What we wear is a personal choice. Simple as that.

Recently, the issue of what people should be allowed to wear has been raised in Australia, yet again.  The range of arguments are always based on some pre-conceived idea that one person knows better than another.  Frankly, I can't fathom why anyone would have the arrogance to impose their views on what people should look like.

The burka - it's the woman's choice - like any other dress code

On Q&A on Monday, muslim woman Susan Carland was asked her view on women covering their face.  Her response reflected a mature, balanced view.

" in the end I think a person or a woman should be able to choose how much of her body she shows to other people and if she wants to cover her face and she feels comfortable with that and the laws of our society say that she can, then get over it. You know, I might not feel comfortable looking at people with a face covered in tattoos and a Mohawk but that’s their prerogative. If they want to dress like that, then that’s my issue if I can’t deal with it.

So, Carland is saying that it's the responsibility of the person viewing the individual.

I don't like tattoos, but that's my problem

Like Susan Carland, I'm not a big fan of tattoos, and like her, I agree that is my issue.  I have nothing against Collingwood footballer Dayne Beams, or Miss Bombshell, with all of their ink.  Yes, of course it projects an image - and they are entitled to project that image, and dress their bodies in that way.

Who cares what Kate Ellis wears? Other women apparently

Kate Ellis in Grazia

Last year, Kate Ellis appeared in a fashion spread in Grazia magazine, and last month she appeared on the front cover of the Fairfax press Sunday Life section.  In both shoots, she was dressed in what would generally be called fashionable clothing - including tall heels.  Now Kate Ellis is the Minister for the Status of Women, her appearances in those magazines have attracted scores of comments - mainly critical.

Today's Sunday Life carried a follow up article on the controversy. Women had written in with comments such as "the wearing of super-high stiletto heels represents women as vain, attention-seeking, foolish and potential victims".

Really?? Kate Ellis responds in the article that she wears similar clothes to the office as she wore in the Sunday Life shoot.  So, because she is tall and attractive, women are imposing their own biases.  Again, it's their problem, not hers.

How many times do we need to say it - no woman is a "victim" because of what they wear.  Praise be the Slut Walks

Boston Slut Walk, May 2011

The more times we read comments that accuse women of being victims because of what they wear, the more respect we should all have for the Slut Walks. I've blogged about the issues of dress codes and the Slut Walks before, but the message isn't getting through.

When strong, intelligent women such as Kate Ellis are criticised for dressing as she does, women certainly need a strong voice to stand up for their rights.  Slut Walks are continuing around the world - in cities as diverse as Boston, Seoul and Delhi, and long may they continue.


People will judge you based on what you wear, but that's their problem.  Be who you want to be.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Homophobia and rape of lesbians in Africa places pressure on FIFA over Qatar

FIFA is proud of its record in addressing racism in football. The Say No to Racism and Fair Play campaigns have been publicised around the world. Despite this, a report in yesterday's New York Times has shown that homophobia is still rife, and FIFA has not progressed.

Lesbians routed from Nigerian World Cup squad

The NY Times article, In African Women’s Soccer, Homophobia Remains an Obstacle, reported on the entrenched anti-lesbian attitude of the Nigerian national coach, Eucharia Uche, who "used religion in an attempt to rid her team of homosexual behavior, which she termed a “dirty issue,” and “spiritually, morally very wrong.”".

Even more damning is the removal of players from the Nigerian team by former technical assistant for Nigeria, James Peters, who said he had "removed some players from Nigeria’s women’s team last year, “not because they were not good players, but because they were lesbians.”"

"Corrective rape" of lesbians is condoned in South Africa and Zimbabwe but the Chosen FEW are a shining light

The article reports that lesbians are beaten and raped in South African and Zimbabwe, as "corrective treatment". One particularly shocking example was the attack on Tumi Mkhuma, of Johannesburg's Chosen FEW, who was raped and left pregnant. "After losing her baby, she said she twice tried to kill herself.

The South African organisation, the Forum for the Empowerment of Women (FEW) was established in 2002 to support LBT rights. Their football team, the Chosen FEW, is comprised of 25 young black lesbian women from townships in and around Johannesburg, who are all activists for the rights of lesbian women in South Africa You can read more about this fabulous side and support the FEW here.


Shocking prevalence of corrective rape is placing pressure on FIFA

ESPN's E:60 program also investigated the issue of corrective rape in South Africa, and uncovered some shocking facts. 80% of South Africans believe homosexual sex is wrong, and they use this as an excuse to rape lesbians. Last year, a women's support group reported that there are 10 new cases of corrective rape each week in Cape Town alone.

