How Useful Is It To Talk About 'The Family' In The Singular?

by DannyR

There is, in this day and age, a great deal of political debate around what is best for ‘the family’ in our society and how it must be protected from an erosion of values. Sociology has much to offer in this debate, and yet to do so, it must be clear what is meant by ‘family.’ How useful is it, then, to talk about ‘the family’ in the singular? The following will argue that this usage obscures differences and divisions both between families and within families, and that as such, it is more appropriate in sociological discourse to speak of families, acknowledging the diversity of family forms both cross-culturally and within Western society, while recognizing that despite their differences, family is still a central organizing feature of most people’s lives.

In Western society, the terms ‘family’ and ‘family life’ are generally assumed to refer to the now-traditional nuclear family model. Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5) defines a ‘nuclear family’ as a legally married heterosexual couple and their children, a unit that regards itself as and is regarded by others as separate from wider society. ‘Family’ then, in mainstream Western society at least, usually refers to ‘Mum, Dad and the kids’. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are generally considered ‘extended family.’ This nuclear family model has been institutionalised in political and academic discourse, being considered the norm even within sociological schools, particularly functionalism.

Functionalists argue that this nuclear family model prevails in Western society because it is functional, i.e.: it is the model that best meets the needs of the modern industrial society in that, being small and less bound to the maintenance of extended family ties, it is more geographically mobile and can therefore meet the changing demands of the industrial economy (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, et al., 1996, p.487). More significantly, the nuclear family has become the place where individuals have their needs for intimacy, meaning, and emotional support met. Intimacy may be defined as “close association and privileged knowledge, empathy and understanding, love and care” (Jamieson, 1998, p.98). More practically, as the primary welfare institution through which individuals are expected to have their health and nutritional needs catered to, ‘the family’ reduces these burdens on society (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004 p.80).

A first objection to speaking of ‘the family’ is that this implies that a family is a unit. Individuals within a family do not act collectively, or even necessarily share the same values or goals, and even within the nuclear family model husband and wife have clearly differentiated gendered roles in regard to providing for and supporting family members. The father/husband is assumed to act as protector, provider and leader, the mother/wife as homebound nurturer and housekeeper, and their children are expected to be obedient and learn from their parents the roles they will perform when they themselves have matured (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, p.80). The nuclear family is divided along gender and generational lines, and this fact is obscured by referring to ‘the family’ in the singular.

Structuralists including Marxists and feminists see ‘the family’ as a place of conflict and power struggles. Feminists argue that in the nuclear family women are “systematically disadvantaged,” and that men’s power in society both derives from and is reinforced by their privileged position in the home (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2006, p.81). Men, as the breadwinners and decision makers, have control over the distribution of income within the home, and the institution of ‘the family’ puts women and children in a position of dependency. The division of labour in ‘the family’ favours men, as women do a greater share of the housework, are expected to provide sex, produce children and be the primary caregiver, all for little material recompense – thus for feminists, the family is essentially an institution by which men maintain power over and exploit women.

Marxists have traditionally considered ‘the family’ a fundamental institution of capitalist society, one that refreshes and renews workers without the state having to pay for it, and also produces and socialises children to fulfil the roles modelled by their parents, thereby ensuring a continual supply of workers (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2004, pp.80-81). For Marxists, ‘the family’ is the basic unit upon which industrial society is built, for in trading their labour for wages with which to provide for their families the working class supports the economy (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones et al., 1996, p. 510). This ‘political economy’ approach asserts that it is society that shapes the family and all the interpersonal relationships within it, and those between it and the outside world, that in fact individuals are not in control of their intimate lives, rather their lives are predicated on class and wealth (Baker, 2001, pp.70-72).

Structuralist and functionalist understandings of ‘the family’ as essentially nuclear, while highly influential in the twentieth century, are problematic in that they assume the ubiquity of the nuclear family model, presupposing an essential basic family unit discernable at all times in all cultures. Clearly this is not the case: historically, notions of ‘the family’ have changed significantly even within Western society, and even the briefest survey of other cultures reveals that there are many diverse understandings of what constitutes ‘family’ across the globe. Jamieson (1998, pp.17-20) describes the evolution of the family in Western society, noting that in the pre-modern/pre-industrial times, families were characterised by a lack of privacy, and that intimacy was tempered by the restrictions of hierarchy based on age and gender. Furthermore, children were not “cherished” or protected as they are today; rather, they were treated as adults and sent out into the workforce to provide extra income. It was only in the modern industrial period that expectations of intimacy and privacy came to be associated with the family, as with family households no longer the primary site of production, marriage and parenthood came to be viewed as more about individuals’ emotional lives.

Marriage, in particular, came to be seen as a source of renewal, support and empathy, in a time where the division of labour in families became more rigidly gendered, with men expected to be the breadwinner, and women the primary caregivers. Having outlined these changes, Jamieson (1998, pp.17-20) goes on to describe two interpretations of the post-modern family, an optimistic appraisal in which the attainment of good relationships, characterised by empathy and understanding, is seen as more important than conventional marriage, where individuals are free to negotiate their own rules around the division of labour and sexual conduct; and a pessimistic appraisal, in which a prevailing ethos of individualism and consumerism in fact isolates people and prevents the attainment of intimacy. Jamieson’s description illustrates that family and household dynamics within Western society have varied over time, and that speaking of ‘the family’ in the singular obscures this historical development.

A second objection is that speaking of ‘the family’ ignores the sometimes substantial differences between families even within mainstream Western society. Even to the lay person, ‘family’ will mean different things depending on her or his own cultural and class background, age and gender (Baker, 2001, p.244). The concept of ‘the family’ does not take account of the changing realities of people’s lives: children grow up and move out into flats, parents separate or spouses die, and thus even nuclear families change over time. There are step-families, single-parent families, adoptive families, married couples and de facto couples which may or may not have or choose to have children. There are also families where the grandparents live in the household, households comprised of unmarried adult siblings, and even polyamorous families in which adults may have more than one romantic relationship concurrently, living as a ‘triple,’ a ‘V’ or in some other non-monogamous arrangement (Barker, 2005, pp.75-88; Bettinger, 2006, p.161).

The heterosexual romantic couple is not necessarily the core of a family unit in contemporary Western society, as gay and lesbian families which may be any combination of the above variations on the theme of ‘family’ are increasingly recognised as acceptable alternatives. Cheal (2002, p.6) notes that the increasing incidence of homosexual cohabitation being recognized as ‘family’ is part of a wider trend of societal acceptance and legal recognition of non-married long-term relationships, while others see these kinds of ‘families of choice’ as inevitable in late modernity (Weeks, 2002, p.218). This listing of exceptions to the nuclear family model is by no means exhaustive, and yet it illustrates the inadequacy of the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm. Referring to ‘the family’ obscures the differences between these families and suggests that there is something dysfunctional or deficient about families that don’t match the norm.

