The greatest nation on earth

Crossing the border from Canada to the United States is an interesting experience. In Australia, which borders no other country, you can't do this. I am reminded of the arbitrary nature of nationalism - over here, you're in Canada, a minute later, the United States. People drive back and forth across the border to do their grocery shopping or fill up their cars with gas (petrol - I mean really, North Americans, there is nothing gas-like about it). And yet the two countries, whilst sharing many traits that could be deemed North American, have quite distinct personalities.

The first thing I notice upon entering the United States is the proliferation of American flags. It's lucky they do that because otherwise I might have forgotten where I was for a minute. We drive past many dilapidated, boarded-up houses. I'm not sure whether they are victims of the Global Financial Crisis or just that the neighbourhood we are in has always been thus. They look like they could have been that way a while.

We stop for coffee and baked goods. An older lady with grey hair is our server. We ask for tea and she somewhat defensively tells us we'll have to wait a few minutes because some one didn't bother to put a fresh pot on when the old one was finished. We say, that's fine, we'll wait. She softens and thanks us. I guess she is used to people reacting badly to having to wait five minutes for a cup of tea. Maybe she's been on her feet all day. Maybe she's had enough. She gives us an extra treat to thank us for our patience. I want to give it back to her.

The gloss and glamour of the image America projects to the world through its movies, TV shows and music is dazzling. When I was a kid, anything American was, by default, coveted. But there is an underbelly of division in opportunity that the world doesn't see. When the President proclaims with conviction (and he is certainly not the first to do so) that America is "the greatest nation on earth" one assumes this is because of the lofty ideals of equal opportunity for all. The idea that is is a place where any one can make it with a bit of hard work and determination. That in a free market, any one with an idea can work their way up to the top. Individual freedom, liberty and opportunity is prized. But it's not a level playing field. And those in greatest need often stay that way. It's interesting to me that it's taken as a given that every one should want to make it big. That every one should want to make their dreams come true. That capitalism is held up as virtuous and somehow the perfect system for perpetual motion. It's that Oprah-style "find out what you were put on the planet to do" ideation that permeates the aspirational classes. But who on earth was put on the earth to be a waitress, or a janitor, or a toll booth collector? And what would happen to those jobs if every one did what they were "supposed" to be doing? If everyone followed their bliss, the world would collapse. There would be no service workers. So in this system, true equality and liberation for all is not actually possible. Capitalism itself encourages competition rather than the sharing of resources. So this notion of egalitarianism is out of step with the reality of what it takes to make it here.

Our waitress greets us with a smile and shows us to our seats. The food is ridiculously cheap. The service is ridiculously friendly. The portions are ridiculously large. Our waitress has one of her front teeth missing. I assume she doesn't have dental coverage. I wonder what her dream is.

Trouble in Trash Pack land

There is trouble in trash pack land.

A few months ago Alex had some spare pocket money and he decided to purchase a packet of toys known as The Trash Pack. If you’re not familiar with them, these tiny squishy characters resemble a motley crew of assorted rubbish. Dirty socks, old computers, there is even an ant holding a piece of what looks like poo. Their appeal to the six-to-seven-year-old demographic is obvious. Small, detailed, and disgusting. And actually somewhat adorable. You can get all sorts of accoutrements such as the garbage truck, street sweeper and affectionately named “scum drum.” There are endless trashies to collect and swap – a marketer’s dream. As a parent, I approve of the non-violent aspect – I’m quite happy to give the existential minefield of Star Wars a miss for now.

Alex had recognised these toys from a packet he had from Australia, most of which, admittedly, were now lost. His interest was renewed with a vengeance, however, and he became duly obsessed, as is his wont. It seemed his fervour was contagious, and quite quickly the trash pack became the latest craze in Grade One. Kids (including Alex) were hosting trash pack themed birthday parties left and right. All was well with the world.

Then, yesterday, it became clear that the honeymoon was over. Out of the blue, an email was sent to the entire school containing this picture.

