Good vs Evil- on wobble(board)y ground

The Rolf Harris trial has had a lot of media coverage, with many vehemently defending his "innocence" right up until he was convicted, and even some beyond.

For most of the people defending Rolf, they will have had little or no personal contact or knowledge of his actual personality, behaviour or traits- most will never have been to a concert, let alone had a conversation with the man. As Amanda Harris writes, many should forgive their own guilt of being a fan of Rolf's, and focus on those memories having been formed in innocence- without knowledge of his behaviour beyond performing (http://theconversation.com/dealing-with-the-happy-memories-of-a-disgraced-rolf-harris-28722)

The motivation to protect his reputation, honour or dignity is really an attempt to protect their own levels of comfort with having idolised someone who was capable of such deeds. I am most interested in how far some people pursue it though; even where there is clear and obvious detriment to others, ie the women and children he abused. Is it that the need to hold on to a positive sense of self by not believing you supported someone "bad" or "evil" is stronger and more important to them than the wellbeing of others and the protection of potential future victims? 

Certainly we place a lot of trust in public figures and celebrities, and the feeling of being let down can lead to some highly polarising attitudes. Recently a friend posted on social media that she believed Al Gore was a hypocrite because he travelled in a private jet while posing as an environmental hero, spruiking climate change and the need for people/ businesses to reduce carbon emissions. I was surprised at how direct the criticism was and that a single negatively perceived action could potentially override any or all positive actions and/or have a dramatic influence on a person's opinion of someone. Perhaps it is because there was not a great personal association with Gore, as there was for many with Harris- intense positive emotions of childhood vs knowledge of someone in a political context from adulthood?

Logically, the more inconsistent the behaviour with how a person promotes themselves, the more surprising it will be in relation to our psychological concept or beliefs around who they are- a single man who has multiple sexual partners is not surprising, questioned or criticised unless he is a priest- one who has promoted themselves as not supporting such actions. 

Does that necessarily make the priest a "bad" person though? What about a medical practitioner who is also a smoker, or obese- are they hypocrites? I would be less likely to take the advice from someone who was unwilling or unable to demonstrate that they will not heed their own advice on those direct issues, but I wouldn't discard the entirety of their professional abilities. 

Growing up I had a lot of internal conflict. I was told endlessly that you should love your parents, respect them and not "betray" them by saying negative things, although there was much physical violence and psychological abuse directed towards me. I felt guilt that I was a "bad" child to them, and that society's perception of them as "good" people was more important than my physical and emotional wellbeing. There was also the desire to not be discriminated against or socially outcast by anyone who found out or suspected anything was unusual with our family. At times, when things were particularly bad, and I attempted to tell someone, they'd usually reinforce the situation with "but your father is a good man- he's a doctor!". 

A medical specialist, yes. Good
An intensely controlling, violent and abusive father and partner, yes. Bad 
A member of the P&C committee at the school, volunteering his time, yes. Good
Someone who would threaten to kill your siblings if you ever told anyone he had kicked you for spilling some milk, yes. Completely fucking evil.

Why can these actions not necessarily co-exist in people's concepts of what a person "is", and why do people have such simplistic notions of "good" or "bad", rather than accepting that humans and their behaviour are multidimensional? 

So long as these concepts are upheld, many barriers to victims coming forward and being believed, being able to press charges, and to not be doubted and ashamed for challenging those who others respected and admired, will remain.

Young Roodolf Iced in a Christmas Drive-by

In the Christmas season of 2004 Santa made his usual worldwide journey, distributing toys and lumps of coal, to those who had been naughty, nice, or affected by the fiscal austerity measures in his budget allocation.

On a pit-stop through Canberra, the reindeer found themselves drawn to a venue which, from the exterior, appeared  for all intents and purposes to cater for species similar to themselves (physically speaking; not phylogenetically): Mooseheads.

Several reindeer embibed liquid refreshments with labels which again were somewhat deceptive, such as “Little Creatures”, and subsequently felt themselves inspired to join in with the animal-themed song “Eagle rock” to which the local patrons demonstrated that the accepted dance move was to remove clothing garments below the waist.

