The disappearance of centre and the emergence/re-emergence of new activism

So how about a post that doesn't relate to representations of women on television or film....I'll even use a show that I like but which has a less than perfect record on that front for some illustrations.

Instead I bring you some thoughts on recent weeks in Australian politics. As regular readers will know, I was less than happy with the result of the last election (I expressed my expected deep disappointment before we even had a result, mainly using West Wing gifs in the post you can find by clicking here). The last few months I have had near daily reminders of my sadness at this result as the Abbott government developed exactly the kind of policy decisions that I had anticipated. The Abbott governments has done many things I disagree with profoundly but today I'm focusing on one negative and one (two sided) positive (yes I found one).

When I say that I focus on one negative, many of you will ask only one? As is abundantly clear from my blog, I live squarely on the left side of politics so you can take it as read at this point that I despise the government's policies on asylum seekers, the environment, education, media funding, health funding, etc etc...right down to and including the joke and mass waste of money that is reintroduction of knighthoods (I've spent a lot of the last week hoping the government was kidding on that). I could write blogs on all of these matters at LENGTH but I'm leaving that for now. My negative for the today focuses on something else...the big question of why did the centre go?

Now part of me would love it if everyone agreed with me politically but that would be boring and also I feel that sometimes we might need the right to pay the bills and make the trains run on time (theoretically at least, years of a Liberal government in NSW and we got a rebrand and are getting Opal cards but the trains and buses still often aren't on time). In the end the important thing is that political views are a continuum, otherwise it is just the middle to far left screaming at the middle to far right and vice versa. We need a political centre, those people who are slightly left or right who are usually left on social issues and conservative on financial matters. They are the buffer for the screams...they keep us balanced, no puns intended they get us centred. The problem is that the policies of the Abbott government have created a void. The left have got mad and often moved further left by the minute. Many of those in the centre have feel so disenfranchised that they have not so much shuffled but more sprinted to the left to join in on the anger. The right have got defensive and have moved further right. There is no centre... there is only the void, the darkness and the anger. Thanks to the T.E.A. party in particular, this has been an issue in the States for a few years now and so I bring you a clip from Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom- the most famous clip from the first season possibly- to show someone who is centre right struggling to be just that...

The thing is there is not one thing in this speech I, as a leftie, disagree with on a basic level and it is fascinating to watch as the show attempts to create a centre right figure in a world where they increasingly don't exist. We even had them in the parliament too...back before the election...

Bring back the centre, please Tony! To quote Newsroom again, "Facts are the centre"!

So that is the negative....you may continue to be perplexed by my finding a positive but it is this. As was noted in V for Vendetta, "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people". Finally it seems the populace of Australia is waking up to this fact and is calling the government to account on their myriad irksome policies. This means that we are seeing a new form of activism and the rebirth of an old form of activism. Most people I know have political views and they hold them strongly but they are suddenly feeling that this prime ministerial term, or at the very least this year, is the time to take that politics to the streets and to actively engage in social justice. I have gone to more protests/events and signed more petitions and written more letters since this government came to power than I have in all of my previous years combo-ed, and I lived through and occasionally protested, signed petitions and wrote letters about the Howard government for 12 years (especially the last 7 of those years when I was at university). The breadth of the dissatisfaction with this government created a new form of activism, for Australia at least. People who disagree with the government would be unable to work if they were actively engaging in protesting all the policies they are dissatisfied with. The way to respond to this is the March in March protests. Now these protests were flawed and seemed to work on the base line that we could overthrow the government just by protesting (if only), but there is brilliance in the idea too. The March in March protest allowed people to voice their anger on many issues instead of just one (effective!) and it also allowed the protest to be large enough to get decent news cover global so it showed foreign governments that as the government tried to sell their policies overseas Australians weren't happy and it showed ex-pats that the people back home were angry. The second form of activism that I'm happy to see making a reappearance is the religious communities of the country getting vocal on social justice. The leaders of multiple faiths came (or sent people to speak for them) to a vigil I attended in Sydney and there was more solidarity across the common humanity represented there than I have ever seen. Multiple Christian social justice organisations have been started over the last few months to seek to help with the plight of refugees. It is both amazing to see the solidarity and AWESOME to see Christians living out the welcome that they are call to give outsiders.

There is my negative and my positive for this week. If people want the names of the Christian social justice groups that I've mentioned, comment and I'll give you them. Just to finish so you don't think I've forgotten another Newsroom clip that sums up some (those not all) of the anger I continue to have regarding the government's policies on refugees (wait for it as I'm pretty sure it is towards the end of the clip).

"Underneath that angry young woman show, there's a slightly less angry woman who's just dying to bake me something."

Once upon a time I wrote blog posts on things that weren't related to representations of women in pop culture...but it seems my blog has developed a theme and sadly this isn't the post to break it. Maybe next time...

Today I invite you all to get EXCITED! Insanely excited! Ladies and gentlefolk, one of the strongest female characters in TV genre fiction is BACK!

So flashback to 2003...Buffy was ending, Firefly had ended, and we knew Angel was also on the way out. With the Whedon's collections of amazingly complex intelligent female characters on their way off our TV screens, the TV fans who liked a bit of genre fiction were thinking where will we go for smart scripts that include complex female characters who aren't ciphers or manic pixie dream girls? I mean, we didn't have Scully anymore either! Sure, conventional TV was made strides with the female characters on shows like The West Wing, Gilmore Girls, E.R., Six Feet Under, some of the Law and Orders (esp. SVU), and  The Sopranos (to name but a few), but genre TV (your Sci Fi, Fantasy, the more Detective-y/Noir end of Crime etc. brand of TV) was stuck in a feedback loop. I, for one, was at a loss, but it turned out my pain was to be of short duration.