A third objection to the conflation of ‘the family’ with the nuclear family model is that it ignores the many variations of family structure that can be observed in other cultures, the nuclear family is culturally specific and therefore cannot be generalised (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, pp.80-81). This failure to acknowledge the diversity of family structures in other cultures wrongly implies that the social structure and composition of Western society is in fact the norm, and thus that any society that deviates from these norms is pathological or dysfunctional. And yet there are any number of ‘functional’ alternatives to the nuclear family model in other cultures; such as the Hamula of Palestine, described by Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5), where ‘family’ consists of any number of men, related to one another by descent from a common ancestor, living hierarchically in the same village, each the head of a household consisting of wives and children. Closer to home, there are the ‘extended families’ of Polynesian cultures, such as the Maori whanau, in which family members have their emotional and material needs met by close-knit intergenerational kin networks. Even so, the fact remains that most of us organise our lives around some idea of family: Jamieson (1998, p.100) and Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5) both note that conventional nuclear family life is still seen by many in Western society as an ideal to aspire to. Additionally, there seems to exist something like ‘family’ in all societies and cultures – across the world humans court, marry, cooperate economically, raise children, and trace their lines of descent (Baker p.244).

In recognition of this, contemporary sociological definitions of family are notably unspecific and broad. Cheal (2002, p.4) for instance acknowledges that no one definition of family works in all contexts, and accordingly defines ‘family’ as a large or small group of people, who are in intimate relationships with one another that last over time and across generations. Symbolic interactionist interpretations, in stark contrast to structuralist and functionalist views of family, define a family as a set of relationships negotiated and constructed by individuals, rather than a ubiquitous set of pre-existing roles that people come to inhabit, the emphasis being on the processes of interaction, rather than on social structures and functions (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, pp.81-82).

In sum, sociological discourse should not presuppose the ubiquity of the nuclear family model, but rather must acknowledge that what we in Western society have come to think of as ‘the family’ is in reality no more than a set of ideas or an ideological construct firmly grounded in our own cultural history and bound to our own expectations of generational and gender roles. Consequently, sociological definitions of family life must make allowance for the diverse ways in which individuals structure their family lives, and as such references to ‘the family’ in sociological discourse should be avoided. Where the terms ‘the family’ or ‘family life’ are employed, they must then be understood to encompass the wide diversity of family forms found across time, cultures and even within our own society.


References
Baker, M. (2001). Families, labour and love: Family diversity in a changing world. Crow’s Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Barker, M. (2005). ‘This is my partner, and this is my… partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world.’ Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), 75-88.

Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M. & Webster, A. (1996). Theorising modern family life. In Introductory Sociology (3rd ed.). (pp. 479- 524). Macmillan Press: London.

Cheal, D. (2002). Introduction: Asking questions. In Sociology of family life (pp.1- 17). Basingstoke: Palgrave publishers.

Giddens, A. (1997). ‘Family, marriage and personal life’ in Sociology (3rd ed.). Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.139-170.

Jamieson, L. (1998). From ‘the family’ to sex and intimacy. Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies (pp.15-42). Cambridge: Polity Press.

McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). ‘Family Life’ in Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.

Weeks, J. (2002). Elective families: Lesbian and gay life experiments. In Alan Carling, Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards (Eds.) Analysing families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice, pp. 218-228. Routledge, London.

Aaaarrrggghhhhh!!!!

WHY can't I stay on task????

:o

The Art of Falling in Love (Harriet Swain)

[Reprinted from The Guardian]

Falling in love is one of the main perks of being a student. Never again are you likely to find such a wide selection of potential mates all in one place, or spend so much time gazing into each other's textbooks.

First though, there are a few people you must try not to fall in love with. These include: your best friend's ex, your flatmate, your flatmate's ex, your personal tutor, your tutor's spouse, the university chaplain.

It takes between 90 seconds and four minutes to decide if you fancy someone. In fact, according to research by psychologist Arthur Arun, if you spend half an hour sharing intimate details of your lives with a complete stranger and then four minutes staring deeply into their eyes, it is possible to fancy almost anyone. See the above list of lovers-to-avoid, and avert your gaze.

Only 7% of feeling attracted to someone has anything to do with what they say. This may be reassuring if you find every time you meet the object of your affections you talk complete gibberish.

Once you fall in love, it is a good idea to make sure the other person falls in love with you. Why not suggest bungee jumping as the first date? No, really. It has been proved that people easily confuse sexual arousal with downright terror. They will think they are madly in love when in fact they are worried about smashing their head on a large rock.

Alternatively, you could try cooking a candlelit dinner. Candles make your pupils dilate, which is another sign of arousal. Do make sure you can cook, though, as people are unlikely to confuse food poisoning with love.

If your date offers to cook for you, say how delicious it all was. Compliments make people feel good about themselves and more inclined to feel good about you. Then fill up their glass, and look deeply into their eyes. Again.

Writing poetry is nice, unless your beloved is studying English literature, in which case you'll be facing strong competition from the likes of William Shakespeare and John Donne. Unfortunately for scientists, equations are rarely an acceptable alternative.

Once you love each other, you are likely to start mirroring each other's movements, such as not turning up to lectures early in the morning. You may also start talking constantly about your lover, and snogging on the sofa while your flatmates are trying to watch telly. This will make you intensely annoying to everyone else, but you probably won't even notice. In any case, you can't help it. Scientists have shown falling in love is like a form of obsessive compulsive disorder, without the constant housework.

Meanwhile, if you've not managed to stare at a stranger long enough to clinch a date by Valentine's Day, don't despair. You can always mirror your professors and fall in love with your subject.

LOLZ... Just for fun

So cute!!

And I just love these two...

Why Danny H8s teh Gay

My gay boyfriend recently asked me, half-jokingly, how I reconcile my utter rejection of ‘gay’ identity with the fact that I’m in a relationship with him. This article won’t make me popular but I’ll give my response here anyway, as I was (lovingly) cut off when I got into it.

Where to start??

I just hate the binary model of sexuality that ‘gay’ identity reinforces. We see it everywhere, in the papers, on TV, in films and books and public debates: you’re either straight or you’re gay. And it’s not just that the mainstream isn’t aware of the alternatives, the gay media itself promotes this simplistic and offensive view. I mean, my god, Ari Benderski of Gay.com even went so far recently as to state that male bisexuality cannot exist! I’m living proof to the contrary, as are a number of my friends.

