On the subject of women in society.

Earlier in the week I received this photo in a tweet about the disappearance of Jill Meagher in Melbourne.
This morning I saw on the news that a man was charged with her rape and murder and her body was discovered dumped on a road side outside of Melbourne.

On its own, this story plays out as a sickening reminder of the darkness in society.

It certainly makes me feel sick.
What further darkens my mood is the side show that has been playing out in the media and social networks. 

Throughout the week the Victorian police called out for anyone with ANY information which might have been pertinent to come forward.
Comedian, columnist and FEMALE (probably the most important thing to know about her) Catherine Deveny was one such (among a very MANY I am sure) who called Crime Stoppers to inform them of a slim, sandy haired man who had attempted to assault her in the wee hours of a night/morning in July as she rode her bike home on the very street Meagher was last seen. Here are her words on the subject.

Was this man the same one seen on CCTV footage speaking to Meagher? I have no idea.

What I do know is that Deveny tweeted about what had happened to her, and that she had mentioned it to police in the hopes that it would prompt others to do likewise and help to lead to, what everyone hoped would be, the safe return of Jill Meagher to her family.
Instead Deveny experienced a brutal backlash from a disturbingly large portion of the social networking community implying (and outright stating) that not only was it her fault that Jill Meagher was abducted, raped, and killed, due to her lack of reporting; but also that it would have been better if it had been Deveny who had been the one it had happened to.

This disgusts me to the core.
Part of it may have to do with Deveny's strong opinions about a great many things (a pathetic excuse to hate on someone to any extent) and her public standing as a feminist, atheist, and humanitarian. I myself disagree with some of her opinions, but to wish death of any kind for any reason is a self pronounced indictment against the inability of many Australians (and people all around the world) to accept differences of opinion as diversity rather than reasons for hatred.

 In her column (which you should read) Deveny makes a very accurate observation.
"If women reported every drunk, creep, loony or fuckwit who hassled them the cops would have to multiply their numbers by a thousand and still be flat out. "
 I myself can remember, as I am sure most women can, many instances where I have been harrassed verbally and physically due to the mere fact that I am a female. Some were more serious than others and certainly should have been reported.

On one instance I was locked in a room with a boy who I knew,  who then physically restrained me and prevented me from leaving. I tried to climb out of the windows, and getting to the door but he was much stronger than me, and I was anxious not to keep trying to escape when every time I did just gave him the opportunity to touch me - which I otherwise fended off.
Eventually someone passed by and heard me shouting and let me out.
It was a man who let us out and he looked suspiciously at us as the room was dark, we were teenagers and I tore out of there like I was embarrassed. Which I was. Just not for the reasons he thought.
I immediately went to tell an adult about what had happened, a female adult, and her response was to laugh it off and do nothing.

As an adult I wish I could have avoided other more serious situations, or had confidence that I would have the support I would have needed had I come forward. I did not have that confidence, neither did I come forward.

Sadly, most girls growing up in today's society learn quite quickly that this kind of thing 'just happens' and learn just as quickly that we are often left on our own to deal with it.
This happens in a variety of ways. Girls training home from my school would buddy up so the sleazy conductor didn't trap them anywhere alone. Not going out at night alone, altering dress and behaviour. Lots of things.

I find nothing really wrong with any of this, not in theory anyway, people are entitled to seek whatever form of safety they can. What seriously gets to me is when tragic events like the murder of Jill Meagher point out to us all, that society indirectly continues to lay responsibility for the behaviour of predatory and sick men, at the feet of the women they attack.
Early in the investigation, photos from Meagher's facebook page were used by one particularly unaccountable 'journalist' to make the assumption that she was a "party girl" , but in today's media the character of the victim is as much relevant to the case as anything else. Relevant to what you ask? To ratings, and garnering public support because that great faceless beast called 'The Public' is as unaccountable as that journalist and believes exactly what it is told to in most cases.