A new show started being advertised that seemed to tick many of the things I like...it had a noir flavour, it was a high school drama with a twist (I like my regular high school drama (I still count The OC as a highpoint of television) but add a twist like teen vampire slayer or teen detective or, even for a brief period, teen witch (less said about Sabrina the better) and I'm glued), it appeared to be sassy and a little cynical, and finally there was an underdog versus the horrible bitchy rich kids vibe. And then the ultimate seal of approval...before it even started on Australian television, Joss Whedon said in an interview that it was the best show currently on television. If you don't know where I'm going by now, I'm very sorry for you as you have clearly never seen the brilliance that is Veronica Mars.

A season 1 cast photo..sadly missing my favourite character who became more prominent towards the end of season 1 and after that became a main character for the remaining two seasons

It was a show that kept on giving. Whedon's endorsement was accurate and all of the elements I listed above were there but it was so much more.

For a synopsis that hopefully avoids spoilers...the show introduces us to Neptune, California which to quote Veronica is "A town without a middle class". It is a town where the (mainly white) wealthy are incredibly wealthy and the rest of the town (many of whom are Latino) cleans up after them. As season 1 kicks off Veronica Mars, a 16 year old high school girl, has got tough after the events of the previous year which included, in chronological order, her being dumped by her long term boyfriend without an obvious reason, her best friend was brutally murdered, her being ostracised by all of her friends, her being drugged and raped at a party, her father being removed from office as Neptune's sherrif, and her mother disappearing into thin air. Her father now works as a private detective and Veronica "does his office work" i.e. helps him with cases as well as doing some paperwork and answering phones. As series one progresses, Veronica and her father investigate the murder of Veronica's best friend, whilst Veronica also solves crimes of week, mainly arising from her classmates. .

At the end of season 1...the murder is solved and all seems right with the world until there is a mystery late night knock on Veronica's door. As season 2 kicks off, Veronica is in her final year of high school. She is working at a coffee shop and life for her is normal i.e. no more PI work for her. By the end of the first episode, on the way back from an excursion a bus of Veronica's classmates drives off a cliff and Veronica decides to investigate. Soon enough it is back to PI work for Veronica.

Season 2 and another crime solved....until a dubious reccurring character knocks on Veronica's father's office door with a crazy offer. In the third and final season, Veronica is at Hearst College in Neptune instead of leaving Neptune for college as she had wished to. She investigates a series of rapes on campus (introduced as a plot when Veronica visits the college in season 2), then the suicide/ possible murder of Hearst's Dean, and another big mystery that I can't mention without there being spoilers.

Synopsis done! Hopefully the lack of spoilers didn't make that too confusing.

So, except for delivering on the things I wanted from it, why was it the show that kept giving? The script was hilarious and smart- Rob Thomas and the rest of the writing team followed in the suit of Whedon's team on Buffy and refused to treat the show's teen/young adult audience as idiots. The characters were complex- there was no pure black from the villains and, with the exception of the adorable Piz (college mate of Veronica's), there is no pure white. Unlike some series that start when the main character is in high school, the adults were fully formed characters in their own right. The acting was great. The soundtrack was awesome. The guest stars...oh the guest stars...Joss Whedon, Kevin Smith, Jessica Chastain, Aaron Paul, Jane Lynch, Michael Cera and Alia Shawkat (in the same episode- yay for the Arrested Development connection), and Paul Rudd, and in more recurring roles, Charisma Carpenter, Alyson Hannigan, Amanda Seyfried (as Veronica's murdered best friend), Max Greenfield (his role in Veronica Mars make me love him in New Girl all the more), Steve Guttenberg, and Krystan Ritter...OK less said about the fact Paris Hilton is in the second episode, the better (to quote a later season, "You know that Hilton girl gives you nightmares"). And now the five best things about the show working to the hilarity from the serious:

• Complex lead female character! Especially in the first season, Veronica was a girl in a man's world as she was at first the only lead female character (the actor playing the high school journalism teacher also landed a photo in the credits but that had to be merely to create the appearance of more female characters as she was in less episodes than Veronica's dead best friend) and she outsmarted them all. She was joined by more female characters in the second and third season but never was there a man (or woman) who could outsmart her. And though there were moments when she was saved by someone else, the weekly refrain from the other characters was "I need your help"...she was essentially the white knight of the show. Thanks for the quality of the writing, she also dealt more horrifying things in her life than most people ever could without seeming for a moment to be soapy and melodramatic.
• Best ever portrayal of a father daughter relationship between a single father and his daughter. There is nothing false nor is there anything that seems creepy in the relationship between Veronica and Keith Mars. 
• One of best ever portrayals of a female/male platonic friendship between a straight guy and a straight girl. Veronica become best friends with Wallace (a new guy at school) in season 1, and though one girlfriend of Wallace's had a brief issue with their friendship, by and large it is never questioned that their friendship is not completely normal and no-one seems to think that is or should be anything other than platonic. 
• Dick Casablancas...Dick is basically the anti Veronica. He is rich, he is stupid and he is sexist...basically he lives up to his name. The show spends most of its three years (he only comes to the fore from the second half of season 1 onwards) with Dick is the butt of many a joke and you just have to love to hate him as there is an awkward adorableness to his horribleness. 
• And this dance... when it comes to the men of Veronica Mars, I'm firmly in the Logan camp (when I'm not speaking of my loving/hating of the amazing Dick)...but this dance from Piz will never fail to draw a laugh from me. That said I can only find a short gif but if you get the chance to watch the whole thing...especially Wallace's reaction...you should!