Prancer busted out some fully sick dance moves and drew much applause (or as much as you could manage with cloven hooves), and Blitzen found himself eyeing off an intriguing young lass in the corner who stood on two legs. When he sidled over she introduced herself as Skippy, and he winked “Want to shout out with glee?”, and they soon adjourned to the sleigh parked out back, until Santa busted in, with accusations of “Ho! Ho! Ho!”.

The rest of the eve was a blur, with a somewhat haphazard route around the world crashing at one point near Bandah Aceh (which some news media have attributed to the earthquake, tsunami and mass devastation- a claim Mr Claus’ lawyers are calling slanderous and speculative; and will soon be lodging a counter-suit for defamation for photo-shopping Mr Claus’ head on a picture of a politician’s, albeit Christmassy coloured, solely speedo-clad physique).

Fast forward to November 2013; in fair Pialligo, where we lay our scene: from ancient grudge break to new mutiny; a pair of star-crossed lovers had once created a new life- for Skippy had found such a surprise some weeks later in her pouch, and named the child after both their houses: Roo-dolf.

Born not with the great power or knowledge of others of the house Baratheon, just the obvious physical traits of the crest of their house, poor Roodolf was vulnerable… and, tragically, assassinated.

….And so we investigate this calamity….

Was it the result of Satan Santa’s attempts to thwart all those who would defame his reputation?

 Was it the Lannister’s trying to eliminate all traces of any potential Baratheon heir to the Iron throne?

Or are the elves at the North-pole (or really Pyong-Yang?) master-minds running a sinister eugenics campaign… those without the powers of Wolverine only too obvious a target? 

Secrecy and Diversion Tactics: the Politics of Pregnancy

 I was very surprised the other day to hear a woman I know talking very openly about her recent absence from work by going into the following detail “I left work and went to hospital because I had a miscarriage that day”.

My surprise was two-fold:

Firstly, how often do you actually hear people saying they had a miscarriage, unless it is following the announcement of their pregnancy, ie “we’re so happy to be having this baby; especially after we had two miscarriages last year…”.

On the whole this reluctance to share the news with the world is very understandable; it was likely an upsetting experience if they wanted a child, and then had a miscarriage. A sense of loss, bereavement for some, or failure as it is sometimes described.

For all those who do share the news of their miscarriage there is likely to be ten who do not, which may be what fosters a sense of “failure” – not having an awareness of how many people do have difficulty falling pregnant and/ or carrying a pregnancy to term, and only having the “successful” ones as a point of comparison.

The second thing that surprised me about her sharing the news was that only a few weeks prior she was relating a story about her toddler to me, and asked if I had children; when I said no, I do not, she said “Smart woman; don’t have them- I wouldn’t recommend it!”. I had awkwardly laughed at her comment, fighting a lump rising in my throat and thinking how much I would love to have children, but am not likely to be able to, and responded with “So, no more planned for you then?”; “Definitely not!” she stated.

I’ve been through a mix of reactions with this one- from thinking “well screw you, ungrateful person!” in that she can get pregnant, and has a lovely child already which she doesn’t appreciate, when other people are not so fortunate; to thinking I wonder if she also puts on a certain bravado at her reproductive difficulties. In her 40s, she is perhaps experiencing difficulty in getting and staying pregnant, so stating to the world that she “Definitely does not want more children!!!” is a defence to the people who ask if she wants more.

This is a defence I have used, and still do in many situations. It diffuses the “…you’re in your 30s… no children… don’t you want any?!” *insert worried tone* type of questions quite well- even better if you add a callous or flippant tone “F ck no! Why would I want kids?!?”. 

The apparent need or desire to conceal an early stage pregnancy has a whole range of politics attached- the fear of misscarrying, of having to arrange workplace leave/ plans, all while running a gauntlet of other people's opinions about what you should or shouldn't be doing (including questions around should you be having a child at all in your 40s- another loud criticism I once heard in a workplace!) or eating. Since the dawn of humanity people have been having children, so why haven't we learned to accept the inevitable losses or challenges that our friends, family or co-workers will experience and become better at supporting them, rather than judging or criticising? 