A common phrase which hurts my heart is "If she didn't dress that way, she wouldn't have been raped."
While I have my own personal opinions and standards about dress I believe that it is the right of any individual to dress the way they want to. There are however laws which prevent people from acting the way they want to, if that includes the assault, rape, harm, or death of another person. So why do we blame a woman in a short skirt for getting assaulted more than a woman who was wearing trousers and no make up?

In another devastating incident this year a young man was king hit while walking through the suburb of Kings Cross in Sydney. He later died in hospital as a result of the horrific injuries he suffered as a result of the attack. He had done nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have no desire to take anything away from this tragedy, but it is interesting to me that the response to this and other similar incidents was to increase security in the area, and assess the drinking laws of the local pubs. While staying at home was mentioned, there was a greater plan established to enable people (mostly young men) to go out, and enjoy an evening with friends without fear of being attacked while walking down the street.

Where is the equivalent strategy for the prevention of crimes against women?
Stay at home. Don't go out alone. Dress less provocatively.
All of these things return the focus to the woman and ignore the problem. The problem being that women aren't safe even in the middle of the day in a crowded room. That they are almost always in danger of being exposed to sex based crimes.

Things need to change. Deep rooted attitudes towards women in society need to change.
My husband wants only sons, he says that "With girls you have to worry about all the dicks, and with boys you only have to worry about one." This is an obvious generalisation, but with one son, and another on the way, I know that I will teaching my boys to be responsible with what they have and not give all the women out there cause to worry. I don't know how else to change society, but by changing individuals.

If you want us to report everything that happens to us, don't scoff or laugh. By the time someone is abducted, raped, or killed, it is too late. Listen now.
Then when it is serious you'll know about it. We aren't the boy who cried wolf you know... more like the girl who cried dog, and just for the record, there are a lot of dogs in this world, and yes I do mean men who are dogs. If there were less of them maybe we would be able to identify the wolves more easily.

This morning after hearing the news of Jill Meagher's body by the police I said to my husband "It makes me sad, women are so weak and so exposed."
He shook his head "Women aren't weak. Society just likes to make out like they are."
Shame on me. He's right of course. Women aren't weak, but they are exposed. Exposed to the perversions, and violence of men (not all of course). Exposed because society's attempts thus far to protect women have been to prevent them from interacting in a world that is corrupted, rather than changing the world.

 ---

I realise I haven't written anything on this blog in a really long time. I have been busy being an artist, but there are just some things that really get under my skin and have to be talked about. This is one.

Europe adrift.

Australia broadcast the Eurovision song competition finals last night, and amidst all the wind machines, drama, and general awesomeness of the whole Euro-trash spectacle (I say all of this is the most affectionate way. I love Eurovision) I had to wonder... what would Greece, or in fact any of the countries who have been hardest hit by the economic downturn do if they won?

Loreen from Sweden won in a landslide. Source

Eurovision is huge and at least from my perspective (which is from my side of the telly) appears to be very expensive.

Like much of my adult education, my understanding of global economics comes from the telly, the internet and a couple of magazine and newspaper articles. So consider this as a disclaimer for what is to come...

Back in 1983 the Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke announced that the Australian dollar would be floated.
In the time that has followed the move had proven to be a wise one.

How does it work? A floating currency is effectively controlled by the market. For Australia it means that when demand for our exports rises, the currency increases in value against other global currencies. When demand falls, so does the currency, which makes it cheaper for people to buy our products and helps products to continue moving... it provides a buffer for the ebb and flow (and sometimes tidal disasters) of the global economy.

This is unlike the Chinese Ren Min Bi for example which is carefully controlled by the government.

There are unique troubles associated with this as seen when demand in one sector of a country's economy (like the mining boom in Australia) drives the dollar up, and so other exporters (eg. car manufacturers) become uncompetitive in the global market due to the strong currency.