So why the rant now for a show that a network cut short well before its time? Especially when the axe fell eight years ago. Well unless you have been living in a cave, you'll know thanks to breaking some kickstarter records (and I'm so happy to have contributed to that), it is BACK on FRIDAY! Albeit back as a movie but that doesn't lessen the excitement! I've been rewatching the show in prep for the movie but this is my encouragement for you to watch for the first time if you haven't or to watch it again if you have, because it is quality television to truly deserves the cult status it has and for that cult status to never die. In particular, as after Veronica Mars and before GoT, by and large genre TV women went right back to being ciphers and manic pixie dream girls (there are exceptions but they are few and far between and mainly not from the States).

And just to leave you with something that possibly is funnier than the dance above and something that almost makes me ship DiVe instead of LoVe and also tempted me to buy a "Team Dick" t-shirt (even though you could wear that nowhere without it being inappropriate)...sorry ignore the uber Veronica Mars nerd knowing of ship names and just watch the video. It is Ryan Hansen's announcement that he was going to return to play Dick Casablancas in the film and it pretty much summarises everything I love/hate about my favourite Veronica Mars character:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADKKZA5twgI

So there is my rant of Veronica Mars movie release week...two days to go!

Disney is on the money with this one...a bit of review of Frozen

Well hello blog reading types...this time something less emotional than the last post.

It often surprises people but I'm quite the fan of the Disney animated film. For many years in my childhood, The Little Mermaid was my favourite film and Prince Eric was my first film crush. I mean look how pretty he is...

And he plays a musical instrument and has an adorable pet sheep dog...pretty much the perfect man, right? What a pity, he is fictional and a cartoon.

Anyhow that said, like most people I have a bit of an issue with the expectations they establish for young women- true many of them are after all based on fairy tales, most of which were written to help keep the women in their place BUT the Disney version of The Little Mermaid gives a much more "keep them in their place" view of women than the original. And then along came Frozen!

Surprisingly for a film that includes the voice talents of many actors I'm quite the fan of (Jonathan Groff, Idina Menzel, Alan Tudyk, and Kristen Bell), it came to cinema screens without me hearing much about it at all. I was a little curious but not enough to look into it. Then friends started seeing it and they started ranting about how much they loved it so I caved and went along to see it myself.

First a synopsis, Frozen is the tale of two sisters, Elsa and Anna. Their parents are killed at sea and the young girls left to fend for themselves (well they are princesses so really be taken care of by servants) and in addition to this, Elsa has since birth made an uncontrollable power to create ice and snow, and after an incident that almost kills Anna, Anna's memory of her sister's powers is erased by trolls and Elsa isolates herself from Anna and the castle is locked to avoid people discovering Elsa's power. After years of distance between the two sisters and isolation from the outside world, the castle is opened to the people when Elsa comes of age and is crowned queen. Anna, now a flighty young adult, falls in love with the first man she meets, Prince Hans, and decides to marry him after only knowing him for a couple of hours. The sisters fight and Elsa's powers are triggered and she freezes the whole kingdom before fleeing into the mountains to be alone. Anna goes to the mountains to find her sister in order to unfreeze the kingdom and as she travels she meets Kristoff an ice salesman whose only friend is his pet reindeer , Sven,and also Olaf a sun loving snowman who Elsa brought to life by accident. When they find Elsa, the sisters fight again and Elsa accidentally strikes Anna in the heart with ice. Kristoff rushes her to the trolls to get help but it is discovered that only an act of true love can cure her...

Stopping before I spoil the ending.

So why is this film different?

Is it a better Hans Christian Andersen adaptation than The Little Mermaid? No, as an adaptation of The Snow Queen, it is definitely a failure. It is more of an homage than an adaptation. Is it that it is unique in it style? No, many people have commented and I agree, it owes a lot to Wicked and not just the casting of Idina Menzel (BTW, anyone know if there is an original Broadway cast recording of Wicked on CD or DVD available anywhere?).

The difference and one of the more amazing things about Frozen is summed up in this meme:

 

The amazing thing is that finally Disney openly acknowledges that marrying a man you just met or who doesn't really know you (sorry Mulan fans but I would argue she also falls into this camp- I would argue potentially Belle from Beauty and the Beast does not but no-one says it in her case) is a STUPID idea, and that marriage isn't the be all and end all for a young girl. Both Elsa and Kristoff declare that Anna is foolish in getting engaged the first night she meets a man. In addition to this, aside from her powers, it is not questioned that Elsa as a young single woman would be perfectly suitable candidate for queen. Finally, Anna's desire to help her sister show that even though she could have been a Disney witch, Elsa is not to be dismissed or considered villainous after she freezes the kingdom- she is the most sympathetic "witch" that Disney has ever given us and she is definitely not a villain.

I would add more but that would be spoilers, needless to say, the film's ending supports my argument. The ending gives me other things to say but spoilers...

The film is amazing for many reasons- the songs, the snowman who longs for summer, the voice acting- but I would argue that this is the first Disney film that I would say every child should see for the expectation and ideas it gives them (especially young girls)*. I will still love the other Disney princess films for what they are but this finally is a Disney film with its ideas about women heading in a direction I would prefer. 

And if you haven't seen it and need more convincing, for an animation and song point of view, not a gender politics standpoint, watch this clip of the amazing Let It Go as sung by the absolutely astounding Idina Menzel (who voices Elsa in the film):

Convinced, now? You should be!