The presentation of ‘gay’ as the alternative to heterosexuality in public discourse about sexuality obscures differences within the gay community as much as it erases those non-heterosexuals who don’t use the gay label. Andrew Sullivan, a regular contributor to The Advocate magazine in the States, wrote in his highly influential book Virtually Normal that gay people are just that; that the only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the sex of the partners involved, and therefore that gays should be accorded the same rights as straights. Now, this call for equality is certainly admirable, but his statement glosses over the sometimes substantial differences that exist, not only between straight and gay people, but between gays.

Gay identity has been hijacked by the interests of white, middle-class men, their concerns superseding those of gay men of colour, working and lower class men, women of all varieties and those queer people who are somewhere in-between. Capitalist interests have invaded and permeated gay media, dictating tastes in everything from furniture to clothing to the physical attributes of one’s chosen partner. I guarantee you Miley and Britney aren’t throwing their weight behind gay marriage for any reason other than because they can make a fair bit of money from supporting the ‘mos.

There are decidedly fascist undertones in the gay media’s presentation of gay identity, you can argue all you want that it’s because gay men have an inherent predisposition toward ‘beauty’ but I utterly reject this – it’s ideology. Producers of luxury commodities realised a decade or so ago that gay, middle-class white men constituted a largely untapped market with proportionately greater disposable income to devote to luxuries, and they have targeted this group aggressively ever since, transforming ‘gay’ from a sexual identity into a niche consumer lifestyle. Also, the suggestion that gays have an inclination toward beauty (besides being demonstrably false – there are some pretty tasteless gay guys out there) essentially implies that what is presented in gay media is more beautiful than any alternative. And what images dominate gay media? Able-bodied, middle-class white men. An attractive man, as mandated by the gay press, looks a lot like the Aryan man idealised by the Nazis.

Politically, the gay rights movement is predicated on the assumption of a genetic basis for exclusive homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge the socially constructed aspects of sexual identity. It’s founded on the feeble apology “I was born this way, I can’t help it.” There’s SO much to take issue with here. For a start, this supplicant stance belittles the very sexuality it represents. You’re not going to get anyone to treat you as an equal if by your argument and tone you’re telling them that you’re not. Furthermore, if gay identity as we know it in the western world is encoded in genes, what are we to make of pan- and bisexuals? Are their gay genes somehow faulty? Or are there bi genes too? How about S&M genes? (See where this is going?). Gay ideologues refuse to acknowledge that it is in fact possible to be ‘post’ or ‘ex’ gay, ironic really, they get pretty angry when other people are telling them what their own sexuality is, yet they cast blanket aspersions about the sexualities of others. Consider also that the studies that ‘confirm’ a genetic basis for homosexuality completely ignore lesbianism, and what you have is not scientific study but the furthering of a political agenda.

To secure for themselves the privileges accorded to heterosexuals gay advocates have ignored the evidence of alternative trans- and homosexualities of other cultures, and rewritten the same-gender relationships of history in support of their claims. Close, platonic male-male friendships such as that of the Bible’s David and Jonathan and that of Achilles and Patroclus from classical Greek literature are ret-conned as gay relationships, and this aggressive piracy of heterosexual male role-models discourages these kind of ennobling friendships between straight men, arguably causing much of the dysfunction in many contemporary male-male and male-female relationships**.

The part that really fucks me off is that the public endorsement of the binary sexual model secures rights and recognition for the most politically and economically powerful group in the queer community, who then abandon all those that mainstream society deems less acceptable, most notably the transgendered and intersexed, and to a lesser extent the bisexual and asexual. The gay rights movement and media give lip-service to diversity while it is politically expedient for them to do so until it is not, and then they simply erase us from the debate. Gay rights activists tend to forget that recognition of their rights was first won at Stonewall, not by themselves, but by the transgender community.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying I don’t like gay people, and I’m not saying that identifying as gay is inherently bad. By all means, use the word if you feel it best represents your sexuality, but be aware that it is loaded with ideology and its use has very real implications for those queer people who don’t so easily fit into the binary model of sexuality. If you’re going to be gay, be a good gay, own it, be proud of it, and don’t be manipulated by the-powers-that-be. Make it yours. Most importantly, don’t forget to look out for your queer brothers and sisters, ‘cos you sure as hell didn’t win your rights by yourself.

DannyR

Star Trek: Boldly Going... Somewhere Else?

Directed by J.J. Abrams, Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin & John Cho

Grade C.

SPOILERS BELOW!!

Bright, shiny, fast, loud and contrived: this is Star Trek for people who’ve never watched Star Trek. It’s the kind of bland Hollywood summer blockbuster that we’re seeing so much of these days, and you just know it’s gonna be popular.

If you’re a long-term fan, your reaction to this movie will fall somewhere between disappointment and outrage. I’m not going to get into how the plot casually erases the entire history of the galaxy as established by 40 years of previous Trek films and TV series, and I’m not going to whinge about the often staggering coincidences and plot holes that abound throughout. I want to talk about characterisation, atmosphere, ambiance. Now sure, I’m biased, but I’d like to point out that I went with a friend who’s never been interested in Star Trek, and he said the movie just failed to make him care about any of the characters or the story. So I’m not alone here.

Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk was perhaps the biggest disappointment. He was a poor choice for the role, his face is babyish rather than classically handsome and he lacks the arrogant, brooding presence that William Shatner brought to the character. What the film-makers really failed to grasp is that the original Star Trek was about a swaggering, macho ladies’ man and his sweet ride, a guy who cruises into town, starts a brawl, saves the day and rides of into the sunset, leaving a trail of broken hearts behind him. Compared to Shatner’s Kirk, Pine’s character is something of a joke.

And what of said sweet ride? The Enterprise was attractive, despite my initial misgivings about the changes to its iconic design, but it certainly didn’t inspire the sense of awe that previous incarnations have. We’re supposed to be blown away by this ship, it’s supposed to be the most advanced and powerful vessel in the galaxy, but it’s onscreen for perhaps two minutes in total in the entire film. Maybe the film-makers cut its scenes, given the violent fan reactions to leaked pictures of the design over the past year. They certainly didn’t give the new ship the loving, slow reveal that past films have lavished on it. In fact in terms of action and on-screen presence, it was completely displaced by another little craft.