I am aware that this is a very basic understanding of what is a much more complex issue.
Of all the things I follow on the news, the strength of the Australian dollar is one of them. I'm not really sure why that is, I'm not going to America any time soon so whether the dollar is above or below parity with the US has no practical significance to me, neither do I trade in currencies - but it is interesting.

I don't really understand all the very many factors that have contributed to the snowballing disaster in Europe, but after thinking about it, there is one thing that I kind of get.
That is, that within the European Union itself, there is no floating currency. Greece, one of the poorest countries in the union, experiences the strengthening of the Euro based on more traditionally successful countries like Germany, while Germany gets to enjoy what is probably a weaker Euro than it would otherwise have.

If that makes sense...?

So as Greece starts to sink, instead of their currency's value being adjusted by the market to help buffer the nation from some of the crash, it remains high, preventing Greece from being competitive in a market which is as a whole experiencing tough times.

Is there more to it? Of course there is, I'm not even pretending that I know a whole lot about a continent that I have never actively studied or set foot on. But when I kept hearing about the European Financial Crisis on the news I figured I should think a little more about it and at least try to figure it out. Politics aside, I think that there is something fundamentally wrong with a whole collection of such varying nations sharing a currency like the Euro. While everything is going well, its just peachy, but as this crisis is proving, its not a very robust system.

At least that's how I see it.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who know a whole lot more about the whole thing, and so feel free to educate me.

Anything Germany can do...

When I was in university we often spoke about the need for 'clean' sources of energy and without fail the conversation would turn to nuclear power and the benefit that it didn't fill the atmosphere with potentially toxic and Earth warming green-house gases. Of course there was the problem of safety, and the fate of the numerous barrels of radioactive waste produced, but in terms of pros vs cons, it seemed to be a winner for the environment.

I remain unconvinced.
Perhaps its because I'm a New Zealander and I take great pride in New Zealand's strong stance against nuclear weapons and nuclear anything really. It's the Rainbow Warrior in me, I suppose.
Maybe it's just because the risk of death, cancer, food and water contamination, fertility problems, developmental issues in children and general lifestyle factors make me want to find another way.

The Japanese seem to agree.

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

Last Saturday (May 5 2012), over a year since the tsunami that triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster (March 11, 2011), Japan shut down the last 50 or so of their nuclear reactors. Prior to this, a third of all of Japan's power was provided by the stations.
In the throes of summer, this has meant personal and corporate effort at keeping energy consumption limited and operation "Cool Biz" encouraging workers to leave their suit jackets at home to help reduce the need for air conditioning. Pressure in Japan is already mounting from certain sectors for nuclear power plants to be turned back on (obviously those in charge of the power plants are more interested in this happening than anyone else) but until the existing nuclear plants undergo safety tests (the reason why they were switched off) and until the local leaders and the public want them turned back on, I don't see the government doing so.

So where does that leave the more than 127 million Japanese (World Bank March 30,2012) people who used to rely heavily on electricity generated by nuclear power?
Unfortunately for them, the environment and the Japanese economy, it leaves them relying almost entirely (90%) on the consumption of fossil fuels.
At a cost of over $100 million extra a day, Japan is paying dearly for their choice to avoid the potentially unsafe generation of nuclear power. With international focus on cutting carbon emissions, this also seems like a backwards direction for Japan in environmental terms.

Not all see it this way, with many viewing the move away from nuclear power as a great opportunity for the nation to develop cleaner and safer kinds of energy. The Prime Ministers goals are modest compared to some (Denmark has committed to using only renewable energy sources by 2050) PM Noda stating that Japan's targets are more along the lines of 25-30% by 2030. "If Japan has the motivation, it can do this, too," said Sei Kato, deputy director of the Environment Ministry's Low Carbon Society Promotion Office. "We have the technological know-how. Japan can do anything that Germany can."