*I should admit I've not seen Brave and I think it might be more in the vein of Frozen than earlier Disney.

Big annoucement...and the emotions of a research student

Warning this might get a little emotional and I'm not an emotional person so PLEASE forgive me.

For some people this isn't news but this seems to be the best way to maybe get it out to larger crowd... as of two weeks ago, I'm no longer a PhD student and not for a happy reason. No I didn't get kicked out as there is no cause for that... I withdrew. Now for many of you, this seems like a weird thing to make a big deal out as withdrawal from a degree is just not a big thing in your mind. This is even true of a small number of research students who withdraw within their first year. However some of you (the research students, and their close family and friends) you get this, and so I thought I'd give the rest of you some tips on dealing with the average research student and see if you get why this is a big deal.

I started my PhD back in 2007 so it has been part of my life for longer than many people out have held their jobs, been married, had their kids, lived in their current houses/flats, had their group of friends, been in their relationship, etc, etc. Now I'm not comparing a research degree to your kids (though many people have compared a PhD to a child in the past) but if you are emotionally connected to your house or your job or your friends or your relationship, just imagine that you can be that connected to a degree. People very rarely do a research degree out of duty as they are a ridiculously hard slog and in many fields (especially the humanities) there is pretty much ABSOLUTELY no prospect of a job at the end, it is a labour (and a half) of love...people are usually highly emotionally tied to their thesis and their ability to work on it well  or not can dictate their moods. For this reason, NEVER, I repeat NEVER, ask a research student who you aren't spectacularly close to "how is the PhD going?" unless they bring it up first. The time of numbers I had to fake a smile and say everything was good when I was deeply upset about the fact that I hadn't had time to work on my thesis for weeks is beyond counting.

Be nice to research students as they are likely putting many things you things you think of as big life things on hold to do this thesis. They are also one of two things- either full time and struggling to make ends meet on a tiny scholarship, or part time and struggling to find time to work on their thesis as they juggle other life commitments (in my case full time work...a note for potential research students out there, full time work combo-ed with part time distance research study is one of the stupidest ideas out there, DON'T DO IT!).

So there are some tips such as they are in their not very detailed way...

So the questions that people have asked me specifically:

Why withdraw? Since an ill advised work move about two years ago, I have had next to zero time to work on my thesis. If the above about people loving their research was not true of me, that wouldn't  bother me, but sadly it is. Instead of just forgetting it, it has been a gnawing constant stress and occasionally something that led to more than few tears. I kept telling myself that I could find time and that there would be a window somewhere that would let me get back on track but after a particularly stressful time earlier this year, I suddenly found myself saying to one of my close friends, "I think I might need to think about withdrawing from my PhD". That was about six months ago, and as recently as a month and a half ago, I was still saying to myself and occasionally to him and the other friend who knew I was considering withdrawing, "maybe I can juggle things and finish my PhD". It was a massive decision but I think it was for the best.

How does it feel? I'm slowly recovering but still pretty emotional. Currently every status by a research student facebook friend about their research (even one friend who is in honours) is difficult to read, though there are mixed emotions for those who are finishing as I am very happy for you too. After conversations in real life with my research student friends and dealings with research students at work, I at times find myself struggling with the tears. If your next question is do I need a hug, possibly but only if you are one of few people I'm comfortable with hugging me (the about ten of you know who you are)...otherwise just give me my emotional space, spare me a prayer (if you are so inclined), and just be careful with me as I'm likely to take things a little more to heart than I normally would. I predict I'll be fine in a month or so.

Will I go back to it? Over past week or so as I've started to talk about it, many people have said as a first response to my withdrawing,  "you'll go back to it one day, you love it too much to give it up completely". I can't say for sure on this front. The plan is to try and put stuff together for publication in December/January when I have some time on my hands- definitely at least one thing but ideally I'm hoping that I can start on at least three or four articles based what I had done on my thesis and some stuff I have hanging around from honours and try and publish them over the course of the next year. This means that the option of going back to a PhD in English literature won't be out of the question. My love of under researched works by female authors in the 19th century isn't going anywhere, nor is my belief in the importance of understanding where speculative fiction came from. I love doing research and whatever I may say sarcastically I deeply believe in the importance of academia. I would not be at all surprised to find myself enrolling in another research degree in the future; it might be in English literature or I might go back to my other love, Jewish history, or maybe something else entirely. So who knows?

What next? Well the rest of my life stays as it is for the moment as being part time, there are a tonne of things in my life that aren't related to my PhD...too many things some would argue. As I said, I plan to work on publishing articles later in the year. After that I hope to cut back down to one job in 2014 if that is possible and to return to very part time study...I'm enrolling in one subject at bible college and an on campus evening student which I think will be much easily for me then trying to do distance study again (not studying at all seems to not be an option for me but I should stress that I'm definitely did not withdraw just to switch degrees). I'm also hoping to start a new more collaborative blog soon which will focus on the very specific topic of Christian community...more news to come and don't worry this blog isn't going anywhere.

So I've done my emotional blurt to the internet...that was awkward but as I said it was the easiest way to spread the news...

 

Very sad to think the only thing in this photo still going is the $2 teapot from the Reject Shop (this computer died ages ago, the cup is chipped, and I can even bring myself to look at the book)

From the sublime to the ridiculous...an election post!