Another essential ingredient of Trek has always been the relationship between Kirk and first officer Spock. The film-makers did make a decent attempt to capture this dynamic, but just didn’t quite get it right. It feels forced, like they’re trying to recreate the chemistry of the original characters without going through any sort of process to make it happen. One minute Kirk and Spock hate each other, the next they’re best friends. Zachary Quinto certainly looked the part as Spock, but had none of the dignity and solemnity of Leonard Nimoy’s portrayal of the character. This is especially obvious as Nimoy is actually in the movie as well, playing an older Spock.

Eric Bana as vengeful Romulan Nero was intimidating to look at, but oddly soft-spoken, and I have to say he has possibly the most ridiculous motivation for causing mayhem I've ever come across in Star Trek. His home planet Romulus and everyone on it is about to be wiped out by a supernova, distant cousins the Vulcans try to help save the planet by creating a black hole to divert the solar flare and in the process destroy the very planet they're trying to save, and accidentally send Nero and his cronies two hundred years back in time. Nero arrives in the earlier era, and rather than go and see the planet he thought he'd lost forever, and perhaps become the hero of his people, he goes on a vendetta against the Federation (who, as enemies of the Romulan Empire, were under no obligation to save Romulus but tried anyway), planning to blow up the Feds one planet at a time, beginning with Vulcan and then moving on to Earth, naturally. The whole thing is just a convoluted way for writers and producers to press the 'reset' button and start fresh with only the bits of Trek they want to retain, consigning the rest to the interstellar dustbin.

What of the supporting cast? I can't deny Simon Pegg as Scotty was great fun but he was largely absent from the film (arriving fully halfway through in another ludicrous coincidence) and didn’t do anything much to save the day, as he used to in the original TV series and the movies based on it. He was basically reduced to comic relief status, though perhaps that’s to be expected, given Pegg’s previous films. John Cho as Hikaru Sulu was pretty kick-ass, and did seem to have some of the fire that the original actor brought to the role, but I couldn't quite accept him in the part, he just looks so different. Still, I expect he will continue to be sheer awesome in future films, cos I can guarantee there's at least two in the works even now.

Anton Yelchin playing young math-genius Chekov was funny, but I rather take issue with how the film-makers took what is essentially a supporting role and greatly expanded it, arguably at the expense of Uhura’s place in the ensemble, leaving her with nothing to do but look pretty and kiss Spock a couple of times (no real change there then). This was particularly disappointing, as a great deal was made of her talents and achievements in the early part of the film, and then the film utterly fails to build on these. NZ's own Karl Urban as Dr ‘Bones’ McCoy was the standout performer, he alone seemed to have really captured the essence of the original character.

Stylistically, this take on one of SciFi’s oldest and most loved franchises owes a lot to the resurrected Battlestar Galactica TV series, there’s a lot of shaky hand-held camera work and a real military feel to the character interactions interspersed with short, silent space shots. Maybe this has something to do with my feeling as I sat there that this isn’t Star Trek – past Trek films have revelled in elaborate space battles replete with the clamouring of titanic explosions and pounding drums. The film-makers have incorporated a lot of those recognisable little details from the original series – gun and uniform designs and colours, tinny sound effects – which bring on nerdgasms among the faithful, and there are plenty of little in-jokes, but the total effect is of pastiche or parody rather than a genuine continuation of the franchise. I think it’s telling that Galaxy Quest, an actual parody, feels more like Star Trek than this new film does.

This movie will undoubtedly draw a new generation of fans to the Star Trek universe, and perhaps rekindle enthusiasm for past incarnations of the show, but I can’t help feeling that the future of the franchise will be a lot less rich, a lot more formulaic and more reliant on cheap thrills and jokes than on decent storytelling and characterisation.

DannyR

Ecco Art

I found these CGI pictures on the net... I'd love to know who did them :D

My Momma Said...

An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.

One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.

At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.

For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.

Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.

But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.

After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.

'I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house.'

The old woman smiled, 'Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side?'

'That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.'

'For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.'

Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding.

You've just got to take each person for what they are and look for the good in them.

SO, to all of my crackpot friends, have a great day and remember to smell the flowers on your side of the path!

Snorey Danny...

Stuck at Massey trying to get this blasted essay done on intragroup conflict and minority/majority influence in small groups. Grrr!!!

V tired today, feeling a bit headachey and stiff cos I was up so late last night. Hopefully I can get this all finished and submitted by tomorrow morning so I'll have the rest of the weekend to complete the other one!!

I wanna go home and snooze!!

Seven Cups Of Coffee, And Counting...

I'm going to be up all night!!

OliVaylle Fires Actor Because Of Previous Role

I'm irritated and annoyed. Below I have copied and pasted an blog post I read at http://practicalpolyamory.blogspot.com/2009/02/poly-family-web-series-actor-fired.html

Here 'tis:

This news just in. Terisa Greenan is the Seattle-based creator of the polyamory-themed hit comic web series "Family" that has gotten a lot of attention around the poly community in recent months. Terisa has just posted a disappointing piece of news to her Facebook Notes. Terisa writes:

This is a disheartening story that I feel the need to share for many reasons. Ernie Joseph, who plays Ben on our Web series “Family,” recently shot a commercial for the Australian olive oil company OliVaylle. The commercial was created by Mulberry Street advertising firm and produced by Black Squirrel Productions in Seattle. Ernie was excited about this new opportunity because he was told by the producers that he was likely going to be the new face of the brand, and that there could be a series of commercials featuring him to be produced in the future. Then, suddenly, the plug was pulled on his new advertising gig and the commercial Ernie shot was actually re-shot with a different actor. Producers told Ernie that the owners of OliVaylle had received links to “Family” and because of the nature of the show, no longer wanted Ernie to represent them.

In my opinion this is a terribly bigoted move by this Australian company. I know that there is a large polyamory community in Australia and that many of them are fans of our web series, “Family.” I wonder how they will feel about this. If I could wave a magic wand and make everyone aware of this injustice and the company behind it, I would. Thank you all for your support of the web series, and thanks especially to those of you who aren’t poly yourselves, but are tolerant and open-minded enough not to discriminate against those of us who are, or those of us who are involved in this apparently controversial web series. Terisa GreenanProducer, 3 Dog Pictures

LLCI recommended that Terisa refer Ernie to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, which routinely offers advice and assistance to polyamorous people who are subjected to job discrimination. The most outrageous part of all this is that Ernie was dismissed for playing a polyamorous character, not for actually BEING polyamorous*. Apparently OliVaylle believes Ernie portraying such a "character" while simultaneously being the face of their product would be harmful to their sales. Sheesh. If you've never see "Family", take a look. Here's the first episode.