At a party recently I heard some people discussing a surprise pregnancy: a woman arrived, visibly at least 6 months pregnant, with no known partner in the last year. The conversation started around the surprise of the situation “no, haven’t seen Amy* in months…”; “…I don’t think she’s seeing anyone… she certainly wasn’t earlier in the year when I saw her…”, and then turned to her first child “… apparently she threatened Andrew* that if he didn’t have a baby with her she’d leave him… then they broke up when the baby was four months old anyway.”. I found it an interesting choice of language, saying that she threatened her partner into having a child, and one that is not infrequent.

What we do know- Amy was about 38 years old, and had been dating Andrew for about 2 years. They had a conversation which involved the topic of having children; a child resulted some time later. Where the “threats” came from is likely to be either Andrew’s perspective, or that of people outside the relationship. Perhaps Amy did state that she wanted a child or she would end the relationship, which, as a 38 year old woman is a real choice some have to make, as if Andrew did not want children, by staying with him another few years a child would not magically appear in her life, and her fertility would likely disappear entirely. I would argue that in stating her desire to have children, and acknowledging she had limited time, she was being realistic about the situation and acting with self-respect. Any further inference to the tone of the conversation that occurred between them is speculative, yet such salacious speculation people love to make… 

What is it that drives people to judge Amy so much? Envy? That she doesn't conform to their sense of social norms? I wonder if anyone was saying "congratulations- as a single Mum, is there anything I can do to help?", or is that also seen as interfering or insulting her capacity to make this decision to have a second child by herself and cope with it?

It would seem we are a long way from being able to openly and honestly discuss our reproductive fears, desires and issues associated with having children.

*names have been changed

Paul Walker demonstrates how little we care about Typhoon Haiyan

Earlier this week the death of Paul Walker, actor of the Fast and the Furious films.

Aside from the irony in that Walker died in a car crash, which many thought was initially a joke given that his career was built on films celebrating dangerous driving and street racing there is also a sad irony in the reporting of Walker’s death, which has been protracted in the US, with coverage extending across most networks, newspapers and online for a week now. Repeating of twitter posts, facebook tributes, interviews and everyone vaguely famous who ever heard of him is plastered across the media. Even in Australia it has reached most outlets, although I’m sure I wasn’t alone in thinking “Paul who?”

Although it received brief mention, what has been largely overlooked is that Walker was an advocate for and co-founder of the charity Reach Out World Wide “ROWW is a network of professionals with first responder skill-sets who augment local expertise when natural disasters strike in order to accelerate relief efforts.” (http://www.roww.org/ ).

To compound the irony in that while you may have finally received one message you completely missed another, there is a planned fund raising drive to raise money for his charity. Fingers crossed there’s no vehicular-related injuries in this one…

(http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/car-enthusiasts-to-remember-paul-walker-with-charity-drive-20131203-2yooc.html)

… but I digress.

Typhoon Haiyan/ Yolanda has so far resulted in over 5700 deaths confirmed in the Philippines alone. With little fresh water, sanitation facilities and treatment of wounds available, that death toll is likely to rise significantly. Yet it did not receive even half of the media coverage that Paul Walker’s death did. I wonder if Walker would have screamed at the press and said you’re missing the point!

Is the reporting of some deaths and not others reflecting society’s apathy towards international tragedies, or is it the other way around- we don’t care because we don’t know? Presumably the latter was the logic in the stop the boats, turn back the boats, hide the boats approach to asylum seekers; if people don’t know about them, they won’t care.

Similarly, over 110,000 men women and children have been killed in the conflict in Syria this year, but it rarely receives a snippet.  Perhaps blame is attributed to these individuals because it’s a war, so the deaths of thousands of children are excusable?

The recent plane crash in Laos killed 49 people in being reported had a certain emphasis supporting this theory… 6 OF WHOM WERE AUSTRALIAN. These 6 people were… their lives… their families… their pictures… but what of the other 43?

