My sister is getting married next year and a couple of months ago I nervously asked her if she was going to keep her surname. Thankfully, she said she probably would. Her reasoning was a combination of not really understanding the point of it (yay for logic!) and not liking her fiancé’s surname.

I like the first reason, but I think the second one is irrelevant. Not liking your partner’s surname is often referred to by women who choose to retain their surname after marriage. Perhaps it’s one way that women can placate people who show concern over them not taking their husband’s name. Saying ‘oh, I don’t really like the sound of it’ is far less provocative than ‘I don’t want to’ or ‘I don’t understand the point of it’, or ‘It’s a sexist tradition’. To many, flouting that tradition is ‘radical’ and obviously has feminist undertones. Some women may want to avoid getting into a feminist debate, and explain their choice to retain their name in terms less provocative. This is understandable, but I wish it wasn’t so! I say, bring it on. If retaining your name is provocative to some, then bring on the feminist debate.

Another common reason women give is for ‘professional purposes’. A friend asked me once if that was why I kept my name. I said no, I kept my name because I believe a woman changing her name upon marriage is an appalling and outdate sexist tradition. I wish women didn’t need to ‘explain’ their choice to retain their surname. When I got married, my mum said ‘good on you’ with a wistful glint in her eye; my dad said, ‘oh, you’re one of these new age women’ and laughed.

I’m sick of apologising for it though. I don’t want to apologise anymore. 

I found Toy Story 3 depressing because of the lack of female characters. This was compounded by the advertisements that preceded the feature which were all for children’s movies—all of which had male central characters.  I don’t have kids so I’m not concerned for my kid. I’m concerned for girls and women. I’m concerned that, by omitting females or including them as mere tokens, popular culture tells girls and women over and over again that they aren’t as important and boys and men. I’m concerned that the representation of girls and women by the media is too narrow, and more often than not, negative.  I’m concerned that I’m writing this in 2010, when we’re supposed to ‘have equality’ by now. I’m really concerned by the negative comments posted in response to the Ms magazine review . The review is a good feminist analysis of what is wrong with Toy Story 3.

If I’m a joyless feminist, then so be it. If joyless feminists are the only ones pointing out that ‘blockbusters’ like Toy Story 3 are bad for girls, then the world needs more joyless feminists.

Back at dinner, my ears pricked up when I heard someone say something and laugh about the ‘girl in the green bikini’. Everyone else laughed apart from me and my husband. I thought, “I don’t know these people very well….how am I going to say something ‘tactfully’. Maybe I should just remain silent”.

But I couldn’t. I said something along the lines of “Well good on her for wearing a bikini if she wants – why should she be ashamed?” The table went silent and people looked at me. I continued in that vein trying to explain that women are under way too much pressure to look a certain way and maybe we should consider why; hell, maybe we should question the unfair pressure placed on women to look a certain way THAT CONVERSATIONS LIKE THESE perpetuate (!) The woman next to me was intrigued and said “Keep talking, I like this. I love debates’. So the conversation went on for a bit longer but two of the guys began looking at me like they hated me (no surprises there, really) and the conversation kind of petered out when one of them said completely irrelevantly ”I can be controversial – What about when someone says a scantily-clad woman is asking to be raped?” I thought, but didn’t say because I was tired, the food was terrible and I wanted to go home: ”That’s not controversial you idiot…it’s just stupid and actually pretty mainstream”. I have no idea where that particular comment came from, but I suspect it was based on a a general fear that I was commandeering the conversation into feminist territory that would make the menz feel bad.

Anyway, I came away NOT feeling terrible like I usually come away from social gatherings with people I don’t know very well who, typically quite early in the night, reveal themselves to be misogynists. I felt good that I was able to MAYBE get them to question their assumptions about what women should and shouldn’t wear and why. At least maybe for the women at dinner who were more open to the idea of thinking about it.

Servo sex man avoids jail – Yahoo!7 News.

He had a sex with ‘a woman’. Why is she not in the news? The police asked him to stop, but he continued. Did the police ask her to stop? Did she continue? I don’t understand this!!!!! How is the woman completely absent in this story??? This story presents sex as something that men do and something that women have done to them. Ok, nothing new there – sadly, I think most people still think like this. But the complete absence of the woman in this story is too horrific.

And is the last nugget of information about him having assaulted his previous partner supposed to make us suspect this time was rape? If it was rape (and that’s why the woman’s actions aren’t mentioned at all?), then the story should be reported as rape, and not merely as ‘sex in public’.