Mvuleni Fana was raped in a stadium after
practice when she was 16 because she is a lesbian

The ESPN program (watch here) interviewed a number of inspiring, strong South African women who had been raped. But it is the story of Eudy Simelane which has attracted most notoriety. Eudy was 31 years old, a former national player, a respected coach and openly gay. She was gang-raped, and stabbed to death. Her friend is of no doubt that the crime was committed because she was a lesbian. And the chilling interviews with young men who said such things as "Lesbians get raped because men want to correct them and put them in the correct direction" leaves you in no doubt that Eudy's rape and killing were deliberate and homophobic.

Within this context, there were calls for FIFA to use the 2010 World Cup in South Africa to make a similar stand against homophobia as it has against racism. The Women's World Cup starting in Germany this week is being used as another opportunity to press this case.


But FIFA - what will you do about Qatar?

With this pressure starting to build on FIFA, President Sepp Blatter has been asked to justify why Qatar would be awarded the 2022 World Cup when same-sex relations carries a 5 year jail penalty. On one hand, his response was encouraging:

“It’s another culture and another religion, but in football we have no boundaries. We open everything to everybody and I think there shall not be any discrimination against any human beings, being on this side or that side, left or right or whatever. Football is a game that does not affect any discrimination. You may be assured … if people want to watch a match in Qatar in 2022, they will be admitted to matches.”

But, on the other hand, when he was asked what gays should do to avoid being sent to prison, he replied:

"They should refrain from any sexual activities.”

Surely President Blatter, if there is no discrimination, all people should be allowed to have sex after a great match they have watched at the World Cup - gay or straight

Let me know what you think

Mark S

The law is an ass - rape is rape

Credit must go to the Herald Sun for their front page story today, Sleeping woman rape trial sparks fury.  This story details how the Victorian Court of Appeal set aside a conviction for a man, Tomas Getachew, who raped a women who was asleep, who had twice rejected his advances, before passing out drunk.

The Court ruled 2-1 that the trial judge had erred in his instructions to the jury.  The minority judge, Justice Lex Lasry got it right when he said:

"The complainant had made clear her rejection of the applicant on two occasions before this incident occurred. When penetrated by the applicant, the complainant was in a position consistent with her being asleep. There was no positive conduct by the complainant which might have led Getachew to conclude that his sexual approach was now being welcomed.''

This is what the Slut Walks are for - to stop rape

Recently, as a man, I was proud to attend the Melbourne Slut Walk, where women joined others at Slut Walks around the world and proudly chanted "Whatever we wear, wherever we go—yes means yes, and no means no!".  As a man at this very civilised protest, it struck me that this message cannot be repeated often enough.  So many men have been brought up in a misogynistic world where they believe that "women are asking for it".

The key message of the Slut Walks is that "women retain the right to say no, and to be heard".

And this is why the decision by Justices Peter Buchanan and Bernard Bongiorno is so perpelexing, and wrong.  The victim of the rape by Tomas Getachew had said "no".  She had said "no" again.  Then she had fallen asleep.  To argue - as the learned Judges have done - that there is any way that she changed her mind after she fell asleep drunk, simply defies logic.

Remember the key message of the Slut Walk - once she said no, she had the right to be heard.

Whatever we wear ... or whatever we drink ... rape is never OK

The Toronto policeman who blamed women for the way they dress could just as easily have blamed them for getting drunk.  It's certainly been an argument put to blame victims many times.  It is simply wrong.

Worryingly, a psychology study in 2006 even found that: Juries blame women for 'drunk rape'.  The study found that jurors:

- decided it was 'reasonable' to assume there was consent even if a woman was too drunk to give it".
- blamed drunk rape victims for 'bringing it on themselves'.

So, it seems that two of our learned judges, who should not be influenced by the same biases as ordinary people, have the same views on victim-blaming that the Slut Walks are trying to highlight.

Let's hope the prosecution appeals to the High Court - and wins

In the words of the wise Home Office spokesperson on learning of these study results: 'We need to tackle the myths. Rape is never the responsibility of the victim.'

The prosecution is considering appealing to the High Court.  They should do so, and should win.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Disgrace. Baillieu Government votes for discrimination rights against LGBT and mothers

Let's not beat around the bush on this one.  The Victorian Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2011 allows churches and other faith-based groups to discriminate.  They don't have to justify discrimination as an inherent requirement on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity.

This Bill reflects the views of the noisy Christian Lobby, hot on the heels of their equally disgraceful campaign against the Rip and Roll campaign in Queensland.