One of the comments on the post was:

PolyOz said...
If you really want to make an impact, use this link everywhere you can:OliVaylle fires actor because of previous role This link makes the company name the "anchor text" pointing at this blog post. If it appears enough times, then Google will notice. After that, people who Google for the company will see this blog post on the first page of the search results, right next to the company website.If you are making links to this blog post in an editor which has a chain icon and opens a separate window, just make sure the text you have highlighted includes the company name (spelled correctly).

*He's not.

Cracking Up...

Ok so I found this picture on a blog and just went into fits of laughter for nearly five minutes... dunno why but it's the funniest thing I've seen in months...

Mmmm....

Is there anything as heavenly as macaroni cheese on a cold autumn day?

I think not.

Bisexuality and homosexuality in Japan

Here's a great article on a blog I've been following lately detailing the prevalence of bisexuality in Japanese culture, which makes note of the public perception of male homosexuals as effeminate "women-haters."

This of course has its parallel in Western society, somewhat less so now than in past decades, yet I'm inclined to think that while the stereotype has declined somewhat, the idea persists that at least one of the men in any homosexual coupling will essentially be a girl-in-a-male-body, and that such a feminine man will inevitably partner with a more rugged, 'manly' man, thus imitating and affirming the heterosexual norm*.

Now, this stereotype seems to be promulgated by television, I'm thinking of shows like Desperate Housewives in particular, and I guess by presenting homosexual couples as emulating the heterosexual model, tv writers and executives have done some good in increasing public acceptance of homosexual relationships. And it has certainly weakened the deeply entrenched belief that all gay men are weak and gender confused. But unless the Queer community continues to push for diverse representation, I'm afraid that is where it will stop, and we will have failed to really make significant change.

It's a foot in the door, but we cannot be happy with simply supporting status quo. Too often, gay men make some headway in advancing their personal liberties only to abandon those in the queer community less numerous and powerful than themselves.

Let's not be complacent, then, let's continue to make a noise for the sake of those who are seldom heard.


* Lesbian couples don't seem to be tarred with this same brush - tv land is quite happy to depict both women in a same-sex relationship as feminine because it titillates and panders to male fancy. In fact, it would seem that lesbians have the opposite problem - Dykes and butches are virtually non-existant on tv, the implication being that they're not real women.

Alive

It wasn’t that I wanted
To forget where I’d come from,
But momentum won’t be argued with -
I was just swept along.
Now, looking back I’ve realised
I don’t know how I began,
I’ve forgotten all my lessons
And let slip the life I planned.

I find myself as washed ashore,
My stricken ship abandoned,
The wreckage strewn along the beach,
Seemingly at random.
And gazing back from whence I came
It feels as but a dream –
Some other life, a different world
Out there, beyond the sea.

Yet here am I, despite the storm
It seems that I survived,
The only thing that matters now
Is that I am Alive.

- Danny Rudd 13/04/08

Trans 101

Today was the first day of the transgender seminar here in Palmy, held at Te Manawa and hosted by the Human Rights Commission.

There were two sessions today, a morning session which featured a panel of trans folk from around the region, some from as far away as Hamilton and Rotorua (and one was a teacher at my old high school - Western Heights!!), and an afternoon session focusing on working with trans youth, creating safe spaces and accommodating their needs in existing organisations.

As I noted in my other post about the seminars here(http://liminald.blogspot.com/2009/03/assume-nothing-devinat-5-chaff-2009.html), I've actually been to the same workshops before, when they were held at The New Dowse in Upper Hutt last year. I came away from that experience with a huge respect for, and appreciation of, the trans folks who have been brave enough to front up publicly demanding fair treatment and equal rights. Some of those same people were at today's sessions, but there were a lot of new faces and again I was deeply moved by the sharing of personal histories and the positive, encouraging atmosphere of the occasion.

I met our local representatives for AGENDA and GenderBridge, which was great because they haven't had much involvement with MaLGRA and certainly not with UniQ, so we're going to get together to nut out some strategies for the university and the local queer community. I was also really pleased to see representatives of MaLGRA and YOSS, and even some lecturers from Massey attending. But I was perhaps most impressed to see some of my UniQ kids show up for the later session, I feel like I've been banging on about this for months and was disappointed when none of them showed up to the morning session. I know, I know.... students ;)

Tomorrow there is a session focusing on the Assume Nothing exhibition, also held at Te Manawa, which will feature talks from people actually in the artworks, followed by some performance art from local trans folk. I'll definitely be attending that, and my friend Amelia, she of the incredible talent for sculpture, will be joining me.

For now though, I'll have a nap and then try to make myself pretty(ish) to head out on the town, as my mate Melle is up from Wellington and staying with us for the weekend. I'll post more about tomorrow's shenanigans when once they're past.

Susan Boyle. O. M. G.

Check this out, it's a great clip of a very unusual lady, from Britain's Got Talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

What is going ON??!!??

Sometimes I wake up and I panic, because something feels deeply, deeply wrong.

I lie there and think about it, trying to pinpoint what exactly it is that's out of place, sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. It's usually pretty subtle, sometimes it's that something I've seen on TV has been mixed into my dreams, changing the way the world is, and I wake knowing that it's wrong.

Other times I wake up knowing - just knowing - that the world is not as it appears to be, that there are things going on beneath that surface that I do not understand and am not privy to. It's a kind of paranoia I guess.

This morning was one of those mornings, I woke up an hour or so ago and sat down to get on with my work and I still don't know what exactly it is that feels so out of place.

It's probably nothing...

Truth In Fiction

I meant no harm, I most truly did not.

But I had to grow bigger, so bigger I got.

I biggered my factory. I biggered my roads.

I biggered my wagons. I biggered the loads.

Of the Thneeds I shipped out. I was shipping them forth

To the South! To the East! To the West! To the North!

I went right on biggering... selling more Thneeds.

And I biggered my money, which everyone needs.

THE ONCE-LER, from Dr Seuss' The Lorax

Harder, certainly...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4fmk8_daft-punk-harder-bodies-maleversion_fun


;)

Sir Rupert... the sweetest video ever :)

Ch-ch-check it out!!


http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/sir-rupert-the-gay-knight/12680889

I love this video SOOOO much.

Pork Is The Meat Of Kings!!

Ohmigod this is disturbing. And yet, strangely enticing...

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Pork/

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

Ecco Music - Split the Stream of Time, by Viper.Fox

Very Awesome!!

Viper.Fox has recorded the soundtracks for Ecco I & II and made them available for download... to listen, go to Dark Sea, our favourite Ecco site, here.