Perhaps it’s because Walker was a “good guy” who tried to help others through his work with ROWW, but then what of the medical practitioners who were murdered in Somalia while doing aid work? Where were their stories?(http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=68)

I think it’s more to do with compassion fatigue: there is so much going on in the world that people find it too overwhelming to care about everything. We package our lives into manageable portions, and only allow ourselves a certain amount of feeling that we perceive we have some control over to be able to cope with reality.

Last week when I met up with some friends for dinner, and they asked if I enjoyed my recent visit to my family interstate- among other accounts, I told them my stepmother’s cancer was noticeable, and that her incontinence meant there was a nappy to clean up; I was abruptly interrupted with “well that’s bloody depressing, I don’t want to think about that- can we talk about something else?!”. While my initial reaction was to think bitterly “Oh I do apologise if someone’s terminal illness and reality of slowly rotting in a demented near-quadriplegic state affected your enjoyment of dinner!”, but later I thought more about how avoidant so many people are, and I wonder how they’ll cope when their parents, friends and others get old and/ or sick. 

So I encourage those who find it difficult to package their hopelessness into financial dismissals they feel appease their first world problem of experiencing discomfort at having to hear about these issues: each time it arises, make a $20 donation to MSF; ROWW; Red Cross or whatever charitable organisation you feel will do some good, and say “There, I fixed it.”, tweet, facebook post or tell everyone about your altruism, tie a ribbon on your upper-middle-class white guilt, and close it until the next tragedy arises.

I'm Not Biased- You're Biased!

Accusations of bias are often thrown around when there is a perception of a difference of opinion. Throughout the election period, I was quite often met with some very scathing remarks and accusations of being a “raging leftie” or similar if I stated any disagreement with the conservative Coalition’s policies, even where my own views would be moderate, or not stating an alternative, but merely that I didn’t think it was ideal.

One such example was with the self-education expenses issue: a friend who is a medical professional stated that they did not wish for the self-education expense amount that can be claimed to be capped. I saw it as an interesting point, and asked who he believed should pay for their continuing education in an already high-income position as being a doctor (rhetorically, as obviously if not the self, then the taxpayer pays)? I also acknowledged that if the taxpayer did not pay there, then doctors were more likely to increase their fees to compensate for the “loss” of funds, and either way the affordability of health care and/ or gap between rich and poor was likely to take a hit, unless the Medicare rebate was increased.

I got ripped apart by respondents, who inferred that I was implying that a medical practitioner had no right to make a living, that everyone should be paid the same regardless of skills, and that I was an advocate for a communist society.

I pointed out that requesting a government rebate for education, rather than self-funding under a true capitalist fee-for-education model, was also a communist style approach, and asked how it was any different to the points I raised; I was met with a deafening silence.

“Even when we confess to (say) a Conservative or an economic bias we don’t mean that we think it a bias; we only mean that a supposed norm of social opinion might consider it a deviation from its orthodoxy, or that our hearer or hearers (constituting our immediate social milieu) might consider it as such.”(1) 

Possible conclusions:

1-    People are not receptive to open debate about issues, but will more likely perceive any difference of opinion as an affront to their beliefs

2-    People do not have a great level of awareness of their own biases.

Around the time of the election, there was also talk by the Coalition of changing the national history curriculum in schools as they perceived it to be too “left-leaning”, and that it needed "to give appropriate weight to our western and judeo-Christian heritage as a nation" (2) 

I write this not to *wait while the Coalition supporters take a deep inhalation, preparing themselves to berate this hippy as I undoubtedly must be about to spew forth some left-leaning diatribe about how wonderous the history curriculum is* talk about the success or failure of whatever content is in the system of education, but to consider the rationale behind its development, and how we learn to apply it. 

History is often referred to as being written by the victors- ie those who either survive it or hold power at the time write information imparting their own biases on it, or version of events from their perspective. Take the Vietnam war as much of the world call it, for example, or the American war, as it is thought of in Vietnam- who initiated the conflict? Do you perceive initiation as instigation or provocative actions? Intolerance of human rights violations as a justifiable means to send in the troops?

A more recent example perhaps: the war in Iraq. Was America within its rights or even its moral obligations to enter into that conflict? What of Australia’s place in it- did we have an obligation to support our ally, USA? Some would say yes (although as you may have guessed, I am not one of them), and yet Canada chose not to do so in the same position. All of these circumstances require the application of a set of values, influenced by culture, positioning in time, and other influences, such as the political desire to persuade others of a certain “truth”.

