrites of stuff found elsewhere on the net, without acknowledgement or links. Would 'love' me to write for them. What’s known as a ‘vampire’ site.

Site 4 – Aus: I'll give you 3 guesses.

“We’ll give you your own blog on our site with its own domain name. We’ll promote your work. Set up a Google ad account and we'll split the ad revenue with you.”

But they retain ownership of the domain name, and if you don’t keep up a regular publishing schedule, they take it off you and give it to someone else. And so far I’ve yet to see any promotion outside the main hosting site. Or any ad revenue.

On the other hand, it’s a handy and cost-free online presence that can be used to promote and showcase my work with minimum effort. Deal – for now.

The Price of Vanity

All these sites have willing mugs who work for them for nothing, just for the thrill of seeing their names online. Sure, there’s a (vanishingly small) chance the odd one will be talented and lucky enough to be plucked from obscurity, but most of them will just get plucked.

This is called ‘vanity publishing’, and it’s been around in the real world for years. People with more time and/or money than sense have always been able to have their work published at their own expense, while making money for someone else. And the publishers always promise to promote the work – but only enough to avoid being sued for breach of contract.

So the next time you see an ad for writers/bloggers/vloggers that doesn’t offer a salary, or you're offered a 'partnership' in a site, just remember, someone will be making money out of this or the site wouldn’t exist. But it won’t be you. Good luck.
24
Vote
   


Freeloaders


Every Thursday I now present Freshly Doug on Joy 94.9 from Nine till Noon. And this week we got some lively responses from listeners when I posed the following question:

Australian gay website SameSame.com.au are once again asking for nominations for the top 25 influential gays and lesbians.

I want to know who you would put on a ShameShame Top 25 Influential Gays & Lesbians Who Do Jack Schitt for the GLBTI Community.

Head on over to the Freshly Doug blog to find out who they nominated, and make some nominations of your own, with your reasons why - just use the comments field.

Go to Really Long Link to nominate your ShameShame Top 25 Prominent Gay and Lesbian Freeloaders who benefit from the improvements in our rights while having done little or nothing to help gain them.

Once we have a top 25 I'll put the names to air.

And tune in to Freshly Doug every Thursday Nine till Noon on Joy 94.9FM in Melbourne Australia, or online at Really Long Link




14
Vote
   


GAYS WHO REFUSE TO BE INFLUENTIAL

On this weeks Freshly Doug I asked the following question


[ Click here to read more ]
25
Vote
   


Freshly Doug Thursday October 29

October 28th 2009 09:38

VGLRL & THE ANTI-VIOLENCE PROJECT

[ Click here to read more ]
44
Vote
   


Ireland gets off it's knees

October 28th 2009 09:08
Donal Og Cusack
Out gay Irish hurling champ Donal Og Cusack

Ireland has begun to grow up. When Boyzone star Stephen Gateley died, he was given a full Catholic funeral in St Laurence O'Toole Church in Dublin, with his civil partner Andy Cowles accorded all the respect of a traditional spouse.

[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


Bp John Shelby Spong
Bishop John Shelby Spong


I don't ordinarily post other people's words here, but this is too important not to share


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


Congratulations to Will and PJ for putting together such a great line-up - and all proceeds will go to keeping Joy 94.9, Australia's only full-time GLBTI radio station, on the air.

Call (03) 9699 2949 for tix

[ Click here to read more ]
13
Vote
   


Freshly Doug Thursday October 22

October 21st 2009 06:35
Dep Lord Mayor Susan Riley
Deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne Susan Riley


This week Corey Irlam provides some analysis on a couple of issues: the Human Rights Consultation report, what’s likely to happen next, and when; and as the Senate Marriage Enquiry gears up for hearings here in Melbourne on November 9, is this process going to gain us anything, and how we can help it along


[ Click here to read more ]
14
Vote
   


A Cancer of the Soul

October 19th 2009 08:28
depression


I thought I had pretty much heard it all, until last week, when a friend called me for help


[ Click here to read more ]
14
Vote
   


 

Recent Comments

Comment by Doug Pollard
on SHAMESHAME TOP 25 Part II

November 6th 2009 06:26
Grumpy old pouf, certainly and proudly! And with good reason!
An Australian psychology expert who has been studying emotions has found being grumpy makes us think more clearly. . . . . miserable people are better at decision-making and less gullible . . . . gloominess breeds attentiveness and careful thinking, Professor Joe Forgas told Australian Science Magazine.
He says a grumpy person can cope with more demanding situations than a happy one,
outperform those who are jolly, make fewer mistakes and are better communicators.
Professor Forgas said: " negative moods trigger more attentive, careful thinking, paying greater attention to the external world."
His study also found they were better at stating their case through written arguments. Forgas said a "mildly negative mood may actually promote a more concrete, accommodative and ultimately more successful communication style".

