Trailer Park

A quick assessment of the state of things:

I have spent the last week writing, studying and editing.  I have managed to actually spend 4 days doing continuous work.  None of this was the Corporations Law paper, which leads me to believe that it's not me, but the Corps subject that is the problem.  I think I already knew that though.

Today I'd like to talk about White Feminism

Also known as egalitarian feminism, it ignores the subtle differences between each person, such as weight, colour, education, upbringing; generally context.  In other words, I see it as allowing bigotry, racism, and 'otherness' to run alongside feminist values.  White feminists applaud the banning of Chris Brown from coming to Australia, without acknowledging the nuances of his ban: that men can rehabilitate; that as a reformed abuser, speaking to hoards of young people, can be a seriously positive influence on the dialogue; and the racist undertones of a broadly white society banning a man of colour from entering the country.  I also feel sad.  Pete Doherty, someone who suffers from ongoing, extremely painful, and pervasive addiction issues (now, hopefully, reformed) was given a very restrictive visa for his Splendour in the Grass shows in 2013.  I have loved Pete as one of the greatest poets of our generation, was devastated when he cancelled coming to Australia with the Libertines in 2006, and I hate that I still haven't seen him.  Chris Brown, while I do not engage in this style of music, is surely held in the same regard by his millions of fan.  Also, where is the outrage from feminists about letting Geert Wilders have a visa for coming into the country?

It is somewhat like this horrifying argument that we should not build mosques.  Islam is portrayed by bigoted groups as being a terrifyingly alien set of values that is contradictory to western values, and therefore should not be made to feel welcome in Australia.  We know that this is pure bigotry.  Mosques represent community, and a strong Islamic community leads to inclusiveness.  It prevents radicalisation of young people, through strong leadership and support.  In other words, if you want Australia to be free of angry young Muslim men, build mosques, which are a part of the Australian landscape.

I appear to have fallen off the wagon.  Back onto white feminism.  I am a woman of colour, it is a name that I have recently incorporated into my identity.  The reason that I have is that it has been pointed out to me that my structure of reality is different to white people.  I never realised!  I asked 'why?' a lot, my Ego curious as to why I might be so compelling to other women of colour.  It is quite nice to be told 'No! You're actually special!'; I am aware that this is smoke and mirrors.  But the difference is that as a woman of colour, and as an unconventional woman, I can perceive the systems surrounding me.  I suspect part of this perception is my personality type (though I know plenty of people with my personality type that deny the systems, so these things aren't necessarily inclusive).  I think the core to the perception is as a person of colour (but again, there are people of colour who deny the systems, here's looking at you.  Also, plenty of people of all genders with the opposite personality type to me, who are white, perceive the systems.  So I don't know where it comes from.  Some people just can't.

But anyway, I'm also aware that it is not just my gender that has prevented so many opportunities from presenting, but rather a combination of factors: unconventionality being the prime suspect, closely followed by tall poppy syndrome, not-pretty-or-skinny-enough-to-hire-as-eye-candy, not being a yes person.  It is in combination, because any of these issues would be less of an issue if I was a man.  So intersectionality applies to me, I can see how it applies, and I have no idea how to conform in a way to negate the way that the system works against me.  I get angry and frustrated when I hear people, under the banner of 'feminism', tell us what we should do with our lives. Such as support female only rock bands.  Or grow / shave our armpit hair.  Or dress in a certain way.  I adore the concept of the 'bad feminist', who does what they want, when they want.  I certainly try and live in the world with Wilde in my mind: 'what other people think is none of my business'.  Part of it is coping mechanism; most of it is putting myself up really high moral standard of living and existing.  What more can I do?

One of the choices that I make is to listen to podcasts that could be characterised as white feminist podcasts.  I'm talking about Mia Freedman's company, Mamamia Women's Network.  I get genuinely excited on the nights of the week that the podcast is released.  I have no doubt that some of the feminists within the network are genuine intersectional feminists, such as Rosie Waterland, who is hilarious, and I look forward to reading her book once I have moved past the endless tide of law school readings.  I might even take myself to Asia for a fortnight and just read and read, along with the other biographies that I have piled up in my room (Neil Young, Morrissey).  Oh look I'm off track again.  My problem, primarily, is with Monique Bowley.  Monique produces all of the Mamamia podcasts, and randomly comes out with incredibly judgmental statements.  Such as 'I don't understand what the problem is with Rachel Donezel, surely we're able to express ourselves any way we want?'.  Mia Freedman herself is complicit in all of this.  I know that she has been criticised, over and over again, for her statements about prostitution, or her statements comparing gay people to pedophiles.  But there is pervasive ongoing personal body shaming, and the just... not the same care of language that I – and my friends – and I routinely pull them up on this – use.  And I feel bad for her, because she is so well intentioned.  But the constant slip ups that I hear on the podcasts speak to a louder problem of ongoing and pervasive internalised misogyny.  Mamamia can combat this so easily with putting to air more women of colour, and testing the podcasts against an audience of peers.  The thing is: I don't really mind hearing this stuff.  I roll my eyes in my bed, and have a giggle at their ignorance.  It really is compelling listening, and is analogous in feeling to catching up with school friends (which I never do, primarily because they don't seem to like me much).