Considering "party x said *something provocative* about party b, who responded by firing rockets on the Nth day of J-tober 19whatever" - and regurgitating a string of dates from rote memory proves only that someone has the capacity to remember certain chunks of information, not how they are able to apply this information to their life and how it informs their future decisions. Adding value statements such as "x bombed y... and it was good for everyone." does not promote much further thought, but subtly institutes layer on layer of bias which, as I gave an example of earlier, does not promote open debate and the assessment of all merits or drawbacks. 

I suggest that we should not be teaching people WHAT to think, but HOW to think.  

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte

1- http://www.kosmoid.net/roots/BIAS%20IN%20HISTORY%20TEACHING

2- http://www.news.com.au/national/coalition-government-to-review-unions-and-alp-presence-in-history-curriculum/story-fnho52ip-1226709301143

Fashion Victims #5 - The Super Saturday Ascot Races Special

As I have oft discovered, as being competent or responsible is not a prerequisite for breeding, having taste is not a prerequisite for purchasing attire, and neither is selecting an appropriate occasion or venue to don such items. I can think of some occasions where dressing in skimpy, short, garish and overly tight dresses or generally portraying yourself as a complete trash bag is appropriate: Metropolis nightclub in Northbridge, Perth; The Bourbon Bar in Kings Cross, Sydney; Mooseheads in Canberra are a few that spring to mind. What's more you will blend in with the majority of the clientele in such venues, so as not to look out of place.

I have always found the races to be a special time for fashion: there's the Fashions on the Field competitions, the big hats, suits and dresses...and then there's the truly special. By "special", I mean similar to that boy who licks the windows on the school bus. There is a certain subset of the population who have interesting interpretations of what is "appropriate". I suspect that if you were to draw a venn diagram of those who attend the aforementioned venues with those who dress like complete trashbags, the latter set would be almost entirely subsumed within the former, but I digress.

Perhaps it was the mining boom which has been hitting Perth for the last 10-15 years, but the first group are those who chose to channel this cultural state by wearing high visibility items, which could probably also pass during an underground drill. 


There were those who portrayed this more subtley, by accessorising their outfit with high-vis statement pieces:

 Those who would give it an '80s revival twist 

(NB- nice touch of the arse to the left... oops I mean touch of class?). 

The night clubbers who stumbled into the daylight to blind us all with their lack of awareness of what is figure flattering. Attractive girl, yes, but channelling one cultural phenomenon- the mining boom- does not need to be paired with another- the MAMIL. An extra 2cm of fabric in all directions would have been kinder to yourself, and all the onlookers. 


(Mind you- it's worth noting that I was actually attempting to capture her friend who was in a pleather jump suit, but someone walked in front of the camera, obscuring her in all her glory).

My point is, it's about flattering the figure, such as... 




... oh I give up.















There were those who almost appeared to get it right (clearly I'm not referring to the mullet-skirt on the right, but her friend in the sunset number on the left)... 

.
.
until on closer inspection... the classlessness was evident in the general areola, oops I mean area. (fear the day I get a DSLR folks and get better at running in front of them so you too could appreciate the full picture!) 




On a warm sunny day, it's important to remain hydrated, and if possible seek shade. Shouldn't be able to miss our high vis tent we left around here somewhere...


Oh hang on... that's not it...







Then there were those who just had no idea.  

At least she coordinated her orange fake tan with the outfit, though her friend was clearly so embarrassed to be seen with her that she strategically wore a frock so as to camouflage herself amongst the gambling advertising.

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the full glory of a high vis singlet and wedges, paired with white lace shorts. 

A magnificent specimen.

This young lass struck me as somewhat of a paradigm, however, as when someone says to me "What should you wear to the races?" I generally think that if you were to respond with "..a dress", that you would be met with the retort "Aww duuuh". 

Silly me- it would seem that "dress standard" can be extrapolated to mean shorts; but why stop there, when you could go all the way to a onesie with loud print AND short shorts!