How do I love 10 Things About You let me count the ways? The kids who dress as cowboys for no reason, the fact that there is someone who adds "Chill" to his name in the cast (seriously I just noticed this, it is the film that just keeps giving), Alison Janney as the guidance counsellor who writes adult fiction in her office, the "profound" discussion of being whelmed, Health Ledger pretending to sing and dance, a soundtrack that includes classics like Calypso by Spiderbait, the brilliant Julia Stiles in her best ever role, the quotable lines, the rapping of Shakespeare, the random why is there a band on the roof of their school, and of course the introduction of the adorableness of Joseph Gordon Levitt to the world. And that's just the beginning...

And to my point, which is pretty much just so I have some happy to start with before I jump from the sublime to the ridiculous...that is to say the federal election.

With less than two weeks to go, the Coalition is inching ahead as everyone knew it would which means I'll be soon looking for the cheapest plane tickets to New Zealand, or Canada, or anywhere but here. That said I don't know that the alternative is really that much better. Sure the Labor Party isn't lead by someone who would drag this country into a darker era than the Howard years, but on the issues, it appears to be a race to the right. The issues that the left usually focuses on have been forgotten as the environment, education, and social justice struggle to get air space except with policy announcements that cut or mangle any good work done on these areas since the departure of Howard. For me one of the issues that has the make or break issue for any federal election for over a decade has been the issue of refugees and this election marks a true fight for the right to a lack of compassion.

I have blogged about my thoughts on what I believe to be the ridiculous hypocrisy of Australia's deeply engrained racism in the past (read it here- http://clarewoodley.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/more-colourful-shade-of-pale.html) and not surprisingly that post came out of listening to people discussing refugees in the aftermath of drownings off Christmas Island two years ago. The rhetoric of fear of the outsider that colours policies and news reports on this issue saddens me more than I can describe. The fact that news reporters from some media outlets and politicians seem to incapable of referring to refugees not as refugees or asylum seekers though this is what they are but instead choosing to term them "boat people" or "illegal immigrants". As has frequently been pointed out since the Rudd announcement of Labor's new harsher policy, seeking asylum is not illegal and Australia is not just the signatory to but also one of the authors of UN Refugee Policy that clearly outlines this- what is illegal is to overstay your visa but absent from any immigration policy is a discussion of what to do about the hundreds of white people who arrive from middle class countries on holiday visas and then never leave...surely we should crack down on them first. If only the average Australian could take a moment to take the imaginary journey of a refugee (especially as if they have picked up a newspaper in the last ever than they know what kind of situations these people are fleeing), think of being in fear for your life, in fear for the lives of all of those you love- your significant other, your kids, your family, your friends- in fear not just in an abstract sense like fear that they will catch a cold or drive in an unsafe matter but constant unceasing fear that there will be people with guns who will drag them away in the night and shoot them, that if they are female they will be the victims of rape, that there will be insufficient food to feed them, that should they fall ill there will be no way to cure them, that whatever happens your government will not only not help you but will more likely than not they will finance and support those who are threatening you, what would you do? More accurately, what wouldn't you do? Would you flee? For me there is no question, I would be out of there even if it meant leaving my home, my possessions, my country, and winding up in an overcrowded refugee camp. What is that reality like? It is overcrowded, it is often lacking in basic supplies due to the overcrowding, often the corrupt government still holds power over the situation (don't let it sound like I'm putting down the work of organisations like UNHCR but they are under-resourced and unable to stand in the face of the corruption and power of governments in some countries...if you have spare cash to donate to something, UNHCR is a good place to send it), and applying for asylum through governments and UN agencies is hampered by corruption from one and massive backlogs on the part of the other and can take years to be approved. Again what would you do? I have no surprise that people go to extremes to escape this, and I'm just happy that those who wind up in Western countries other than Australia are usually treated with compassion and sympathy for their hardships. I know saying let them stay is a big ask and will take a big adjustments on the part of the average Australian (a great blog post on this that several of my friends shared on facebook following the Rudd announcement is this one- http://christinemead.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/so-you-think-its-a-good-idea-to-welcome-refugees-excuse-me-while-i-burst-your-bubble/) but would you be willing to step out of your comfort zone if it meant that people would be free of unspeakable oppression? And if the answer is no, I really ask you to dwell on why that is.

I'll leave it there on the topic of refugees as it has had plenty of air time everywhere and my comments on the Abbott announcement can be summed up in two words, "new low" (my words when I first heard it were longer, louder and much angrier).

The other section of this post on election things is a response to the amping up of people who aren't running for office openly telling me how to vote on facebook, twitter, instagram, well pretty much everywhere. And when I say this I don't mean Murdoch as I somewhat expect that, I mean the average Australian. I am quite open in discussions of my voting preference- most people I know are aware that I'm a former Democrats voter who now votes for the Greens- and I am quite happy to answer question about why I vote the way I do and what policies of all parties, including of the Greens, I do or don't agree with. However I would never say to someone I knew, even in the sterile world of the web, "Vote Greens" or use a hashtag to that effect or actually presume to tell anyone how they should direct their vote. When I talk politics, it is to get people thinking, not to brain wash them. I know we live in a hyper public culture, that we don't live in the world of twenty or thirty years ago where even if it was abundantly obvious, you never told people who you voted for but sometimes I think the old way had something going for it. So this is sending a plea out to the land of the internet, please political engaged Australia, let people make up their own minds! Share policies, share ideas, but don't hashtag a voting preference and allow yourself to respect the viewpoints and reasons that others hold that lead them to voting the way they do (unless that viewpoint is, well everyone in my family votes that way, in which case just point them to the policies pages of the major parties (and some of the minor if you feel like including them) and encourage them to think beyond this)- I won't cut you off my facebook/twitter/whatever else list if you continue to talk like that but it is an annoyance to see it so frequently. I saw Malcolm Turnbull out on the campaign trail on the news the other day and as much as I would not vote for his party, I applaud the fact that when challenged he said, and I paraphrase, "You and I have different options and that is fine. People are allowed to think about things differently". 