Oh dear Penny Mathew Greg Anonymous, you really don't have a sense of humour, do you? I do my job as journalist, opinionator, commentator, activist, whatever - which involves among many other things putting a rocket up the arse of pollies - and they do theirs. I have no ambitions to sell out like Peter Garrett and BECOME one of them.
Except on very generous terms (joke).

Much food for thought here. Thank you all.
Re Anton Enus - he did speak at the Outgames Melbourne Conference (as well as take part in the tennis), so he's not entirely silent on gay matters.
Re VGLRL, they seem to have fallen asleep rather since Relationship Recognition was achieved, but their spin-offs - Love Makes a Family and Equal Love - are travelling well. Maybe their role is now as an incubator for issue-based pressure groups, rather than as a grab bag for all GLBTIQ issues.
Though personally I do wish people would not waste time on hate-speech and hate-crime legislation - Orwellian thoughtcrime notions. A crime isn't any worse for being motivated by dumbass opinions, and doesn't deserve differential punishment.
Re VAC - no doubt a very worthy organisation but in need of root-and-branch overhaul imho, perhaps a transformation into an advocacy body for all GBLTI health concerns, which are sadly neglected, underfunded and underserved in all other areas except HIV
Re going into politics, I have already offered myself to any party that will parachute me into a nice safe Senate seat, as I could do with a lucrative profession and large pension in my declining years, but sadly, to date there have been no takers! Perhaps my suggestion that I could be a sort-of socialist Barnaby Joyce puts them off.

Comment by Doug Pollard
on SHAMESHAME TOP 25 Part II

November 1st 2009 11:09
I entirely agree that coming out and living your life openly is the single most powerful thing any of can do for yourself and the rest of the community, and it's great that you live that way.
And for most of us, that's all that's necessary. But I think that for as long as we are still treated legally and socially as second-class citizens, people who have a public position have an obligation to use that to help change that situation.
And, for the record, I haven't 'made a career out of being gay'.
I spent a few short years after uni in gay media, but most of my career was in mainstream advertising, PR and technical and commercial authoring (with a sideline in gay retail), which lasted until 15 years ago when I moved to Australia and effectively retired.
Not because I wanted to, but because it proved impossible to get a worthwhile mainstream job, given my age.
Plus I didn't need to. But I found out I'm not cut out to be just a househusband, so I decided to capitalise on my skills and experience and do something useful, and got involved in gay media again, volunteering at Joy, and briefly editing Melbourne Star.
All my current work at Joy and the RJM Trust is voluntary. Only the column is paid work. That's hardly what I would call 'a career'!

Comment by Doug Pollard
on What a show - Sunday Night Extravaganza!

October 30th 2009 06:35
UPDATE

Thanks to everyone who turned out - we had a great night and raised over $1100 for Joy.

A very special thanks to all the artists who performed for free, including four who flew interstate at their own expense.