I believe that one of the greatest benefits of what is a terrible situation for Japan (especially those who were near Fukushima) is that many other nations have taken the opportunity to assess their own power needs, and those relying on nuclear power are questioning just how safe it is. 

It's interesting to note that throughout America and Europe, areas known for using nuclear power, few new stations are being built. It is the area where we (I) live, in the Pacific/Asian region where new nuclear power stations are popping up. While it would be nice to assume that more modern constructions would be robust enough to face the unpredictable weather and face down earthquakes and tsunamis, recent events don't fill me with inspiration. 

Source

Here in Sydney, we're fossil fuel eaters. Coal in particular, and regardless of what it said about 'clean coal', the consumption of a non renewable resource which spits waste into the atmosphere is not clean. There is no such thing as clean coal.  (I think I saw that on a Greens sticker once... I'm not a Green)

Without the fear for human safety, there is far less of an urgency for a dramatic shift to the renewable energy sector. What a shame. 

It seems to me that consistent effort is going to be the key. Japan's example should show us all that while it may be difficult (nuclear power companies will fight to the end), while existing frame works may not fit perfectly (their current power grid is not well suited for solar and wind power... that kind of thing) and while they face their own unique challenges (population size, physical isolation from mainland Asia etc) the goal is to work for a better tomorrow... in ten or twenty years. This mind set doesn't mesh well with current social thinking which to me seems to be all about instant gratification, but surely there are enough people with some foresight to get it done.

In another moment of New Zealand pride I would just like to point out that most energy used by the country is generated from hydro, geothermal and wind. 

Obviously with a MUCH smaller population the power requirements are dwarfed by those of Japan or even Australia, and New Zealand's unique geothermal profile allows for equally unique opportunities to harvest energy. However I do believe that all countries should attack the problem of power pollution, over consumption and so on in their own unique way. 

Wind Farm in New Zealand - source

If Germany can do it, and Japan is doing it... then can't we all?

My personal contribution to power saving is more financially driven (I hate paying power bills) but for whatever reason, I switch of my electrical devices at the wall every night. This means slightly less coal being burnt for me and mine. 

How about you?

If you want to read more about the specifics of what happened in Japan and a generally good article about 'safety' in a nuclear powered world, check this out. 

  EDIT:
I just saw on the news that China, after halting the approval of any new Nuclear Power Plants following the melt down in Fukushima has indicated that it will be pushing forward with their nuclear expansion. As the largest power consumer in the world, and not renowned for the transparent sharing of information, I find this concerning. Recently the 18 year old Daya Bay Nuclear Plant was open for press, but no filming was allowed. There have been news of a leak in the plant recently, but naturally, nothing has been officially confirmed. China currently has 16 nuclear power stations with 26 more on the cards.
As the leaders in solar power technology, you'd expect China to use it more. Or you'd hope.
  

The Hunger Royale?

Tuesday (May 1) was my third wedding anniversary and so Ky and I dumped the kid and took off to eat Mexican food and watch The Hunger Games.

The huge wave of social interest in the Hunger Games has pretty much passed, and I realise that this is fairly late in the day for me to bring it up, but there are a few things about the books, (and I suppose the movie) that I would like to applaud and discuss.

Let me just state outright that I have no interest or intention of making this a political blog. Like religion, politics can be extremely polarizing and is a matter of personal choice. I believe that everyone has the freedom to be as opinionated and passionate about their religious and political choices as they want to be... I just won't be doing it here. (Well I'll be trying not to)

I hestitated in picking up The Hunger Games, because it seemed far too similar to Japanese author Koushun Takami's 1999 novel Battle Royale where a class of children are selected to fight to the death in an arena and the last child standing was declared the winner. (glitch in the matrix much?) I stubbornly insisted to myself that there was no way in this world of the internet that Suzanne Collins could have possibly failed to note that someone else had written nearly this exact scenario.

Battle Royale: gore fest.