So I end with a few final points:

Firstly policies for parties if you need them can be found at the following sites:
ALP http://www.alp.org.au/
Liberals http://www.liberal.org.au/
The Greens http://www.greens.org.au/
Nationals (because they are in a Coalition with the Liberals) http://www.nationals.org.au/
The Palmer United Party (because they are running a candidate is EVERY electorate) palmerunited.com

Secondly, if we must have a new PM, can't we have an old one back again? Anyone else keen to see Paul Keating back? The very small part of me that is ever tempted to informal vote would just write "BRING BACK PAUL!" in big letters on every ballot paper I voted on.

Finally know lefties of Australia that the pain will be shared Saturday week if the seemingly inevitable happens...my antidote in the short term will be icecream and wishful thinking and when I say wishful thinking you know where I'm going...  a little bit of this....

 And this...

And this...

'Cause when all's said and done no-one will ever match a fictional president of another country... good night internet people!

Having a rant...but in a good way

Well hello there internet peoples. I know based on my past posts you are probably thinking I'm overdue a rant about the dreadful things going down in terms of refugee policy in Australia, and you are 100% right but I'm going to let that stew especially as I'm still struggling to find the words to express the rage at the Coalition's announcement of their completely heartless take on the issue. Instead I'm going to rant about good things...two of which are the work of some brilliantly wonderful friends of mine...

BUT first the lengthy spiel that has truly been coming for months now, why is everyone so stuck on the violence and the sex in Game of Thrones when it is probably the show with the best politics of difference anywhere on TV? I was a late comer to the amazingness of GoT and The Song of Ice and Fire books. I'm not a fan of epic fantasy most of the time, as it tends to demand a lot from the reader from the outset. I mean I like that you have a complex world with maps and religions and twenty thousand characters and crazy magic, but I don't need to learn the intricacies of the religion and the particular brand of magic in ridiculous detail in the first chapter before I care about any of the characters especially because you've got so many of them that character development is probably going to fall short in the long run anyway. For me, love them or hate them, the characters is what I need to buy the story especially if you are shooting for seriousness and not humour. The other thing I struggle with is the lack of difference in the kind of fantasy that goes into the fantasy that reaches a broad readership...thanks J.R.R. Tolkien! Before the rabid Tolkien fans hunt me down...chill! As a story Lord of Rings and The Hobbit are great and one of the few epic fantasies that I've enjoyed, BUT look at your cast of characters, all of the good ones are clearly white and the women, even the ones with the potential to be strong characters, are sidelined (if you haven't read the books, Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel were all expanded in the Jackson films, and yes Eowyn does kick butt and kill the Witch King but she doesn't get much glory for it, and after she meets Faramir, she gives up being a shield maiden to marry him!) . Where oh where are the people who aren't straight white men in epic fantasy and when will they get to be the hero or at least get to be interesting villians!