That says it all really. Trashies are now persona non grata at the elementary school. Apparently they were causing too many arguments and distractions. 

My first thought was, uh oh, this is all because of the toy Alex introduced to the school. 

My second thought was, if this was all because of the toy Alex brought to the school, couldn’t they have just sent a note home to Grade One? I guess they wanted to make sure every one got the message, without singling any one out. 

My third thought was, oh well, I can understand their viewpoint. Maybe some kids haven’t got as many trashies and are feeling left out.

My fourth thought was, hang on, if they ban trashies, something else will just pop up to take its place. Last year it was Bey Blades and before that Pokemon cards. If they ban trashies then they really should issue a blanket ban on any and all toys being brought from home. That would be more consistent.

Alex took it pretty well. He had been worded up by the teacher at school. He did ask me, however, why the school would ban them when any kid could just buy a packed of 5 from the shop for $6 and then be included in the game. And he would have lent his trashies out to play with until the end of recess if some one didn’t have any.

I have since found out that Trashies were invented by an Aussie company (clearly intended for the American market since no self-respecting Australian would use the word “trash”). Typically, the Aussies are using an Aussie product to create trouble in Pleasantville.

My final thoughts are this. If something takes the place of the trashies and Alex wants in, and I have to either say no or go and buy more expensive toys, I’ll have to suggest to the principal that maybe it would be better to just ban all toys at school. Also, although I can see the school’s reasoning, the rule still seems a little fascist to me. Surely there are lots of ups and downs in school life, and negotiating being a part of a group, leaving your toys in your bag during class, etc, are part of the deal.

Have the trashies been made into scapegoats?

A plain person

Recently I've had a few conversations with various people about work ethic, ambition and identity. 

How much should we care about what other people think of us? When it comes to work, how many people work harder because they want external approval, recognition and reward? And how much of it is internally driven? Is this a good or bad thing for society?

A lot of people put a lot of their identity into their job. When you can name what you do in a few words and it gives you a socially admired status, often that is a feeling that people want to replicate. So we find ways to explain our identity in terms of what we do for a living. 

For some people, work is their life. They love it, it's their passion. I admire these people. For others, particularly those in the caring professions, it's like a calling - they want to use their talents and skills to help others in a meaningful way. For some, it's just a means to an end, a way to pay the bills in order to get on with the real business of living. I don't think any of these represent the right or wrong way of doing things. But when people use their jobs as a way of exerting power, claiming superiority, or flashing the trappings of their "success" - no. And sometimes I think putting undue pressure on kids (especially from parents) to know what they want to be can cause them to think they have to go for something that others will approve of, rather than what they really want to do. I also acknowledge that it takes a certain privilege to assume that you will be able to follow your passion and still support yourself, and that sometimes the source of parental pressure is an underlying anxiety about poverty. But sometimes, it is about living up to social expectations. 

Of course I want my kids to develop a love of learning, and to be contributing members of society. But more than that, I want them to feel fulfilled by their own personal definition of success. I don't want them to worry about having to explain their occupation to people. For me, what you do is interesting only in so far as you think it is, and it doesn't matter whether you are the CEO or the janitor, if you treat people well and have the courage of your convictions. 

When I asked my kids what they would like to be when they grow up, Ms 4 ran through a list of options, and finally said, "I think I just want to be a plain person." In a world where so much of our validation still rests on what we do, I reckon being a plain person is a great thing to aim for. 

How to have a discussion (not how to win an argument)

So often when we try to make a point, if some one disagrees, our instinctive reaction is to defend ourselves. This is fair enough, particularly if it is a point we feel strongly about, or if we are trying to inform or educate others. People need to know! I have to stand up for what I believe! Dependent on temperament and inclination, the way we do this ranges in intensity, from 'sorry you feel that way' appeasement to 'fuck you' aggression.

If what we are saying has an emotional component for us, and some one criticizes it, then it's so much harder not to take it personally, even if the criticism was benign. Still, it's worth considering whether there is something to be learned from the exchange. Are we trying to win an argument or have a discussion?