Who's the Queerest Of Them All? -- Deviant, Chaff 7 2009

It used to be that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people only made it into TV shows as freaks and perverts. We were stuck in the hell that is daytime and late-night talk-shows like Ricki Lake and Jerry Springer, put on display as immoral deviants, predators, home-wreckers. In other programming we were invisible except to be pitied, feared or laughed at. But something’s changed, these days you can’t turn on the TV without seeing a couple of token Queers (unless you’re a Star Trek fan – 40 years homo-free and counting!!). It’s even made it into Coronation Street. My god, my mum is avidly watching gay romance on The Street. But it’s not always a good thing. Just how are we being portrayed, and by which shows?? Of course I can’t cover everything here, but even a brief survey is revealing.

We do pretty well in comedy. Perhaps the best illustration of this new mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians is the rising star of Ellen Degeneres. She made history with her show Ellen, when her character (and she herself in real-life) came out. Of course the show was axed not long after but she’s back with a talk-show that rivals Oprah in popularity, and she was even chosen to host the 79th Academy Awards in 2007. Seems everyone loves Ellen now. And let’s not forget Will & Grace, the first show in history to have a gay male lead. The show was popular from the outset, though probably more for stereotypically flamboyant and bitchy supporting characters Jack and Karen than for the title characters. It’s like the mainstream likes us best when we’re not just gay, but really gay. Will was played by a straight guy, too. Still, a big step towards equality.

AfterElton.com recently named Scrubs the “gayest show on television,” but I have to disagree, it doesn’t have any lesbian or gay characters, just the sexually ambiguous ‘The Todd’ and the ‘bromance’ between straight male leads Turk and JD. In my mind, Scrubs is outshone by the much gayer Ugly Betty, which has hot trannie chick Alex in one of the main emotional story-arcs, as well as Betty’s camp little nephew Justin, and the hilariously bitchy, obviously gay Marc. Then there’s The Sarah Silverman Program, featuring lazy, scruffy Brian and Steve, two sloppy, overweight Ginga stoners who sit at home playing computer games all day, showing that not all gays are prissy queens, that we can be just as ordinary and slovenly as anyone else.

Family Guy often shows main character Peter as a bit camp, and occasionally hints that evil baby Stewie is gay, but it’s all for giggles and neither is actually a homo according to show creators, so it’s another one where there’s no regular Queer character. The Simpsons is (a bit) better: closet homo Waylon Smithers has been a firm fixture in the cast from the show’s earliest days, Marge’s sister Patty came out as a lesbian and married her girlfriend, and the show once devoted an entire episode to the stupidity of ‘Homer’s Phobia’ toward obviously gay John (winning the show an Emmy), but after that episode John was never seen again.

I would argue that South Park is actually more gay-friendly than The Simpsons and Family Guy, despite its frequent use of the words ‘gay’ and ‘faggot’ as insults. Sure, it’s over-the-top, obnoxious and crude, but South Park is like that to everyone and everything, it’s an equal-opportunity mud-slinger, so it’s actually a more inclusive show than most. And it’s jam-packed with Queers. Cartman’s mother is a hermaphrodite. Saddam Hussein and Satan are lovers. Big Gay Al and Mister Slave get married, and the boys’ teacher Mr. Garrison becomes Ms. Garrison, experiments with lesbianism and switches back to being a man. Butters is sent to Bi-Curious camp to be ‘cured,’ and ends up showing that obsessing over other people’s sexuality actually causes them more confusion and harm than just leaving them alone. South Park rocks.

And of course British comedy has always been full of gay jokes, in fact I can’t think
of a single exception. Probably the gayest of the lot is Little Britain, for a start most of the women are actually men in drag, then there’s Daffyd, the ‘Only Gay In The Village,’ the Prime Minister’s love-sick aide Sebastian, a bickering divorced couple who are actually both gay, closet-homo and Minister of Parliament Norman Fry, and ‘Emily,’ she of the Victorian frocks and constant protests of “I’m a Lady!” All ridiculously stereotypical, but the show’s success has put Queer people firmly in the limelight.

So comedy’s crowded with Queers. Turning to action and sci-fi, though, we find a very different story. If you look at big syndicated shows like Lost, 24, Heroes, Stargate, and the like, you’ll find that LGBT people are either completely absent/invisible or, overwhelmingly, weak and/or evil. Take Lost. Here’s a show with a huge cast that ticks practically every demographic box, and yet there is not one gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual character. Or how about 24, where homosexuality either gets you killed or directly results in the U.S. being attacked by terrorists? In fact the only exception I can think of here is Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood, which has bisexual protagonist Captain Jack and pretty much everyone on the show snogging or screwing someone of the same gender at one point or another.

We do (somewhat) better in drama, in at least being visible. ER had a number of lesbian stories over the years but to no one’s great surprise they involved little actual romance or sexuality, and when they did it always ended in bitter disappointments and loneliness. Six Feet Under and Brothers and Sisters also feature gay people and their romantic and sexual lives but again these are shown to be dysfunctional and basically unfulfilling. Similarly, British soaps like Emmerdale and EastEnders have had gay characters for years, but of course they’re always miserable or shocking stories, because in drama and soap-land, no one gets to be happy for long. It’s kind of the whole point. For example, Coronation Street made young Todd’s homosexuality directly responsible for his girlfriend’s miscarriage. Coro’s kind of made up for it though with the first transsexual character in a British soap, Hayley, who is one of the show’s more likeable characters, and now uber-gay Sean, a regular character with a hunky boyfriend. So not all bad there.

Our own Shortland Street has featured gay characters and storylines since it’s beginning, but I’m sorry to say it hasn’t exactly painted a rosy picture. Gay males are inevitably screwed up and go out of their way to hurt people or are killed off pretty quickly. The girls don’t fare much better – they last longer, but it seems they always end up murdering somebody. And where are the transsexuals, the fa’afafine and takataapui people? Still, we do have Gerald, Shorty’s femmy asexual receptionist, and writers did make a brief attempt to play out the implications of this identity for his life and relationships. They could probably try harder though.

It’s nice to see more Queer people on the Telly, but it’s be nice to see more of them in serious lead roles that address their issues without getting too morbid, or that show them defeating the bad guy instead of being the bad guy. I guess for now I’ll just have to stick to animated shorts like Rick and Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple In The World, or watch Queer as Folk on dvd over and over. Or I could take up watching Coro with my mum.

DannyR

Write Your Own Damn Article!! -- CHAFF 4, 2009

With Semester One well underway and assignments starting to clamour for attention, we can all feel a little overwhelmed and stressed out. I know I am. So rather than actually putting time and effort into writing something witty, entertaining and educational, I have decided to throw the CHAFF to the wind, so to speak. Entertain and educate yourselves, Dammit!!

