More Politics

    Since the election is coming up so quickly now (no faster than ever before, and as we approach summer, slower, in fact, in truth [though not significantly]), I will concentrate first on those parties running candidates in the electorate where I will be voting, in reverse order of my current opinion of them. Afterward, I mean to finish with any parties I may have missed.
    Therefore, our next target: Christian Democratic Party.

    Their policies page. I covered them only briefly once before. This time I will focus on their federal policies. It is just the one long page, so no need for frequent linking this time.

( Follow behind the cut! )

    And that is it. The rest details their positions for the 2004 campaign.

    In summary, this is the party which means to establish Christian primacy in Australia by

• Disallowing Muslim immigration for a decade
• Placing chaplains in all schools
• Smearing the good name of gay men and lesbians by associating them with child abuse
• Continue to block same-gender marriage
• Encourage children to believe it is wrong and dangerous to be anything but heterosexual
• End safe sex education
• Ban abortion
• Enforce the Sabbath
• Ban pornography
• Filter the internet
• Repeal anti-discrimination laws
• I'm sure I missed something

    I advise that no one vote for this party, and hope they break up soon.

Request for terminology

    The main character in a story I am writing was the child of a polyamourous triad and I find myself stuck for how to refer to family members. I was mostly having problems referring to her non-biological parent, but other terms would help too.

My sister sent me this last night

    And now I inflict it on you.

Random Stupid

    lost_angelwings showed me this article a few minutes ago. There does not seem much point to it - rambling and not-quite attempts humorous sexual remarks made regarding a sexual assault trial. Eventually dutiful acknowledgement is made of the seriousness of the charges and that humour is inappropriate, although it is still referenced immediately after.
    The main focus seems to be on the described-as-provocative dress of Catholic schoolgirls in the audience on excursion.
    The writer says the asked the woman next to her, "a prostitute and sex-trade worker advocate" - quoted because her language is unclear and I do not wish to risk an incorrect paraphrase - why the girls all want to look like sluts.
    "They don't understand their sexuality yet, the powers they have, and the danger it puts them in," Anastasia Kuzyk observed. "And none of them remember Paul Bernardo."
    That is the answer that comes back. I think it a rather dreadful one. This idea, that women have magical sex powers which men are helpless against, and that if they are not covered up and careful, something bad will happen to them, is just the same sort of rhetoric I see from religious leaders (I was going to say Muslim clerics but realised they have no monopoly) about why Western women need to dress more modestly.
    And if they do not comply, there is the threat of violence.

    I am so sick and disgusted with this species for enforcing conformity with threatened violence, I really do not know what to do with them. Oh, I am not going to give up on them, not going to stop hoping entirely, but at times like this it runs very low indeed.

    And then the closing lines of the article:

Probably, those courtroom girls see no similarities between the image that they project and, say, the professional peelers who took the stand.

I've no problem with the sex industry. I just wish girls would aspire to something better, especially in their lovely adolescent innocence.

    Let's try some substitutions to bring that out more clearly. "I've no problem with [accountancy]. I just wish girls would aspire to something better[.]"

"I've no problem with [professors]. I just wish girls would aspire to something better[.]"

"I've no problem with [homosexuality]. I just wish [kids] would aspire to something better[.]"

    Hm. Doesn't really sound like no problem, does it?
    Don't think I missed the fetishising of youth and innocence, either, the idea that young girls ought to be somehow pure and spoil themselves by expressing sexuality.
    I suppose I do not have a point either, except I think these attitudes are harmful. Putting women on a pedestal and holding them responsible for the actions of others does not seem to me an at all helpful thing to do.

Sad cat, mad cat

    There was a psychic detective show just on. Although the psychic involved in the featured case provided the police with no new information and did not lead them to the killer or a conviction - that was done years later through a tip-off from someone who had been threatened by the murderer, the concluding minutes of the show treated it as a positive outcome for the use of psychics in police matters and advised people with an unsolved case to try one.
    Grr.

    I am also annoyed at attempts to bully/shut men up by demeaning their masculinity. Really, since when did we decide gendered/sexist insults were okay? This complaint inspired by the recent advertising campaign showing young men driving recklessly and witnesses (and passengers) making gestures indicating they think the driver has a small penis.