Similarly, when some one says or writes something that we strongly disagree with, it's easy to launch an emotive attack. But if we choose our words more carefully, and hold back the vitriol, there is a greater chance that our words will be listened to.

When we are criticised, how we react is crucial to whether an avenue for understanding is opened or shut firmly closed. There needs to be some give and take on both sides. If some one is willing to engage with us in a thoughtful, considered way, surely the least we owe them is "I'll have a think about that" rather than "that wasn't what I meant/you're misinterpreting me/I was only joking/you're too sensitive." Because acknowledging another voice does not actually weaken our own argument. It simply says, you see things differently, perhaps I could learn from that. This  point is particularly salient when the person commenting has a lived experience of whatever it is we have said that has ruffled them.

Perhaps many people don't think things through this much: they react emotively, they write what they think, and people can like it or lump it. But this kind of communication, whilst it may take some practice if you're not used to it, doesn't actually require that much extra forethought. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes second nature. Illogical responses to dissent such as "if you don't like it, don't read it" make absolutely no sense. For one thing, it's too late, I've already read it. For another, there may be aspects of the argument I agree with and other things I dispute - is it not possible to take a nuanced approach? And lastly, if I only ever read and responded to things I agree with, I would be a very dull person indeed. This nonsensical argument is the equivalent of "talk to the hand."

Similarly, starting or building an argument around the notion that "my parents did x and I'm ok" or "I did x and my kids are ok" is illogical in the extreme. A case study of one does not prove anything (nor, I might add, does it disprove anything). This spurious claim is used to back up any number of ill-conceived activities - lots of kids bounced around in the back seat of cars and are ok, but unfortunately plenty are not, hence the improved car seats and seatbelt laws. When we know better, we do better. There's nothing wrong with stating one person's case, one person's opinion, one person's experience. Of course that is completely valid, and others may feel relieved at finding some one with a similar view or experience. But saying "I did this and I'm ok" is implying that if you do it, you will be ok too, a claim that has no basis in fact. It irritates me when people say this, particularly in regard to say, the use of baby formula or particular parenting practices.

In parenting, as in life, none of us are perfect. And the guilt that's laid on seems to feel like quicksand sometimes, which is why I think people are so keen on defending their own position. But if we back down just a bit, and consider other points of view, perhaps we could take the sting out of those superficially innocuous comments. One person's "light teasing" is another person's trigger. And no we can't stop to consider every single word that comes out of our mouths, we can't be responsible for other people's feelings or whether or not they will be hurt by our words. But we can't dictate other people's reactions either, nor do we have a right to tell them what is funny and what is offensive. That is completely personal. So I think if we do or say something that a person or people try to tell us, in a reasonable way, doesn't sit well with them - and particularly if the comment relates to something that is outside our experience but within theirs - what is the harm in acknowledging their point of view, and giving its potential validity some thought?

Feminism is not static, it's not one idea, it's not cohesive. It never will be. But if we can step outside our own opinion to listen to the effect our words have on others, perhaps we can include something of their experience in the way we approach our next argument. And so we learn and grow. But it needs the person criticising to do it in such a way that they are prepared to allow for the other person's acceptance of their viewpoint. In many cases it is fair for the oppressed to be angry and vocally so, but by hurling insults at those who anger you, there is no room for education. You'll more than likely only get blocked or become involved in a slanging match. If you're the person responding to criticism, think about it this way: what if I give the person the benefit of the doubt, what if I put aside my feelings that I am being attacked and try to think this through logically? If it *still* makes no sense to you, and you can reasonably articulate why, then go ahead. But "don't read it then" is not reasonable or articulate.

Recently I have encountered this type of behaviour in social media. I have seen feminists make statements that I disagree with, and I have spoken up about it. Some of them have graciously acknowledged my points, others have brushed them off in what I feel was a fairly dismissive (although by no means hostile) way. I have also seen other conversations of varying intensity take place, ranging from civil discussion to thinly-veiled (or not at all veiled) warfare. The conversations I like best are the ones that try to find a common ground and use it as a jumping off point. Even if they then don't reach any kind of consensus on the issue at hand, when plain and concise rather than inflammatory or dismissive language is used, it usually ends well.