Baillieu ignores Parliamentary rules to pass discrimination bill


What is even more galling is that this Bill was reintroduced to Parliament for a vote after it had already been defeated.  Instead of abiding by the normal rules of Parliament, when Mary Wooldridge missed the vote the first time, the Premier decided he didn't like that outcome and didn't like the rules.  The defeat of the Bill the first time should have been the end of it.  This cynical rejection of the rules is as unacceptable as the Bill itself.

Mothers will suffer - not just gays

This Bill will open the door to discrimination against mothers.  I've been proud at the last two companies I have worked for that two wonderful women have been promoted to senior roles, while they were on maternity leave.  Most likely, single mothers will be singled out. This terrible Bill will turn back the clock and justify religious groups and religious schools in ignoring all of the gains that have been made in equal rights for women, as well as for all people based on sexuality, sex and gender identity.

March in the streets.  Lobby your MLC. We are as mad as hell.

This week when the Australian Christian Lobby campaigned against Rip and Roll, the equal rights communities responded strongly.  With credit to AdShel, they reversed their original decision to take down the posters.  Campaigning does work.

With this discrimination Bill having passed the lower house, we must lobby Victorian Upper house members.  The Government has a majority in the Upper house, and the Bill will most likely pass, but we can't go down without a fight.

Lobby your legislative council member.  March in the streets.  If equality is worth fighting for, this is the first battle.

The passing of the discrimination Bill by the Baillieu government highlights a desire by some sections of society to return to the past.  We cannot let progress by overturned by bully boys and the Christian right. 

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

ABC: Fury as Vic government retakes lost vote
SMH: Vic govt casts rules aside for revote
Equal Opportunity Act 2010
Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2011

Hey Lindsay Fox: The economy is no excuse to compromise on women's rights

Lindsay Fox's encouragement to women to have 6 babies in 7 years reflects an outdated view from an old generation.  His economic objective makes sense - grow our population. It's the social element that is two generations out of date.

Fertility rates in the developed world are permanently lower since women's liberation

This chart shows the fertility rates for Australia and the US since 1950.

As you can see, the numbers of children born per women plummeted since the availability of the pill. It wasn't that women actually wanted 3 or 4 children each - they simply had no way to plan their family.


Lindsay Fox would need to turn Australia into Burundi

But take a look at this map of fertility rates around the world. It's only the poorer sub saharan African nations where fertility rates are above 5.0.  Those countries lack the same liberties for women that developed and even developing nations enjoy.

Except for sub-saharan Africa, almost all of the world has lower fertility
rates than Australia in the 1960s

To populate Australia the way Lindsay Fox advocates would require the wholesale rejection of contraception, and decades of feminism. We would need to have a culture like Burundi, where a woman's primary role is to breed boys for agricultural labor.

Obviously that isn't going to happen.


We can import population, Lindsay, so hopefully you support that as well

The first half of Fox's suggestion sounds like a great idea ...  "go home and make love tonight and create another baby for Australia.". But I'd strongly encourage safe sex, and remind Lindsay that you don't have to create a baby when you make love.

The economic premise of Lindsay Fox's suggestion makes a lot of sense - more people in Australia has a whole raft of economic benefits. But there's an obvious alternative to 1950s fertility levels. Let's just increase migration.  I've written a blog on migration here, so won't go over that again.  However, I would call on Lindsay Fox to support that option.

The key issue is that a suggestion to achieve a valuable economic solution by reducing women's options is just not acceptable. It's even more of a concern when it is said in humor or by a well respected citizen like Fox, as it softens the blow, and entrenches very old-fashioned attitudes.

We cannot condone any comments that suggest women should comply with any set of behaviors - especially those that reduce their equality


Let me know what you think

Mark S

Respect the dress code - whether it's teenage boys, hijabs or sluts

Discrimination against people based on their dress code continues in so-called civilised societies such as America, Canada and Australia.  Teenage boys with their pants too low, women dressed like Lady Gaga, or Muslim women in a hijab.  There's no excuse for discrimination - but worse, there's no excuse for violence.

Student says cops used Taser, broke his arm because of sagging pants

Last month in Kansas, USA, a 17 year old student was tasered and had his arm broken by school resource officers who work for the police department.  According to the Wichita Eagle, Jonathan Villarreal, said he was walking with friends to the bus after school on Wednesday when one of the officers ordered him to pull up his pants. He told them he could wear them how he wanted because school was out. (You can read the full article here.)

There is absolutely no justification for this sort of action.

Discrimination against women wearing the hajib - you better believe it

While Australia is a nation of migrants, attitudes towards people who look different continue in our "tolerant" land.  Here is a shocking quote from a report by the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria.