Anyway if I was disappointed then I was absolutely astonished when that same evening after the men’s 4th round match which ended around 10pm, instead of showing the next match – the 4th round match between Azarenka and Zvonereva, who are both in the top 10 – they showed a REPLAY of an earlier match between Tsonga and someone else. Absolutely unbelievable. And what shits me even more is that there has been not a whisper of outrage over this. How is this ok??? How is it ok to show a replay of a men’s match instead of a live women’s one?? Who is in charge and what are they thinking? And where is the outrage? I wrote a letter the editor at the SMH. I often send letters in but they probably hate feminists, and I have never been published. I’ll post it here too.

In response to and support of letter to the editor by Cassandra Miller (27.01.10):

The message that channel 7 sends to young sportswomen by failing to air the match between Stosur and Williams and placing more emphasis on men’s matches in general is that women’s sport is not as important as men’s. Not only did we miss the Stosur-Williams match, later that evening, channel 7 decided to show a replay of an earlier men’s match instead of the live women’s 4th round match between 2 top ten players. Unfortunately, Australian society still applauds the achievements of men over those of women. As Eva Cox (SMH, 26,01,10 ‘Society to blame’ for inequality in awards) noted with regards to the shortage of women receiving Order of Australia awards “we still think the things women do are natural and ordinary and that what men do is extraordinary”. Sadly this is the case for sport as well. It is not just channel 7. The tournament organisers have scheduled the men’s matches for the night-time prime television slot. Obviously they think the public are more interested in watching men play than women. I, for one, am not. I like both, and would like to see both women’s and men’s tennis given equal value by the media and the tournament organisers.

 I also loved Survivor because it seemed to me to be a brilliant showcase of the human psyche – the American psyche specifically. Yes, I realise it’s a reality tv show and that what we see is in fact not reality. But the emaciated and hairy contestants that emerge at the end of the 30 days demonstrate that they do at least go through some physical discomfort.

 The way that some contestants go about trying to get others on their sides, and the way that others don’t even try is, I think, fascinating.

 I have not seen Survivor for a few years. I don’t know why—life got in the way and I found better things to do, I’m sure. But for some reason I have allowed Survivor Samoa into my life (I think it’s because it’s holiday season and I am being lazy and slothful), and though it remains compelling viewing, I am disappointed with particular elements of they human psyche that I have witnessed in this series. Perhaps they were there before but I was insensitive to them.

 To put it simply, I am disappointed with the lack of sisterhood between the female contestants and the misogyny of all the contestants. Why is it that the women are the first to go? The stock response to this is because they are physically weak. Of course women are typically physically weaker than men, but I have some counter-responses to this. Firstly, some of they men on Survivor may look incredibly muscular and have a great deal of strength, but many of these men turn out to be lazy and half-hearted in the physical challenges. Think Jaison in this series. I can’t recall his name, but there was another man in a previous series who was also prone to giving up when things got rough. Put simply, some of the men on Survivor get away with being lazy just because it is assumed they are strong and powerful. Women, on the other hand, have to constantly prove their physical strength because it is always doubted—no it is more than doubted, it is often simply overlooked.

 My second counter-argument, and this is more important I think, is that not all the challenges in Survivor are physical. Actually, I get the feeling from watching this series that they are finally attempting to address the problem of gender discrimination (against women) in challenges by, for example, having the women compete against each other, rather than everyone competing together. Regardless of this, contestants still seem to carry an assumption that physical strength is the most important thing a team or an individual can possess. This is disappointing and perpetuates the idea that physical strength will always win over any other type of strength (like memory, puzzle-solving, endurance, among others), and that therefore men are better than women.

I have since thought about the exchange. I don’t think doing activities that are typically associated with femininity, such as baking, cooking, sewing etc is incompatible with being a femininist. I don’t think it’s incompatible with being critical of the gendered division of labour either.  Actually, I don’t think being a good homemaker is anything for a feminist to be ashamed of either. In fact, I think everyone, regardless of sex should strive to be good homemakers. I think it’s a shame that things like cooking, cleaning and childcare get outsourced to the market these days in countries like Australia and the US (and many more I’m sure). I certainly don’t think women should go back to the kitchen…on the contrary, I think men should join women in the kitchen. Women have ‘joined’ men in the paid workforce, now it’s time for the men to catch up, as far as I’m concerned.

And in actual fact the outsourcing of domestic work has done nothing to break down the gendered division of labour because the people who are now paid to perform that work are still overwhelmingly women.