Feminists who sometimes use their intellect to condescend to others in what I see as a nasty way (Helen Razer for instance) are not doing feminism, nor enagaged discussion, any favours. Feminists who scream and shout and call people names? Again, maybe not going to win you much real influence. If that's not your aim, fair enough. But surely the progress of any movement or idea means getting people on board in order for it to gain momentum? When people feel talked down to, or insulted, they'll just switch off. Perhaps people like Razer don't care, she has her niche and she's sticking to it. That's ok. As long as she knows that she is  missing out on an audience because often, people don't want to hear nasty invective disguised as wit. And this tends to  happens when she is sneering at people whose experience or opinion does not match her own (case in point: mummy bloggers, women in supermarkets with crying children).

It is the same concept with any kind of privilege. It can be hard to take into account a viewpoint that does not include or affect you. But we must try. There is a danger in ignoring your own blind spot, we need to keep pushing ourselves to listen to other voices. There is a parallel between the "nice" white man, who is theoretically egalitarian and supprotive of feminism and racial equality, who still laughs at sexist or racist jokes because he can't see the harm, and feminists who say "surely a bit of teasing is ok" in regards to marginalised groups, or dismiss breastfeeding discrimination as trivial or a "non-issue".  While these feminists are working so hard to get others to see their point of view, and rightfully so, they sometimes struggle to do the same for others. This doesn't mean they don't mean well or have their own set of valid points to make, or that they are not allies (same as the "good" white guys) .I don't think it's helpful to punish people for failing to understand but I do think it's important that they have the decency to listen and acknowledge when this might be the case. Any one who dismisses or attacks some one for "getting it wrong" occasionally is going to be a very lonely human being up there on their high horse. Because when you alienate good people you are polarising debate, not educating. Some people can't see past their own anger in order to do that. And we could look to people like Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr for examples of people who are completely entitled to their rage and yet found ways to better channel it in order to affect change.

Accepting someone's viewpoint or that they feel hurt is not the same as apologising for having a view of your own. In social media, comments get conflated and misinterpreted - there is little room for tone or nuance in 140 characters. And of course we know and trust our own motivations but not necessarily those of others, particularly when we have only encountered them and their views in the process of being questioned by them. I understand that in publishing something into the public domain you leave yourself open to criticism and it can be hard to feel constantly attacked for merely voicing your own opinion, but I would caution against lumping all the would-be "attackers" in together. Abuse and trolling should never be tolerated. But it's a shame to ignore genuine reactions of disappointment that have been eloquently expressed - in this instance, I think it is the writer's responsibility to be open to hearing these reactions.

Similarly, as much as it is helpful to dissect and and examine a particular approach rather than a specific person or comment, we need to be wary of dispatching vague complaints lest the wrong audience be felt as a  target, and hackles rise once more. How is complaining about "all the snark and judgement" useful? Alluding to other nasty discussions or comparing women to "SRC Princesses" smacks of the same "mean girls" mentality you are purportedly complaining about.

No one, particularly not women, should have to play "nice" and agree all the time. Refrains of "why can't we all just get along/be kind to each other" are disingenuous. We are never going to see eye to eye all the time. Ideas should be expressed and challenged, that is how we move forward as a society. One person's "judgment" is another person's astute observation. We all judge ourselves and each other in everything we do. But the judgment goes a step further when we try to prove that our way is better than yours, or that we understand all about your motivations and disapprove. Blame, disapproval and moralising are rarely helpful. And if we can all try to show empathy for another's experience that is a place to start. I can discuss different views and approaches without  losing hold of my own values. I can be a strong advocate for breastfeeding without blaming or disparaging mothers who formula feed. Tara Moss does this exceptionally well. I love everything she writes on the subject.