Evidently our lass on the left did receive the memo to accessorise by associating with a friend in high-vis: 5 bonus points; albeit trumped by Mlle Adroit whose shortie bits flapped in the breeze as she walked, exposing her entire butt cheek. A gold trash-medal for you.

There are so many ways and opportunities to show class and glamour at the races.

There's posture that shows you are truly a lady, whether you are walking, sitting or standing. 

If in doubt, why not fall back on a classic? 

No no no... a mullet is retro, not a classic, and plain wrong on the head OR in dress form.

Accessorise with one statement piece.

Umm... let me rephrase... one appropriate statement piece, not one look-I-own-something-expensive-so-I'll-take-it-everywhere-even-if-it's-grossly-out-of-place piece. 

The ultimate single accessory for the races, is generally your headwear.

Or you can coordinate with your friends.

Taste: you're doing it wrong.

***addendum- I committed a travisty and forgot the Piece de resistance (translation- I cannot resist taking the piss)! Voila!:

An Open Response to Oliver Burkeman's "Why are ethicists so unethical?"

I enjoy Oliver Burkeman's writing, but in the latest column "Why are ethicists so unethical?" I find some interesting points, but much to debate. Knowing Burkeman's writing is often well researched and that concepts are often difficult to distil in a 1000 word-limited column, I found myself scratching my head a bit with this one, with the line from moral assumption to being "smug and unethical" being a chasm which was difficult to leap over with the single bound of argument he presents.

Ethics books being stolen from libraries, for example, may be due to the fact they often discuss taboo topics such as sexualities, termination of pregnancy and euthanasia- which for some people may be a bit like intellectual porn- you want to view it, but may feel judged by some groups in doing so. Stealing the book conceals your name in the borrowing history, and gives a plausible deniability. I would argue that an ethicist would be a less likely person to steal an ethics book, as they would openly admit to reading the material, so that argument is somewhat weak.

Having worked in human research ethics for several years, my thoughts are peppered with anecdotes in favour of each side of this argument: from the doctor who extolled the virtues of the ethics system and its importance in the welfare of research participants, the development of students, and as an open system to enable quality research who never actually read the applications (perhaps the publicly perceived magnanimity of being involved in ethics on his resume was the goal of the day?), to those who lived and breathed ethics- going in to defend research subjects when their rights to health care were threatened in the most unforeseen and shocking circumstances.

Burkeman's analogy could and should be applied to religious practice though: the bastions of astounding hypocrisy that afflict our societies. Priests who rape children, churches who take from the poor and adorn themselves with gold and jewels, faiths which preach love and acceptance... unless you're from another religion in which case we should slaughter the lot of you. Do as I say, not as I do.

Such is the public/ private dichotomy of so many lives, one of the most gobsmacking examples of which came from my father, who told me "we do not tolerate physical violence in this family"; as any who have read this blog before will know- he is the first and most likely to be engaged in any such activities. In this case the motivation for hypocrisy is narcissistic, as I would posit so many of them are. Behaviour is so often driven by how we want to be perceived by others, and for many altruism or being ethical is part of the concept of self they want to portray. Perhaps where the motivation comes from is key- do you to be ethical because you believe it is the "right" thing to do, or want people to think you're ethical to impress them or have them revere you? The former would be the genuinely ethical, and the latter would be the "smug", but the public portrayal of each would only differ in subtle ways.

As with religion: you make a set of rules, and say "follow them to go to heaven/ avoid being smitten by *insert deity(ies) here*". People will follow them to a certain extent for a number of reasons, for example 1-they genuinely believe the reward/ threat and thus follow; 2- they want you to believe they believe the reward/threat and thus will give you the impression that they are compliant, whether or not they actually are. 

So I think that Burkeman's argument may very well hold true on the surface- ethicists or people who portray themselves as being highly knowledgeable of ethics, may in some instances act less ethically than other people; what's missing is a few more reasons why. It may not merely be smugness, and the ticking of the morality box (NB- morality is not the same as ethics- this in itself is a flaw in the argument), and warrants deeper investigation as to the motivation for such behaviours.