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. 

One step forward, two steps back- Waltzing with the black dog

What would it be like if you were trying to dance with someone who had four legs? You would have maybe half of your steps in time (accounting for their extra limbs), a pattern could be very hard to establish, and even if you did for a while it would seem disjointed and possibly as unnatural as the haphazard mess had moments before. The black dog doesn't have a clear rhythm, doesn't listen to the music directing it very well, steps on your toes all too often and just when you think it's moved to Argentina to instruct tango permanently it returns home again unexpectedly with all new moves you weren't ready for.

This is exactly how I feel living with depression. 

For the first time in my life recently I've had a few glimpses of what life could be like coming out of what seemed like an eternity of darkness. As I have had depression and anxiety for as long as I can remember- having suicidal ideations at 10 is apparently not a "normal" thing for children, but for me I knew no other reality, living in the special abusive hell that I did. These periods of feeling "good" have been quite raw as they're an entirely new reality. I don't trust them. I wonder how long it will last, and expect that soon enough I will walk around the next corner and bump into the black dog again.

I have now been off anti-depressants for more than 9 months, which is the longest I've ever gone since first going on them when I was 17. That's 15 years ago- almost half of my life; my entire adult life so far. 

In the last few weeks I have been feeling very low again though. With instability in work and relationships triggering off insecurity, fuelling anxiety and partnering up with insomnia I have sobbed myself to sleep 3 nights this week- afraid of the inevitable nightmares that ensue, and waking up exhausted. I feel pathetic saying that, and the confession doesn't help the cycle. 

I really should keep a dream diary and sell it to the makers of horror films- the graphic, violent images and stories could make me millions. This is why I never like to watch horror films- my life has contained far too much of it already. 

Sorry- tangent over.

So as the mask of normality is slipping, and the weeks begin to grind past rather than running smoothly again I find myself questioning if I should go back on to medication. When someone first suggested it to me I crashed- for days I had random bouts of uncontrollable crying (very embarrassing at work if you start suddenly, and for no apparent reason). The thought that I had to go back on medication seemed like the ultimate failure, and that "recovery" or being well was never going to be a reality for me. This in turn reignited the inclination to give up entirely- with no hope for the future, and if I will never escape or be able to enjoy life, what is the point in continuing? 

But onward I trudged. No matter what steps the black dog decided to dance, I kept doing my own and instead of letting it trip me up, I'd more heavily, stubbornly maintain my pace. Being aware of the problem and what it wants to do is the first step to telling it to shut up, and not allowing it to take control.  After the black dog initially took the easy opportunity to do a dip in the middle of the dance- "Oh medication again?- that's a failure and you have to give up all hope! Down we go!" I let go of its hands (paws?) and chose to fall to the floor and get myself up rather than stay in its grips.

It's not easy. There are still days when I feel like staying in bed, and want to avoid the world, but on the whole the world feels less sharp and grating- more manageable. I can't count how many times I've lived through the same pattern and had it not go well. Perhaps it's like the world's slowest exercise- little by little over many years strength is built and the fight gets easier. Instead of crashing for weeks and not being able to do anything now it's a few days, and the lows aren't nearly as low as they used to be.

Having processed it now, I accept that I might have to go on medication again one day- perhaps several times- but that if I do, it will be for shorter periods (not 15 years!), and I have a small amount of confidence that I'll be able to live without it again.

The thing I am most afraid of is hope, but now it creeps in most days. Hope that I will be able to have healthy relationships with people. Hope that one day I will have a family- although racked with guilt, and the feeling that giving a child me as a parent would be a horrible decision. I have received assurances from many people though that they believe my high level of awareness and experiences with what terrible parenting is, and deep desire to do it well means I'd be highly unlikely to stuff it up, and would make me a good parent. Although I don't have the confidence to believe it entirely, I am able to take it on board as at least an equally valid assessment as the one the black dog whispers- you'll fail, you'll be terrible so don't try. 

I don't know how to measure success, or if I believe in "recovery" as it suggests that there was a state of wellness to begin with that you're returning to, which was never the case for me. Perhaps it's knowing that although there are plenty of dips in the dance, the music is still playing, and I find that now I can keep up with the steps most of the time.

"Tim's Gay" - The Problem with the Sattler and Gillard Exchange

Let me start by declaring my biases:

I think Howard Sattler is a complete moron (I would love to insert a string of expletives to decorate my description of his character, but I think it would detract from the simplicity of the sheer facts), who loves trying to get a reaction from people by peddling his biggotted dark ages views on 6PR. I think its very sad that he has an audience, as it indicates that there are more people who share his ridiculous views.

I think Julia Gillard is an intelligent and articulate woman. I think she has been treated atrociously as a woman, as a Prime Minister, and as a human being, since she has was appointed, then re-elected PM. 