I find the more about an argument that I can agree with, in the case of Jane Caro's recent piece on slacker parenting- I found much of it funny and light-hearted - the easier it is to engage with the writer and try to explain what about it made me uncomfortable. There are other pieces, of course, such as this one by Michelle Bridges that I find so abhorrent I do not know where to begin, such is my exasperation. That is not to say that I find the writer abhorrent, of course, but I do find her ideas entirely misguided and lacking in empathy. I also can't see one iota of fact or research in her argument. I have nothing personal against her, it's quite probable that in her mind she feels that she is providing a service, it's just that I could not disagree more, and I think her ideas are damaging, regardless of her intentions. It's easier in these cases to not even give the argument any oxygen but I think that is a mistake. There are some positions that are so far apart from your own it feels hardly worth arguing. People against same-sex marriage, climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers fall into that category for me. But of course it is a tricky balance - if everyone found these arguments so ridiculous as to ignore them, would they be allowed to thrive or would they just die a natural death? In that case I suppose it is worth considering what change you can hope to affect, if any, by wading in, and what level of influence the person arguing currently has. Is your comment going to fan a non-existent flame or is it going to help put out a blaze?

This is not about censorship. In fact, quite the opposite. I think that more people should be able to state their views, with less offence taken. But with a little consideration and care, there can be much less bloodshed in the process.

To make a point,and make it well, is to give others food for thought.  Feminists who do this well include bluemilk, cristy clark, mamabook and sunili. Their arguments are well thought out and considered, so that if any one has a dissenting view, they are prepared to discuss it and back themselves up with logic.

Personally, I don't get offended very easily. I try to see where the person is coming from and what might be going on for them to make them comment in such a way. Offence can be such a mealy-mouthed word that gets in the way of telling it like it is. Good satire is clever and funny, and it's good to be able to laugh at ourselves from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions, and sharing them. But we mustn't confuse this with being unwilling to extend our knowledge to include what others are able to teach us either. Of course ultimately it's up to us to either assimilate this new viewpoint into our own understanding or not, but stopping to listen is a great way to start.

As feminists, aren't we asking men to think outside of their own experience, to consider that what matters to people other than themselves is important? Shouldn't we ask each other to do the same? And don't we want to work with men rather than against them, to help those who don't quite understand (but have good intentions) to appreciate our experiences? Shouldn't we give each other the same courtesy?



As I was mulling over all of these ideas and wondering how to best express them, the following two songs came on my ipod, randomly.

The first one is an example of the danger of letting your pride get in the way of allowing yourself to be vulnerable.

Suzanne Vega - The Queen and the Soldier

The second one is a great anthemic track about how we are really all just after the same thing in the end.

Mark Ronson feat Katy B- Anywhere in the World

A small act of revolution

I never considered breast-feeding in public an act of revolution. It didn't take courage. In the same way that Lena Dunham says "it's not brave to get your clothes off in public if you're not ashamed of it", I never had to work up the nerve because I felt completely entitled to do what I was doing. This is not the case for all women. In fact feeling uncomfortable breastfeeding in public is one of the reasons many women give for giving up breastfeeding entirely. And yet time and again we have public figures making women feel uncomfortable for doing what they are legally entitled to do - feed their babies.

In the latest debacle, a breakfast TV host has insisted that whilst "mothers should be able to breastfeed any time, any where" they should do so in a "discreet" "classy" way so as to ensure those around them feel comfortable. Personally, I have never seen a woman breastfeeding in public who was not being "discreet" and "classy" about it - so this comment is completely moot. What would indiscreet breastfeeding involve, I wonder? Stripping off and hanging a tassle from the free nipple?

Men and women who are deeply uncomfortable with the sight of a mother breastfeeding her child in public need to look a little deeper inside themselves to ask the question: what, exactly, is it about the sight of a baby eating that is so off-putting? Are you worried you will catch a glimpse of a woman's nipple? Is it the idea of a baby sucking on a breast? Would you prefer not to have to think about that at all? But really, why? Why is that your business? Why does a mother need to concern herself with your comfort levels over and above her baby's need for nourishment?