All of this sums why, when GoT first aired a few years ago, I was very much in the not for me camp, and why I hadn't bothered with the books.  Then time went by and I started to hear what one often hears about shows on HBO, as people kept going on and on about the amount of sex in the show, to the point where I started to think that it was more of that vein than say True Blood, which I stopped watching after the last season as it had lost all of its quality plotting and storyline, and become just a vehicle for every character to be naked alls the time except when violence was needed. I thought GoT must be wall to wall nudity with no storyline, probably quite exploitative of women and others on the margins of white patriarchal society, and yeah with a little bit of violence on the side just for fun. The problem was that a lot of people I knew who liked it weren't the kind of people who would watch a show that was remotely like that- they were people with better taste than that who liked character driven drama and good script writing. Finally I watched the first episode of the first season in December last year., and I thought hey this isn't that bad. When season 2 came out, I bought both season 1 and 2, and I watched both seasons in a week. Then I started on the books and read them at great speed. Finally season 3 was the first ever season pass I bought on iTunes as I just couldn't wait for more. George R.R. Martin (also what is it with R.R. initials and fantasy writers?) has achieved something amazing in these novels which has been translated brilliantly by the creators of the TV show. The universe of Song of Ice and Fire didn't demand that I learn religions and magic in the first chapter. Yes, there are tonnes of religions but the first book only really mentions three- the Old Gods, the Seven, and the gods of the Dothraki- and only first two of these in any detail (it still isn't much as more comes out in the later books) AND yes there is magic but the most magically things in the first book is the brief appearance of what appears to be zombies in the prologue/ opening scene of the first season of the TV series and the presence of three dragon eggs. Martin allows the characters to develop and allows the reader to care about them before laying the complexities of religions and magic on you, and also has a handy list of them in the back of every novel so you can keep track of them all as yes there are twenty thousand of them.  This got me through the first hurdle but what about the politics of difference? This is a world based on medieval England so the characters are going to be white and men will have the power and anyone who is "different" by society's standard will be sidelined and/or killed, right? WRONG...well on almost all counts as pretty much every principle character is white, except the Dothraki who have tan skin and whom the TV series gives an islander/tribal appearance to (the actor who played Khal Drogo is Hawaiian but I imagine the Dothraki as Maori in appearance) and the people of Braavos who are Southern European both in my imagination and in the TV series version of Syrio Forel, and in the books, there is mention of the Summer Islanders who are black just not featured much, and my favourite people (yet to appear in the TV series but I'm so excited for them to come in the fourth season...just saying the surnames Martel and Sand are the winners) the people of Dorne whom I imagined to be Middle Eastern in appearance but though it appears the TV series has gone with a Latin American/Spanish look. There is this great quote which is in the series but is lifted straight from the books where Tyrion Lannister says "I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples and bastards and broken things", and if you add women to the list (which the character definitely does have a tender spot for), and you have summarised one of the shining lights of these books/ this show. There are spoilers ahead if you haven't seen the series though I will stop with the spoilers at the end of the third season and not continue through with what I know from the books except as a hint that it gets better! The interesting things about the universe of GoT (going with the series shorthand as it is easier) is that the characters who make it, those who survive and prosper, aren't the strong physically capable men with legitimate claims to success. The back story to all of the events is the death of several such men- I'm thinking mainly of Rhaegar Targaryen but also I would argue Brandon Stark's death strongly contributes to what plays out in the books/show. The first season cuts through them at great speed, starting in the prologue you lose several men of the Night's Watch (one of whom is from a noble family), then Bran Stark is crippled, then Benjen Stark disappears, then Viserys Targaryen dies (not that he is much of a loss) followed by all of the Stark guards, Robert Baratheon, Ned Stark (it takes a confident author to kill his protagonist), Syrio Forel, and Khal Drogo.  This bears onwards as the strong men continue to get sidelined as Barristan Selmy is fired from the King's Guard, Renly Baratheon is killed as is Joer Mormont and many many men of the Night's Watch, then the novel's/series's answer to the classic leading man, Jaime Lannister is maimed, and then the Red Wedding happens and we say goodbye to Robb Stark and most of the young strong men of the North who went to war with him. The men who aren't obvious on the out- the bastards (Jon Snow and Gendry), the crippled or maimed (Jaime, Bran, Varys, Davos Seaworth, the Hound, and (OK slight spoiler but it was hinted at very strongly) Theon Greyjoy), the overweight and scared (Samwell Tarly), the dwarf (Tyrion), and the wildlings- are too young (Rickon (he is even younger in the books) and Tommen), starting to get too old (Tywin), too gay and also too much suffering from profound grief (Loras Tyrell), too exiled and disowned (Ser Jorah), too clearly nuts (Joffrey- I applaud Martin in creating the perfect archetype bully in Joffrey...urgh Joffrey I despise him and his abuses of women (esp. Sansa) with every fibre of my being...and wait he is a bastard born of incest), or too having given up control for their own lives (Stannis) to be a convenient strong leading man in the world of epic fantasy. The closest you get is one of my favourite characters, the scheming backstabber that is Littlefinger who is more of sideline figure and is also short and heir to nothing.

So the men are more likely to be outsiders than not from society's standards but what of the women? I would say that GoT has the best collection of strong female characters you are going to see in epic fantasy novel or on TV at the moment...for one thing most of them are still alive and kicking (curse the Red Wedding for killing off Catelyn Stark, Talisa (granted this is just a TV series thing; in the books, Robb's wife is called Jeyne Westerling and she doesn't attend the Red Wedding so survives...spoiler for non book readers), and Dacey Mormont, AND TV series for killing Ros...that said we'd still have lost Lyanna Stark who sounds like she would be have been interesting before the action of novels starts). The list of awesome heroines and female villains (though really it is much more complex than that in the world of GoT thankfully) goes on and on from Cersei Lannister who would do anything for her twin or her children (thankfully in VERY different ways), to Catelyn Stark who though dead now is the most powerful mother figure I've seen in TV I mean she fought a guy with a knife with her bare hands (!), to Margery "I don't want to be a queen, I want to be THE queen" Tyrell, to Ayra Stark the queen of kick butt tomboys, to Ros who granted doesn't exist in the books except a brief mention and is also dead but is an amazing whore with a heart and guts, to Asha (Yara in the TV series) Greyjoy who leads her own army, to Shae another whore with a heart, to Sansa Stark (hush all you haters! Sansa is amazing!) who tracks an interesting journey from silly girl who wants to follow society's rules to abused young woman to who knows what as I can't wait to see what Martin does with her, to Melisandre who effective rules for Stannis, to Brienne of Tarth who is tougher than most knights, and finally to the amazing wildling ladies, Osha and Ygritte, who won't let the fact that they are doubly outsiders get them down.

You of keen sight will see I left someone off...my favourite of all GoT characters, Daenerys Targaryen. She is pretty much sums up the amazingness of GoT women in one hit. Firstly she is the victim of patriarchal society's machinations in her marriage to Khal Drogo (she is so meek, so innocent, and so young (14 in the books) at this point that you are certain no good will come of it), then instead of being crippled by this she gets stronger and starts to become a queen to match her horse king, then she is widowed and abandoned/betrayed by her followers but she still has the strength to take to revenge, then she leads an army made up mainly of the weak, the young, and the old and makes them strong by her strength, then she has the wisdom to reject another mercenary marriage (for those who are only familiar with the TV show another difference is the events in Qarth- she kicks more butt in the TV show as she is not betrayed by Xaro in the books- he proposes despite being gay and she rejects him as it is clearly mercenary, he is also still alive), then she smashes slave city after slave city and frees all the slaves. Basically she kicks major butt, she commands tougher, stronger men without the blink of an eye, and what did I forget...oh that's right, she has DRAGONS! That's right they left the dragons in the control of a woman!