I am a liberally minded voter i.e. not conservative, though that does not mean I necessarily support her or her political party in all their policies and actions. As an atheist, I whole heartedly disagree with her current stance against same sex marriage, as I see any policy against anyone consenting adult being able to choose what relationships they are in, and how they wish to have that recognised, or their right to legally recognised unions should be the same as any other person- as discriminatory; pandering to the conservatives and the churches. 

I was also highly underwhelmed by the proposal to redirect asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Malaysia, not quite as appalled as I am by the "turn back the boats" farce being proposed by the other side but... hang on... getting right off track- that's a rant for another day.

Sattler, in his radio show, which has now been suspended from airing (for the sake of society- axe him permanently, please!), has chosen to revisit "Myths rumours and lies" about the Prime Minister in an interview with her. The whole interview can be seen here (although I warn you that your IQ may be depleted by osmosis in proximity to this lower pressure zone by even having listened to his utter drivel):  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-13/prime-minister-questioned-whether-partner-is-gay/4752998

I could go into the whole conversation, how inflammatory it is to bring up any myths about  Ms Gillard to her face, regardless of the nature of them, and his clear intent to try and get a negative reaction or embarrass her, how well she did at staying calm etc, but that's not my point today. 

What I think everyone is missing,  is why saying "Tim's a hairdresser, therefore he's gay" should be insulting at all. From the Prime Minister's perspective, there is the insinuation that her relationship is ingenuine, but that's a very superficial suggestion. What Sattler is suggesting (or echoing the suggestion of) is that being gay is somehow a bad thing. 

It is reiterating the immature, bigotted notion that "you're gay" is an insult, and that there is something inherently "wrong"with approximately 10% of the world's population who primarily prefer same sex partners which they should feel embarrassed about or ashamed of.

In a way I thank Sattler for showing people his true self, and how these views are still alive and well to the point where they are thought by some to be entertaining radio. By showing us all how hateful and absurd these views are, we can have the conversation openly about how preposterous small minded zealots like Sattler are, and how vulgar we find it when people like him spread their prejudices. 

Animal Cruelty- WTF is wrong with people?!

Today's rant is which has affected me in my own back yard... literally.

For those who don't know me, I am an animal lover. I am a crazy cat lady as well (I type this straining my shoulder reaching past the cat on my lap to the keyboard), but that's a story for another day.
I have met an awful lot of fuckwits in my time, and firmly believe that animals are better than humans over all, and deserve to be treated well.

I volunteer with my local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals, and am always saddened to see just how many people neglect their pets, pay no attention to obvious medical problems, or are so overwhelmed by their own "need" to have a pet that they disregard the animals' survival and wellbeing needs. "Oh I love my dog, but I can't afford to get it spayed.. now it's had 6 puppies I have to give them all up for adoption." [It always reminds me of the Catholics scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life "we'll have to sell you all for medical experiments"].

Recently I decided to expand my flock of two backyard chickens again. I saw some advertised on the noticeboard at my work as being "older" hens, which I thought would be good to adopt, as I don't care if they don't lay as regularly as some people would, and I'd give them a good life, not having to meet with the axe if they aren't "productive" enough.


I picked them up, and as soon as I got them home I noticed they had some scaly leg mites. Then I looked closer at all 4, and was horrified- it was the worst case I'd ever seen.















Most chickens are prone to getting the parasites, but its relatively simple and cheap to treat, and shouldn't have long lasting health implications if you do. By the state of these poor chooks it was evident they hadn't had it treated in over a year, if ever- an obvious severe case of neglect- to the point where two of them had already lost toes, and one could barely stand.

I treated it by covering their feets and legs with vaseline, which I applied by hand. As gentle as I tried to be, two of the chickens' feet started bleeding as soon as I touched them, as the skin was so damaged and split. It became obvious that one of them was going to lose another toe, which was barely hanging on by a thread of tissue.

I moved them into a smaller isolation pen so they wouldn't infect my existing hens, and there'd be less room to walk around- forcing them to rest.





I also dusted all the area with mite powder to stop them from breeding any more, and wormed them to ensure no other nasties were living in them.

10 days later- after just the one treatment, this is how their feet looked: 

Some were worse off to begin with, but obvious reductions in the mite infestation can be seen. 

I gave them another coating of vaseline and re-dusted the coops. It took me about 30 minutes and $30 to treat all the hens. As I still have plenty of vaseline and mite powder left, the ongoing treatment will cost me $0, and just a little time and effort to make a big difference to their well being. 

Considering how little time money and effort it took me, it sickens me to think that some people are too lazy and neglectful to take care of their animals properly.