Muslim Village

“I was going shopping with my son, he is blind. These men followed us, and one extinguished his cigarette on my head. I felt it burning. I started to run with my son. They came up and surrounded us, 6 of them, Australian and white …”



This level of intolerance, of people of a particular religion, is made obvious by the hijab.  Whatever you may think of this dress code, the discrimination and violence towards these women is shocking and unacceptable.  I remember Jewish friends of mine being discriminated against when I was playing footy as a child because they wore a jarmulkah.  We must not accept any racism against any groups as a result of their religious dress codes.

Slutwalks - supporting the rights of women to be safe from sexual violence

On 24th January this year in Canada, a member of the Toronto police force stated that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.  The women in attendance were rightly insulted as this wrongly implied that the dress code had some bearing on sexual attacks.  It does not. As a result the Slutwalk movement was born. http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

On 3rd April, the Toronto SlutWalk was held to support the rights of women to dress how they choose and not to be subjected to sexual violence.  There is simply no justification for sexual violence against women, and what they dress is irrelevant.  Honestly, do we think that Lady Gaga deserves to be sexually assaulted?

The SlutWalks are also reappropriating the phrase "Slut", as the word has always been used to wound, whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult.

SlutWalks are now spreading around the world, and are being held in Australia.  I encourage you to attend to support all women.
Melbourne - May 28
Sydney - June 13
Adelaide - June 11

Dress styles have often been at the front line of discrimination.  In a civilised society, we must be proud of the diversity of dress styles. Our only intolerance should be against those who use dress standards as an excuse to villify others.

Let me know what you think


Mark S

Don't let the Victorian government erode women's rights

Yesterday's decision by the Victorian government to wind back changes to the Equal Opportunity Act for some sports are a dangerous step down a very slippery slope.

I am a lawn bowler and in 2001 the issue came to a head in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal when a 19 year old woman challenged the men's only status of Saturday pennant competition. Emily South wanted to play competitive bowls on the weekend when she was free from university commitments, but was prevented because the Saturday comp was mens only.

She won the case, and as a result she and other women were able to play on Saturdays. The unexpected consequence was that men were permitted to play in the women's pennant competition on Tuesday mornings.

Both the men's Royal Victorian Bowls Association and Victorian Ladies Bowling Association opposed Emily's application (you can read the judgment here).  Here are some of their (very old fashioned) comments...

the Immediate Past President of the VLBA, Mrs Lewis was not aware of any demand from women wanting to compete in mixed pennant.
The reality: After Emily's successful challenge, thousands of working women now play on Saturdays.

She was aware that among the older group of players, there is no desire to change the way pennant competition is administered ... many VLBA members did not want to play in competitions that are open to men and that if they are made to do so, she was concerned that they will withdraw from the sport. Mr Hosken also expressed his concerns if women were allowed to play in the men's pennant and vice versa.
The reality: The Ladies pennant competition was dying, and now that men are playing on Tuesdays and women playing on Saturdays, both competitions are more successful. In fact, many clubs wouldn't be able to field teams if there was a return to same-sex formats. 
(You can read more comments here at the bowlsworld forum that support the new format)

This decision upset some older ladies and it is these individuals who are now influencing policy.  And amazingly, the head of Bowls Victoria (now mens and women combined) is in favour of returning to same-sex pennant.  See the Herald-Sun article.

So the backflip from the conservative government has been driven by a bunch of oldies, who want to return to the days when women didn't work and had Tuesdays off for a quiet game of bowls.  These are the same oldies who insist on having the Queen's photo in every bowls club, and toasting her at every official function.  I mean, we love Lizzie and all, but really, is this the 19th century!

Where will this all lead?

From a bowls point of view, there are a limited number of bowling greens, and men's and women's pennant can't both be accommodated on a weekend.  So, a return to mens only on the weekend would be a return to discrimination against women.  And yet, it has been women pushing for this change.

While the Attorney-General, Robert Clark claims this is a "victory for common sense", it's much more likely to be a thinly veiled pandering to outdated, sexist values.  And for the head of Bowls Victoria to be in favour shows that nothing has changed in the bowls headquarters in the last 10 years.

If this change to the Act was to ensure that some events could be men's or women's only, just like some are for juniors only, or for over 70s, this might make some sense.  But it's clear that isn't what the conservatives want.

Instead, this retrograde approach to equal opportunity could easily return our society back to the bad old day's of exclusive gentleman's clubs where the old boys network ruled, and women were denied fairness.  We simply cannot risk any denial of the rights that women have rightly earned - even if it's just on the bowling green.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S