Don’t worry though, I’m not leaving you to figure it out all by yourselves, I’m not that heartless. Not yet, anyway. (Though if I see any more first-years playing on Bebo in lectures instead of listening or taking notes, I may just give up the will to live).

I’ve thrown together a couple of paragraphs (below) deleted words haphazardly, and compiled a random list with which YOU can fill in the gaps* Simply choose a word from the list (or come up with one of your own) and insert it into whichever space you think it fits best, and Voila!! you’ll have written your first CHAFF article. If you’re really proud of your masterpiece, drop it in the CHAFF letterbox and they’ll print it. Then you’ll be, like, FAMOUS.

So are you ready and eager, pen in hand?? Get cracking!!

THE ARTICLE:

You smile from behind the counter as the bell above the door rings and she _ _ _ _ _ _ into the _ _ _ _ , her golden _ _ _ _ swinging freely behind her as she moves. Watching as she makes her way around the room, selecting _ _ _ _ _ and putting them in her shopping basket, you wonder why you’ve never managed to pluck up the courage to ask her out to a _ _ _ _ _ or a _ _ _ _ some time. Every other day she comes in at about the same time, brings a few _ _ _ _ _ _ _ items to the counter, hands over the appropriate change with a smile, and disappears, leaving you feeling dazed and a little awkward.

Today is no different. She gets a carton of _ _ _ _ from the refrigerator, a small packet of lite _ _ _ _ _ _ from a shelf in the middle aisle and picks up a _ _ _ _ _ from the stand by the counter. She smiles as she drops them in front of you, and does that cute thing where she bites her bottom lip as she puts five _ _ _ _ _ _ _ into your hand. You can feel yourself turning crimson, terrified and excited like you always are when she’s standing there in front of you.

Just then two men in black _ _ _ _ _ _ _, wearing balaclavas, burst into the room shouting, pointing guns. You can’t understand what they’re saying, it’s all so loud and it’s happening so fast. One of them is pointing his _ _ _ _ _ _ at the girl with the golden hair, and she’s backing into a corner, her eyes wide with fright. The other one is yelling at you, and slowly, dumbly, you begin to understand. They want you to open your _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Remembering that you’re supposed to do what they say, you nod, look down, trying to remember how. You do this a hundred times a day, but it seems somehow strange and clumsy now.

That’s when your boss walks into the room from out the back. The guy pointing his _ _ _ _ _ _ at the girl with the golden hair spins around and starts _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, and then your boss is screaming, and then there’s a shot. Everyone _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

The two men in balaclavas run for it. The girl is standing in the corner _ _ _ _ _ _ _, and you can’t understand why – they’re gone. But you can’t see your boss. It takes you a second, but then you begin to understand. He’s _ _ the _ _ _ _.

The whole thing had taken less than a minute.

THE LIST:

storms, sidles, slinks, crawls, bounds,
lair, hole, jail; room, door,
fart, knee, pony, arse, pimp
fruit, clams, STD’s, beers, whips
dance, field, beach, party, match
orgy, club, film, rape, rave
knitted, helpful, naughty, special, rotting
porn, shit, beer, salt, hope
chains, slaves, undies, bosoms, knives
spoon, dwarf, bunny, dildo, rifle
kittens, plagues, beetles, verucas, flowers
panties, fedoras, condoms, pyjamas, leather
camera, granny, midget, bottom, nipple
sexy, dope, meat, bomb, crap
curtains, sneakers, cupboard, man-cave, trousers
camera, granny, midget, bottom, nipple,
proposing, ovulating, preaching, fidgeting, stripping
belches, cuddles, boogies, giggles, parties
quietly, texting, happily, cubicle, wanking
in, at, on, by
shark, blood, phone, kitty, turps


* If anyone’s interested in reading the original, it’s at the back of this issue.


Write Your Own Damn Article – The Original

You smile from behind the counter as the bell above the door rings and she floats into the shop, her golden hair swinging freely behind her as she moves. Watching as she makes her way around the room, selecting items and putting them in her shopping basket, you wonder why you’ve never managed to pluck up the courage to ask her out to a movie or a cafe some time. Every other day she comes in at about the same time, brings a few grocery items to the counter, hands over the appropriate change with a smile, and disappears, leaving you feeling dazed and a little awkward.

Today is no different. She gets a carton of milk from the refrigerator, a small packet of lite crisps from a shelf in the middle aisle and picks up a paper from the stand by the counter. She smiles as she drops them in front of you, and does that cute thing where she bites her bottom lip as she puts five dollars into your hand. You can feel yourself turning crimson, terrified and excited like you always are when she’s standing there in front of you.

Just then two men in black clothes, wearing balaclavas, burst into the room shouting, pointing guns. You can’t understand what they’re saying, it’s all so loud and it’s happening so fast. One of them is pointing his weapon at the girl with the golden hair, and she’s backing into a corner, her eyes wide with fright. The other one is yelling at you, and slowly, dumbly, you begin to understand. They want you to open your cash register. Remembering that you’re supposed to do what they say, you nod, look down, trying to remember how. You do this a hundred times a day, but it seems somehow strange and clumsy now.

That’s when your boss walks into the room from out the back. The guy pointing his gun at the girl with the golden hair spins around and starts screaming, and then your boss is screaming, and then there’s a shot. Everyone freezes.

The two men in balaclavas run for it. The girl is standing in the corner sobbing, and you can’t understand why – they’re gone. But you can’t see your boss. It takes you a second, but then you begin to understand. He’s on the floor.

The whole thing had taken less than a minute.

Danny Rudd

CHAFF Review -- The Unborn (or, Dead on Arrival)

Grade: D, or 3/10

Starring Odette Yustman, Cam Gigandet, Gary Oldman

I love a good horror flick. Sadly, they’re few and far between, and The Unborn is no exception.

Produced by Michael Bay of Transformers notoriety, and written by David S. Goyer, who was responsible for such brilliant scripts as Dark City and Batman Begins, this could have been an awesome movie. Not necessarily a smart one, but pretty freakin’ fantastic.

What’s it about? Well, in a nutshell, there’s this chick who sees dogs wearing masks, gets all upset and finds out she had a still-born dead twin that no one ever told her about. Said dead twin, it seems, is the vengeful spirit of a kid killed prematurely in WWII who had to get back into the world to fulfil its purpose, and who is now blaming his sister for his not being born and is out to torment her. Cue Jewish spiritual advisor, cue freaky exorcism. I thought it was all a bit convoluted in the theatre, and even now, I’m not entirely sure I got the gist.