On Body Shaming

I do have a problem with body shaming.  I have a problem with people around me doing it to themselves.  But I have it from other people in my life.  I can forgive my mother, because she has her own bucket of issues, and you can't really fight with parents.  But I have recently defriended someone close, who called me 'fat' in passing, and when I pulled her up on it, wouldn't own the statement.  She tried every angle to relinquish the guilt, to blame me, to blame society.  I would not have pushed her so hard on the matter, but for the incredibly standard that she holds everyone else in the world up against.  She genuinely hurt me, and I expect contrition, and a proper apology with ownership of the wrong, when these things happen.  It might be an excuse for me to end the friendship, because misanthropy is just really not much fun to be around.  Also, the borderline personality is so aggressively manipulative, and while I thought I was up for the challenge, ultimately it has hurt me.  The point at which I get accused of manipulation and abuse, not only for expressing my feelings, but also for the actions of my friends... that just takes personal responsibility a step too far.  I like to be able to navigate conflicting personalities, and I don't mind being caught between people that hate each other, although it is terribly unpleasant.  The minutes that I have to take responsibility for another person's action, I'm out.

Unfortunately there were a number of accusations levelled against my personality and integrity.  Unfortunately I have availed the person to some opportunities that involve my ongoing relationship with her.  Unfortunately I'm far angrier now, after the spouted her vitriolic bile at me.  What do I do?  That's rhetorical.

Ok, I have 3000 words to write on something I don't know much about.  Shannon out.

Bang

Last night I was asked to prove the patriarchy

So, instead of writing the paper that I need to write, I dug in.

Here is my (somewhat edited) response

We started by trying to come to some agreement as to what the patriarchy is. In a long winded way, I explained that it is about the right question to the right answer. My personal definition of the patriarchy lies in describing what it is, ie: is it oppressive; and does it serve a patriarchal purpose.  We talked about the consistency of formal definitions, why I reject the Oxford dictionary, how my personality type can accept the fluidity and changeability of language, where others may not be able to.

I then went on to write this:

So, I have some anecdotes about my experiences of the systems of oppression.  Anecdotes are still just anecdotes, and do not do justice to how systems of oppression actually work. But anyways.

Last week there was a negotiation comp at uni. Ego aside, I'll come out now and say that we should have won.  We had the credentials and experience.  As a nurse, I've been involved in some very high end negotiations with some very high clients. This is something that nurses get thoroughly trained at, through the hellfires of the wards. We're very good at talking people around, if you've ever visited an ED or a psychiatric ward you would have seen us in action (NB: thanks to the person that recently reminded me of these particular skills). I entered the comp with another mature aged student, with 15 years of middle school teaching under her belt. That's 15 years of negotiating with teenaged boys and their wealthy parents to partner in the learning experience.

We didn't even make the final. We got knocked out of the competition by these young men who weren't really negotiating. They were being standover men. As in they actually stood over us and talked down to us. The judges, other law students, praised this masculine strategy as 'clever tactics'. What is more, I used assertiveness to try and make them negotiate at eye level. I said: 'do you mind taking a seat, your standing over us is making me uncomfortable'; they refused, instead both stood and puffed out their chests. Marks were deducted for my attempted assertiveness. In other words, masculine aggressiveness was rewarded, and feminine assertiveness punished. Even worse, my partner gave a nervous laugh (giggle?) each time one of the men stood up; this passive feminine behaviour was praised. The competition was a classic example of the re-enforcement of a system that rewards men, and oppresses women, or in other words, the patriarchy.  Therefore, if there had been correction for bias, both overt and unconscious, yes, we should have won.

So this was then followed by my involvement in helping the school run the biggest national moot competition in Australia. Which brought on a whole other range of negative emotions. Back in first year, a friend and I won the biggest internal moot that the school has seen. We beat 23 other teams. Now, as I've mentioned, I'm in my mid 30s, and I'm not exactly ... pretty. Because frankly I don't particularly give a fuck about pretty. The woman I did this comp with, well she is definitely pretty. She was also 21, and the dynamic between us was somewhat similar to that of a mentor–mentee; I helped her with contract law and other subjects.  She is a lovely woman, and while I still have trust issues, I adore her. An international comp came up straight after we won the internal. She was asked to participate, and I was ignored. The boys that chose the students for the opportunity, also students, were young men in their mid 20s. I asked repeatedly for an explanation why; all I was told was that it was discretionary, 'you are perceived as uncoachable', and that was about it. Again, the school was utilising a system that rewards conformity, especially to the feminine norm, and therefore oppressive to anyone who happens to sit outside of that norm.  Yes, I'm still somewhat angry about it, because lost opportunities never reemerge.

Anyway, so this national competition that my school hosts. As a final year student, who has taken out half the prizes at the school, I thought I should have been first to be asked to be a student judge. Yes, I'm non-conformist, I challenge authority, and I ask 'wrong' and often embarrassing questions. But I know the law, I know how to throw other students off their stride, and I made myself very available. The lecturer, instead, asked the students who had been doing their degrees with less brilliance, having completed less subjects, to step in. Over the last 3 years, I've seen penultimate year mature aged students help judge this comp. It has a real outcome on me though. I don't get to hobnob with the other (professional) judges as a student judge, nor get the line on my resume.