Doug

Comment by Doug Pollard
on A Whole of Government Initiative

August 23rd 2009 21:17
Altogether now "We are one, but we are many..." Yes, we are all Australian, but we are all also members of minorities - it all depends on how you look at it.
But you can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. I'm all for everyone being viewed as same-same but different, but the govt. has adopted this Social Inclusion concept.
The concept of social inclusion views society as consisting of one dominant majority/mainstream with a number of other groups detached or semi-detached from it.
It was originally devised as a way of describing and dealing with second and third generation disaffected French youths of North African origin who were on the one hand constantly told 'you are French, not Algerian', while at the same time being discriminated against for being 'not really French', i.e., non-white.
A bit like the joke about the boy of Vietnamese ancestry in Glen Waverley being told to 'go back where you came from', answering, 'but I don't like Frankston.'
Since then, as Wikipedia points out, Social Inclusion is like Humpty Dumpty language in 'Alice' - it means pretty much whatever the person using wants it to mean.
This government has adopted social inclusion as an overarching narrative binding together all its activities, it says, so we have to engage them on that ground. Their choice, not mine.
Their particular meaning of the term is not immediately clear - the field suffers from an excess of flowery jargon, perhaps reflecting its French origins, more likely the usual bureaucratic act of making it sound as though a lot is actually being done when in fact there is little, the kind of dead language that conceals rather than communicates - but I have been offered a rather cynical alternative view by a jaded Labor insider, who didn't want to be identified. It went something like this:
"Doug mate, if you think you poofter boys are going to get a sniff of SI, you can think again. SI is about tipping money to the god boys, buying them back from the oppo, keeping them on the team. So we can't let you lot in or the blokes in the red frocks'll run screaming back to the Libs. Doesn't hurt that it buys a lot of feel good, help the downtrodden stuff, on the cheap - all those volunteers, eh?"
I think there is at least an element of truth in this, though probably overstated.
The trouble with adopting the 'we are one, I'm not in a minority' attitude is that people who ARE excluded and do have specific needs related to their gender, sexuality etc., just disappear.
E.g., if we don't appear in the census, in the stats, then government does not see a problem and does not take action.
For example, from another arena entirely: because a lot of homophobic crime isn't reported, or recorded as such, the stats don't show it as a problem, and police command are reluctant to fund fulltime GLLOs.
BTW I asked GLHV about stats re GLBTIQ homelessness, self-harm etc. (at all ages) and was told, with a sigh, that this is one of those catch-22s, there's lots of good anecdotal evidence but a lack of good empirical data, without which it's impossible to attract funding which could be used to look for that empirical data.
That's the excuse beyondblue have been using to ignore us for so long.
If you want to post links to appropriate material online, please go ahead - love to see it.

Comment by Doug Pollard
on You Can't Always Get What You Want

August 16th 2009 07:55
1) This IS humour -sorry if that wasn't clear
2) They're not 'my' Greens, or 'my' AME, my 'Equal Love, 'my' ACE or 'my' anyone
3) The suggestion re the great hall of parliament is serious although presented lightly - and Rainbow Labor ought to be the lead organisers
4) If you all want to know what everyone else is doing, ask them, not me
5) If you want to pull everyone together, feel free, no-one's stopping you
6) The goal is not, and has never been, marriage per se. It is equality. If you know a way to achieve that equality in fact, symbol and social status without including marriage, I'd love to hear it, but I don't believe it can be done
7) I agree that marriage is a roadblock: therefore we should all put aside our misgivings and doubts about marriage, get that done, and then look at a more comprehensive overhaul of relationship recognition for all. It cannot be done the other way round. The recognition that same-sex couples are equals to married couples must be acknowledged and enacted first.. The momentum is there.
8) I am, and will remain, non-aligned to any group. I'm an independent writer and will remain so.

Comment by Doug Pollard
on We're so grateful - not!

August 4th 2009 19:34
Cath Pope will be on Kim and David (Ch 10) on Thursday participating in a debate on same sex marraige agaisnt Lyle Shelton, National Chief of staff from the Australian Christian Lobby.

Comment by Doug Pollard
on We're so grateful - not!

August 4th 2009 06:38
To a little hyperbole, I plead guilty - his exact words are quoted at the beginning on the piece.
But it still sticks in my craw that these people should be thanked in any way shape or form.
Down the years, all the while they were - and this is not hyperbole - persecuting us, we were doctoring and nursing them,entertaining and sustaining them, even marrying, christening and burying them, despite their appalling behaviour towards us.
That's a damn sight more 'Christian' than any of this bunch will ever be.

Comment by Doug Pollard
on Is homosexuality a choice?

July 17th 2009 04:40
Alex, Samantha and other Christians. I know the bible always come up in these discussions. My point is, it shouldn't. We don't live in a Christian country (whether in the US or in Oz) we live in a multifaith, multicultural and I suppose one might argue, post-Christian country.
As such the Bible (Koran, or any other idolised book) may have had relevance historically, but can have none going forward.
Faith and politics are two separate spheres and should not be mixed. It's like everyone in North Korea having to be Communist - the fact of the matter is that no matter how much pressure is applied, not everyone is, and to force them to behave as if they were is a dictatorship of unreason.
I have no objection to you applying Christian (Koranic etc. according to faith ) principles to your own lives, but you have no right whatsoever to advocate for the imposition of your faiths laws on anyone of another faith or none.