I got over myself and did read the books though, all three of them, and they were good.
This isn't a book review so I'm not going to go on about the issues I had with characters and the movie. (Though I will just say that all those racists who thought Rue should have been white should go back and read the book again. Your ignorance makes me angry)

Like Battle Royale, The Hunger Games uses the shocking situation and the violence of the main story to reflect criticism on political powers.
Government (Hegemony really) subdues the downtrodden population of Panem and The Republic of Greater East Asia by having their young people kill each other, the horror of which quenches any possible desire to rise up against the existing power. (Only it back fires and two children make it out. Yes, this happens in both stories...)
 
In a book aimed at young people, I think the messages conveyed are important to introduce (or remind) people of their responsibility and accountability for the actions of their governments.
Collins clearly spells out her message when she explains (I think in book three) what she has been illustrating all along through the outlandish, fickle and superficial population of the Capitol, when she explains that Panem is named after the latin "Panem et circenses".
Originating in Rome (obviously) the term was coined for a population which no longer cared for their democratic rights and had effectively traded them for panem et circenses, or bread and circuses. Bread provided to Panem by the hard work of twelve impoverish districts, circuses (or entertainment) provided annually by the death of their children broadcast on live television.

In a world where reality TV is so prevalent, and entertainment is made from increasingly unreal situations, it isn't too hard for us to imagine a situation like this. (The Truman Show anyone?)

What do we find entertaining? and at what cost are we entertained? Where does our food come from? What do we trade our political accountability for? How do current politicians 'buy' our votes? (I said I wouldn't make this a political blog so I will refrain... but the budget was just announced in Australia and I'm not the only one who questions the motives behind the school children hand out)

I don't think its healthy to be paranoid or to invent conspiracies, but I do think it's important to ask questions and I think it is a great thing for books like The Hunger Games and even the far more violent Battle Royale (maybe for only slightly older readers?) to bring these issues into the spotlight.

Even couched in entertaining prose...
That's what I think, and even though I didn't really like Katniss Everdeen (personal opinion) and even though Peeta was treated terribly (he's my favourite) and even though on the face of it, it does just seem like the American version of Battle Royale, I still have to tip my hat to Suzanne Collins.

Nice one.

I wish I could write. My novel would totally be turned into a movie... 

the master of my fate...

Years ago, my goals involved a career in science where I got to wear boots instead of a lab coat, extensive travel, and striving to be what I deemed at the time to be an all round "interesting" person.

I graduated from university with a Bachelor of Science in Earth & Environmental Sciences. A professor was ready to take me on for my Masters and even had a position for me in a forestry job which would certainly involve wearing boots and even required me to travel around New South Wales to view different areas of forest.
I was well on my way to being "interesting"

And then I changed my mind.

I don't know if it was as simple as that, but something just seemed off about the whole thing, strangely selfish in a way that I couldn't explain (and still can't) and while investigating whether or not I could get a grant to help fund what would have been a post graduate degree well out of my price range, I applied to do volunteer work with my church.

I was assigned to work in Taibei, Taiwan, and with no regrets got on a plane and turned my back on what would have been over a year of tree surveys and reports.

When I returned to Australia, my degree was 2 years old, which without relevant work experience or post graduate study was not effective at getting me a 'science' job. I admit at this point that I wasn't trying very hard, only partly because I met my husband not long after getting home (highly distracting) and he has since patiently supported me through ill-fated artistic endeavours. I did some book keeping and we even spent some time working at a resort in Rarotonga.

When we lived in Rarotonga.

While my New Scientist subscription (yes yes, I had one) has long since expired, and I can't remember the last time I read a science journal of any kind, I believe that it is very important to remain educated on what is going on in the world. Not just science of course, but everything. I think we should all participate as part of a global community and take responsibility for our human citizenship.
Crucial to this is education.

So I'm educating myself, and you're invited along as I try to figure out the stories behind the news and wrap my head around the comings and goings on this dirt ball planet of ours.

My name is Eleanor.