OK so that was long and rambly and I'm sure there are people working on PhDs on it right now but to summarise... don't get put off by the boobs (there are whole episodes where no-one gets naked for goodness sake) or the violence, GoT is where it's at for quality politics of difference as it is the land of successful outsiders and women, and a crappy world in which to be a leading man. And women of the world if you aren't sold by that, the TV show does also have Kit Harington as Jon Snow who has the leading man looks (albeit it young leading man looks) but his character who is nice and outsider-y:

See pretty, right?

OK so flying past the GoT rant...hoping you're still with me... two other things to promo...

Thing one- My friend has just got her first book published and all bias aside it deserves to be lighting the world of Australian YA fiction ablaze. Her name is Claire Zorn (you can read her blog and investigate who she is  here- http://clairezorn.wordpress.com - she rants a little about GoT too...maybe don't go now as the current post has a little wee bit of spoiler for her book) and her book is called The Sky So Heavy. The book is set in the lower Blue Mountains and there is a nuclear explosion in the first chapter which leads to a nuclear winter leaving 17 year old main character and his little brother stranded alone in their house. I'll leave it there but just to say, it's great and you should buy it, buy it now! It might be in your local bookshop or you can get it at the penguin website- http://www.penguin.com.au/products/9780702249761/sky-so-heavy . 

Secondly, another friend, Phil, is trying to crowd fund (well has already been funded but it just get better with stretch goals) a game. It is called Pack of Heroes. I've played it and it is awesome fun! You should throw some cash at it as it only has 27 hours left to get more awesomely funded. Go to http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1425721404/pack-of-heroes-a-vintage-comic-superhero-card-game and get in on the funding fun!

And that is all from me today, except to say, if you follow my advice and watch GoT and you get through it quickly, I then recommend shows about parents who turn to drug sales to fund their lives after tragedy...I've just finished season 3 of Breaking Bad and I'm also in season 3 of Weeds, and both are awesome!

Can I change my vote?

I'm back! Just when I'd once again lulled you into a false sense of security. This week my rant is Hottest 100s and women artists! As you may or may not know, Triple J conducted a poll off the top 100 songs of the last 20 years and the results...well...

There was no Death Cab, there was no Belle and Sebastien, there was no Vampire Weekend... and the list go on and on of great artists who missed out. But this is not my big complaint...

Wonderwall by Oasis topped the poll and I really don't like it. Nosebleed Section by Hilltop Hoods came in fourth and I despise it. My highest vote was just outside the top 10 (Heart's A Mess by Gotye at number 12) and many of the top 10 disappointed me. But this again is not my big complaint...

Once again the issue as it is every year for the annual Hottest 100 and every time there is an "Of All Time" or similar countdown, is where are the ladies? There are some brilliant female artists out there and many have released outstanding and very popular songs over the last 20 years, and yet the countdown included only nine tracks with female vocals and even those are questionable. The tracks including the number at which they entered the countdown were:

99. Lana Del Rey – Video Games

97. M.I.A. – Paper Planes

92. Of Monsters and Men – Little Talk (ISSUE: vocals are shared and though the female singer does contribute so does the bloke)

81. Angus and Julia Stone – Big Jet Plane (ISSUE: Julia Stone is the back-up vocalist on this track)

73. Edward Sharp and the Magnetic Zeros - Home (ISSUE: vocals are shared and though the female singer does contribute it is mainly backing vocals)

49. Florence and the Machine – Dog Days Are Over

33. The Cranberries – Zombie

31. Massive Attack feat. Elizabeth Fraser - Teardrop (ISSUE: guest vocalist! I love this track (I voted for it) and this band but Massive Attack famously don't have a permanent female vocalist)

 9. Gotye feat. Kimbra- Somebody that I Used to Know (ISSUE: Again guest vocalist!)

 This means that there were four...that's right FOUR tracks from artists who always and only have female vocalists.

So in order to stop my whinging here are twenty tracks that should have made the countdown that you can enjoy, and that have female vocalists. All of them (to the best of my knowledge) made the Hottest 100 in the year of their release (some made the top 10 though none beat Zombie which was number 1 in the year of its release, though oddly doesn't appear on the album for that year) and several of them even made number 1 in the ARIA charts. I'm not saying I love all of them (I'm not a fan of Missy Higgins so much nowadays and I know I should be a fan but I missed Fiona Apple somehow) but all of them are better than Teenage Dirtbag by Wheatus (seriously who voted for that? Was it a joke? It is one of the worst songs of the last 20 years). In no order...

Glorybox  by Portishead

Don't Speak by No Doubt (actually anything off that album...Sunday Morning and esp. Spiderwebs are some great ska)

Seetherby Veruca Salt

 

Always Worth It by Sarah Blasko

Cornflake Girl by Tori Amos

One Lineby PJ Harvey (actually anything by PJ Harvey but I just love this song)

1, 2, 3, 4 by Feist

Confide in Meby Kylie Minogue

Get Your Freak On by Missy Eliot

Human Behaviour  by Bjork

Back to Black by Amy Winehouse

Stupid Girl by Garbage

Laughing With by Regina Spektor

Road Rage by Catatonia (this is a me thing, I just love Catatonia so!)

Criminal by Fiona Apple

Scar by Missy Higgins (SERIOUSLY HOW was this not on the poll?!?! This song and the album it came off were ridiculously popular in triple j and non triple j circles)

Weirby Killing Heidi

Heads Will Roll by the Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs

The Conby Tegan and Sarah

Ghosts by Laura Marling

Do you have more to add? Comment and tell me what I missed.