Cristy Clark has written an insightful piece that suggests the discomfort arises from the fact that the business of caring for children, that is - women's intimate business - has traditionally been obscured from public life, and now that times are changing and women are being permitted to enter the public sphere, some of us are expecting to do so on our own terms, rather than on the terms that are being dictated to us. In other words, we are not apologetic about bringing our womanly activities into plain sight. We want public life to include activities that are relevant to both men and women. And it is this that makes so many uncomfortable. I see the parallel here between this and the Lena Dunham controversy - not that a woman would publicly expose her body, after all, this is something that occurs all the time without comment, but that she would do so in a way that does not seek permission from men and is not apologetic that she doesn't fall into a certain type of womanhood that is deemed to be publicly acceptable. It is the lack of shame that seems to appall  the most. The lack of willingness to be told. The fact that there are women, in public, suiting themselves! Suiting their babies! With nary a backwards glance! The cheek.

I remember sitting in a restaurant in South Africa, breastfeeding my baby, and the women at the next table talked about me in Afrikaans, saying I should not be doing that in public. Later that evening, my father-in-law reported that the mayor had told him a white woman had been seen nursing in public earlier that day. That would be me, then. Whilst in a mothers' room in the same country, I was sitting feeding my child when a little girl came up and angrily closed the modesty curtain around the chair I was sitting in, telling me other people weren't supposed to see that! Whilst I never experienced this level of disapproval in Australia, the attitudes displayed by David Koch and others tell me that it is still very much an issue in a country where it is actually illegal to discriminate against a breastfeeding mother.

The fact that some intelligent high profile feminists tell those of us who would take issue with this attitude to move on or focus on what really matters beggars belief. Implying that because no one important is listening, we should not bother replying,  is condescending in the extreme. Public figures, regardless of the medium in which they espouse their views, reflect and influence public opinion. The comment by David Koch hit a nerve because his views are so appallingly commonplace. And by telling us to get over it, or reserve our outrage for something important, these fellow feminists are actually displaying an attitude which is dangerously close to misogynistic.

Of course part 2

Of course, we’re all anomalies.

We try so hard to be everything we want to be

 but inevitably get told, you want too much.

Get back in your box.

Of course it’s ok to be human

To laugh and cry and be sad and happy

And flawed and real.

But don’t tell anybody I told you.

Of course suburbia doesn't have to be a quiet hell.

 Lots of people like it just fine.

The quiet hell is within me,

and I take it wherever I go.

Of course part 1

Of course motherhood is political:

it’s incompatible with our values

as much as it attempts to reinforce them.

Society is in a double-bind:

we want a mother to be loving

nurturing, soft and understanding.

To take care. To be there.

But we don't want to have to support her
to be all those things
No public breastfeeding no understanding
no crying babies
no screaming toddlers
no boisterous children
no it takes a village.
Do it under your own steam please.
Maybe best if you stay home.

And when you're done being a loving
(and attractive) mum
please disappear

from view, don't be complicated

or shout or expect too much.

Don't disagree or complain.

Just smile.
You're your own
worst enemies you know!

Of course we want to hear you:

to be invited into the private sphere

to be a fly on the wall

of the tell-all confessional

But we don’t want to hear what it’s really like

back there. Just smile and say it’s ok

I can have it all and I’m not even trying.

Make it look easy but not so easy as to

make others feel bad.
And don't expect us to value 
your contribution.

What do mothers contribute anyway?
Blogs?
Clean washing?
Huh.
Maybe you should get a job.

But no equal pay
no affordable childcare
no career breaks
no time away from those precious children
no flexible hours
aren't you committed to the job?
what kind of monster are you?
Selfish. We all have choices in life.

You're public property you know.

Of course we want you to look sexy

but don’t show too much breast

or not enough

or be too young or old or different.

Of course we like you just the way you are

as long as just the way you are

is just how we have told you to be

with just enough quirk on the side
to make you interesting
but not threatening.