I just finished reading a book by Amy Borovoy, an American academic, about Japanese women married to alcoholics. She made some really interesting points – in Japan, in general, the work done by mothers and houewives is respected. Nurturing both husband and children are important jobs done by married women. Motherhood is central to a woman’s identity and while there is pressure on women to be good mothers, there is also social respect. Full-time housewives in Japan are also eligible for the pension regardless of whether they have ever been in the paid labour force or not – unlike in Australia, where married women get little recoginition or financial reward for raising the kids, cooking the meals, doing the wasing and cleaning etc.

The burden on married women in Japan to look after the family (including in-laws) and household is immense, but because of their status as mothers they are buffered from social expectations placed on women to be sexually attractive to men, they do not face sexual harrassment or discrimination in the workforce, and they engage in community and voluntary life – something most people in the workforce don’t have time for. Borovoy is not saying that Japanese women have got it right, and nor am I. Housewives remain financially dependent on their husbands and if the marriage fails, divorce is a very difficult path to take. The American feminist movement that focused on equal rights has seen women enter the paid labour force and consequently nurturing and domestic tasks have been outsourced. Neither stories from the US or Japan have seen a significant breakdown of the gendered division of labour. Maybe in the future we will see something in between the case of Japan and the US where housework and parenting are given appropriate value and where it is not assumed that WOMEN will do those tasks.

These are the ingredients you need: Red lentils, 1 zucchini, 2 carrots, 2 or 3 medium-large tomatoes, any other veges you want, 1 onion, 1 tbls garlic pulp (about 2 large cloves), 1 tsp each of turmeric, brown mustard and cumin seeds, half a tsp of turmeric, 1 tsp of garama masala, salt, plain peanut butter (the stuff that is 100% pureed peanuts – no salt or sugar in it)

Put a generous amount of oil in a hot pan (I find that a combination of olive and mustard oils is great for curries). Turn the heat to medium. When the oil is hot, add the seeds. When seeds start popping, add the diced onion and stir until onion goes soft, about 5 mins. Add the garlic pulp (make sure it’s quite watery otherwise the garlic will just stick to the bottom and burn) and stir for a bit. Add roughly chopped carrots and zucchini. Add ground turmeric and some salt. Stir until veges coated. Add chopped tomatoes and a generous tbls of peanut butter and mix. Cook until tomatoes have gone mushy. Add rinsed lentils and some water so that lentils can cook. Cook on medium-low heat until done. Add garam masala at the end and salt if necessary. Yummy with brown rice.

There is a very good article in the SMH today in the Health and Science section that puts it out there plain and simple – there are lots of different combinations of chromosomes and hormones in people. But this does not necessarily make a person male or female:

Several degrees of androgyny.

The problem with Semenya’s testing is that seems to be this undecurrent of thought that female athletes who appear manly (?) are suspect. What of male athletes? Of course, men who appear womanly will not be tested, because less testosterone and more of those damn passive, fat-inducing and hysterical female hormones are no good to an athlete. But what about men who naturally produce three times the amount of testosterone that is ‘normal’ for a man. Should there perhaps be a new athletic category for those male athletes? The ‘uber-male’ might be an appropriate title for this category. In which case, what category do women like Semenya go into? Should there be a new category called the ‘uber-female’, or should she just compete with the men? Where does it end? Where are the boundaries? In other words, what are they going to do with the results of this ‘gender testing’ they are subjecting Semenya to??

Anyway, I read in the SMH yesterday that his combined annual income from tv appearances and his radio show was over 3 million dollars. Let me get this straight, Kyle Sandilands earns over 3 million dollars a year for being nothing.  It makes me want to vomit.

I am often disturbed with the amount of money some people earn for what they do. It seeems to me that our capitalist values are upside down. The jobs that are important, necessary and hard are paid the least, while arseholes like Sandilands are rewarded for being nothing. Take childcare workers or aged carers – in Australia I think an average full-time wage in those industries is  $35K-$40K . The teaching profession is known for its low wages despite teaching being surely one of the most important jobs out there. I know medicine is an important profession, but do surgeons have to be paid hundreds of thousands a year?? Why? At the beginning of the 20th century, teachers and doctors were paid the same. Why have our value and reward systems changes so much?

Anyway, back to Kyle Sandilands,  the fact that someone like him is rewarded both monetarily and by means of social and public recognition I think is an indication of how warped our contemporary value system has become.