I will post another update soon to show how they turn out.

Gay Hate: When Mental Health Problems are Not an Acceptable Defence

I sympathise and empathise with many people who have had mental health issues in their lives. I understand how hard it can sometimes be to cope with daily life, and that on occasion some reactionary behaviours such as pushing away people who try and help you, unexplainable moods and outbursts of crying or anger may occur.

Unless a person is suffering hallucinations or paranoid delusions, however, I cannot see a situation whereby targeting another person for simply living their life, bullying, harassing and starting a hate page about them, would be justifiable. 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/army-did-nothing-to-stop-gay-hate/story-fncz7kyc-1226577414391

Given that the perpetrator was a member of the Army, it is likely that his PTSD was a incurred during a battle incident on deployment to a conflict zone, and symptoms should be associated with being attacked with a gun or being bombed. Even in the unlikely circumstances that the perpetrator in this case had been assaulted by another man at some point in his life in what he may have perceived as a "gay" attack, which his PTSD was attributable to- to go so far as to start a facebook hate page against homosexuality is despicable. 

People with mental illnesses are not incapable of applying moral standards to life, conducting business (it would appear he was well enough to still be in the workplace), and determining what is or isn't reasonable behaviour. For the courts to excuse death threats on the tenuously linked basis that the perpetrator was mentally unwell is almost an endorsement that displaying hatred towards someone because of their sexual orientation is an understandable or justifiable behaviour. 

Poor call by those who made this determination. Qui tacet consentit.

One who condones evil is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it.

-Martin Luther King

A response to Sarah Beaulieu's "How I stopped being an angry feminist and started loving men"

The other day I was sent a link to a news article about research showing the world's population may be getting more stupiderer (*ahem*- yes that's intentional), which was on a somewhat poor quality "news" website. 

My eyes were drawn to the "other articles" section of the page, with a big title "How I stopped being an angry feminist and started loving men". My eyes rolled instinctively, and I felt myself groan at what I anticipated would be an ill-informed anti-progressive sanctimonious self-enlightenment "my whole life changed" piece, but felt my finger dragging the mouse pointer to the link (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/how-i-stopped-being-an-angry-feminist-and-started-loving-men/story-fnet09p2-1226580988910), like passing a car crash and feeling your neck involuntarily to the horrors you know you subconsciously want to think.

I'm hearing echoes of Craig Reucassel, ala Shock Horror Aunty, in my head "people want to be outraged!" and nod in woeful agreement that, while not normally easily baited, this one indeed pulled me in.

While tempted to listen to my own advice to not fight stupid, as you'll only be dragged down to their level then beaten with experience, I haven't had a good rant in a while so....

Firstly, I think Sarah Beaulieu is doing as much harm to the cause of feminism as she seems to sanctimoniously claim she is doing for promoting "good men". The use of the terms "angry" and "feminist" in close conjunction perpetuates the harmful misnomer that all feminists are angry. Similarly, to suggest that you cannot be feminist and love men (or anyone perhaps she believes- if we feminists are such angry hateful people in general?). 

Feminism is defined as: "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." (www.dictionary.reference.com)

Feminism is NOT:
- man-hating
- promoting the rights of women above and beyond or over men
- prioritising women's needs over others'

Unfortunately this is not widely understood, and there are some common cross-overs and confusions that occur by applying false logic which do a lot of harm to genuine equality and feminism, such as:
- women who have been hurt by a man (or men) and feel anger or hatred towards men, and self-associate with feminism as they see a cause which advocates that they should have had a right to exist free of violence.

However, the "I call myself a feminist therefore I am one (although I am hateful towards men)" is an association that spreads, similar to how the "I am a member of the priesthood and therefore am a good Catholic (although I rape children)" association tarnishes the image of the Catholic church. The actions of a few statistical outliers who choose to be more vocal, receive more attention and media, and perpetuate negative false associations. 

I'm not going to get into the equally preachy self-as-an-example-which-proves-my-theory-of-everything "I am a feminist and I love men " blah blah because it won't achieve anything- one person's experience can be a record, but it does not attest to the broader ethical or moral standards of society, or even the average human experience.

Her basic premise is sound- to encourage harmony, but it is done so in the way of the patronising Mormon door-knocker "I want you to go to heaven, which is why I tell you everything about your life is wrong, try to force you into my way of seeing the world, and if all else fails I'll judge, pity and pray for you."

The way Beaulieu words the article could actually promote further hatred of women by promoting old negative stereotypes, and be counter-productive to her stated intentions of reducing violence against women and improving male-female interactions and relationships.

So, Sarah Beaulieu, I encourage you to think about the, likely unintentional consequences, but incredibly poorly thought out approach to how you advocate for causes in the future.