The thing about experiencing oppression is it is the accumulation of hundreds of little things, that amount to long term disillusionment. I can only empathise with those suffering the affects of cross-generational institutionalised poverty, because oppression is an awful experience that lingers and lingers...  So I can whinge about not being afforded the same opportunities as my colleagues, but it seems petty, even in light of having a super impressive transcript. I mean. It is literally hundreds of things. Every rejection from job interview starts to feel oppressive. Even tiny things, like being demoted from leader of a 'cello section for someone younger and prettier, feels oppressive. It happened when I was in high school (section leader given to a very pretty younger girl, who ended up being a soap actress). It is constant and painful. Even with my analytical mind, most of the time I can't come up with a reasonable ulterior motive to decisions affecting my life, made by others, that feels oppressive.

Seriously, I've spent a lot of time trying to conform. To be more feminine, work harder and longer. But I've reached a point where I accept my place in the current system, because i'll never have the same opportunities as (white) men, or conforming women.

This is why I am a feminist. What else can I do, except try and change the system?

Shannon out.

19/2000

Okay, this is an experiment

As I seem to have stopped writing in my private blog, I thought I'd give public blogging a shot.

My partner in crime is the delicious and delightful Jax Lee.  I gonna write in an understated blue, and she'll... probably pick hot pink.

Okay, so what is this about? It is not that I think that my writing is any good.  Nor do I think I have anything original to say. The purpose of this is not necessarily to grandstand, to tell people what to think, to stir up discussion, any other reason besides...: I find it easier to write essays if I first get all of the random thoughts in my brain out onto a blog first.  So, strap in kids, you're gonna get the overflow of crap from my brain.

It seems that today I'm writing about: writing (how postmodern! lol), uncertainty, and what I should be doing instead.

I find it really interesting how dialogue in it's written form reflects how the author actually speaks

I have recently edited a tome of an essay.  22,000 words of awesome fact and opinion on good government, somewhat mashed together into what is definitely comprehensible, but not particularly academic.  Of course, with my anal retentive attitude about the legal academic referencing system, I am incredibly frustrated that I do not have the freedom to just correct everything.  But then again, is that just asserting authority, turning what might be a beautiful collaboration into a rhetorical pissing competition?  I don't want that.  I really need to bite the bullet and action that paper.

But back to my original point (I do get off point now and then...).  I have read so much in the last few years, and I love readability.  To criticise the lack of readability of one's own lecturers is a cheap and easy dig.  I would never do that.  Actually, I would.  But I recently dug into the writings of a new friend, which argues that the sovereignty of the nation lies with the Chapter III Courts.  As much as I hate the argument (sovereignty can not be appropriated, and it's status is so, so fucked in Australia, and... and...), it was still nice to read the 10,000 words of someone who lives so far away, and hear their voice through their writings.

Female uncertainty

Oh gosh.  Where do I start; I know that every step of the way, I feel like people tell me to 'tone it down'.  These people range from my dear, dear father, to peers, to colleagues, to employers, to human resources consultants... all of the people.  I also know that I'm not very good at 'toning it down', and that this has resulted in my aggressive misery for long periods of times.

I find postmodernism useful in trying to dissect what is pure oppression from what is a reasonable attempt to fit into society.  Actually, I don't find it useful at all, because it turns out that it is all oppression.  Nothing in 'toning it down' is anything but trying to accommodate other people's discomfort at my personality.  I also know that my personality is not *that* aggressive/assertive, and I'm not the worst person in the world at conforming.  I just wonder... if this personality was not in the female form, or if I inhabited the body of a benchmark male, would I have so many problems with attaining opportunities?  Would I hesitate when applying for jobs?  Would more people say yes?  How much does the fact that I am a non-conforming woman in my mid-thirties put the brakes on?

It is an impossible thought experiment.  Empathy does not reach that far; we actually cannot really know the experiences of another.

Getting on with it

I have a corporations law paper to write, on a topic that I have zero interest in.  The problem is not so much that it is a difficult paper, it isn't.  It is more that any paper that I write about commercial law, or private enterprise, I'm going to be pro-regulation and corporate social responsibility.  The lecturer is a libertarian.  But I'm also a good enough student to want the high marks, so I'm going to argue his perspective.  I won't go so far as to reference the Spectator, or Wikipedia (I know! right!), because, as I mentioned before, I have a thing for the beautiful academic style.  But I will write a whole paper against my better judgment.  The cognitive dissonance though.  It nearly hurts.

But tomorrow is a new day, and a new assignment will be released.  So tonight I'm jacking myself up on coffee, and attempting to be coherent (and persuasive!) about something that I don't believe in.  Wish me luck!

Thanks for reading!

I'll attempt to keep this going for a while.  It should get interesting once I get out of law school and back into the real world.  For now, take a look at my writing desk.

Apollo Bay, Sunset, October 2015

Yes, I'm very very privileged.  Shannon out.