The music was… bland. The lighting was… bland. The acting was… well, not entirely awful, but pretty mediocre overall. Odette Yustman, though WAAAY hot, has the emotional capacity of a can of cold tuna as Casey, the lead character. Cam Gigandet, the hunky vampire from Twilight, was here just the boring dependable boyfriend we’ve all seen in a thousand other horror flicks. Even the seriously awesome Mr Oldman, playing Casey’s rabbi, was a bit of a disappointment. This isn’t to say that these guys are bad actors, but the script doesn’t really give any of them the room to be interesting.

The whole thing is one cliché after another. This is how bad it is: I sat there counting the things I’d seen before in other, better horror movies… creepy child, doubting hot chick, obscure evil spirit, freakish stair-climb, tricycle, unexpected face in the mirror, etc etc etc. And then there are all the gaping plot holes. I think any film where you have time to sit there cataloguing plot deficiencies is, ultimately, a film not worth seeing. And boy, do you have time. The Unborn could have been half the length it is, and it might actually have been better. As it is, I found myself longing for the closing credits. Why didn’t I just walk out? Because I’m stingy. I paid my money, dammit, and if I’m going to be bored by a movie, I’m going to be bored witless.

I think you get the picture. DON’T go see this film. DON’T be tempted to part with your few remaining dollars when you walk past the cinema and see Odette Yustman’s enticing derriere staring out at you from the film’s poster. Just don’t.

- DannyR

Response to 'Sex With Aunty', Deviant 6, 2009

You're right, Aunty, cheating sux.

If you're the cheatER, you have a lot of guilt to live with, whether you're sprung or not or own up to it, and you have to expend all that effort covering up your tracks, losing sleep worrying and berating yourself. If you're the cheatEE, you can feel humiliated, rejected, inadequate, unloved and unlovable, and a whole host of other none-too-pleasant things. If you're the OTHER man/woman, you might feel anything from surprise or remorse to malicious glee at your involvement. Cheating is most definitely NOT cool.

However, I do feel that I have to take issue with your recent article on infidelity. For a start, I think you probably could have acknowledged that 'cheating' means very different things to different people. Some of my friends, for example, feel betrayed if their partner so much as notices that someboby else is attractive. Others of my friends have no qualms about their Significant Other getting a little intimate with a friend or stranger on the dancefloor, so long as that is where it ends. Still others have no objection if their partner beds someone else, though they usually have mutually agreed-upon rules about how, with whom and when that can happen, and whether they talk about it or not.

I totally agree with you, Aunty, that at the root of the problem is a basic lack of communication, that people simply don't tell their partner(s) how they are feeling, what they want at whatever point of their relationship they're in, and what they're frustrated or dissatisfied with. We don't automatically assume these days that our partner will want to marry us, that he or she wants kids, or even necessarily that they expect the relationship to last for the rest of their life. Maybe it's time monogamy was added to that list of negotiable points.

I flat-out disagree with your assumption that if a man or a woman is looking elsewhere, there's something fundamentally wrong with the relationship he or she is in. That assertion smacks of an underlying preconception that there is in fact some universal way that a relationship SHOULD be. And in an age where the mother of a man's child is not necessarily his wife, where the different marriage practices of different cultures are recognised and very often respected, where some women and men choose multiple or serial relationships, isn't that view a little simplistic?

A relationship, ultimately, is up to the people in it. If they agree that they want lifelong monogamy and a cottage by the sea complete with white picket fence, two kids and a puppy, that is their prerogative. If two or three or however many people decide they want to all live in one home together or separately in several households, dividing their time and emotional energy between themselves, that too is for them to work out amongst themselves. The point though, is that these things need to be discussed.

A lot of the heartaches and recriminations tied up with infidelity are ultimately caused by people not knowing what the rules between themselves and their partner(s) are, having never expected to be in the situation where they are committed to one person but find themselves drawn to another person as well. It's something we don't really talk about in our society, and that needs to change. Yes, there are selfish fuckwits out there who simply don't care what their partner feels or what risks they are exposing their partner to, so I'm not disagreeing with you completely. You very rightly stress the need for honesty and respect for one's partner, and I applaud that. But non-monogamy does not automatically equal dishonesty or relationship dissatisfaction. In sum, to make informed choices, people need to know their options.

That's enough from me. Keep up the good work, Aunty, I look forward to reading more from you!

Polyamorously yours,

DannyR

Assume Nothing -- Deviant 5, CHAFF, 2009

Last year I had the privilege of attending the Human Rights Commission’s transgender exhibition and seminars at The New Dowse gallery in Lower Hutt. The exhibition is built around Rebecca Swan’s groundbreaking Assume Nothing, a beautiful photographic book that focuses on Kiwi transgender, intersex, transvestite, fa’afafine and takataapui people. Her work is innovative and daring, but shows a real sensitivity to and respect for the issues faced by trans-folk in Aotearoa. I was deeply, deeply moved by her work, and the workshops and seminars were fantastic.

Some of the photographs are in traditional portrait style, but there’s a lot of variety. Swan sometimes splits a portrait down the middle to show a transvestite person in both male and female garb or makeup, other times she uses a series of individual shots to show a drag artist’s progression from one persona to another. There are tasteful nude photographs, which answer all those awkward questions a lot of us have about what an intersex person’s plumbing looks like, but still convey the sense of the individual as a whole person rather than just an ensemble of genital bits and pieces, a medical oddity or freak. Some of the works are in black and white, others in bold colour. The real beauty of the collection is that Swan’s photography shows trans-folk as strong human beings with unique life histories and perspectives, real people with individual stories and experiences.

The seminars are an opportunity for the public to interact with some of the people who have put themselves forward in Swan’s work, to hear about their struggles and triumphs first-hand, to learn more about how our society has discriminated against transgender people in the past, how it continues to do so now, and how we’re changing that. I met some really inspiring people from all sorts of different backgrounds, and got answers to some of the questions I’d always had but had been too embarrassed to ask. Ultimately, I came away with a deep admiration and respect for some incredible people, people brave enough to be who they truly are in the face of scorn and rejection from their families, friends and society at large.

The great news is that both the exhibition and the workshops held by the HRC are coming to Palmerston North this year, Te Manawa is hosting the exhibition from the 28th of February until the 7th of June, and the workshops will be held on the 14th, 18th and 19th of March. You don’t have to identify as trans to benefit from these workshops, either. I really recommend you get yourselves along if you can – they’re informative and fun, and you’ll learn a whole lot, I guarantee it.

DannyR

(This piece was accompanied by a brief summary of some Do's and Don't's from another person's work, below)

Trans Etiquette 101

Micah Bazant, TimTum: A Trans Jew Zine

DON’T freak out if you don’t recognise someone’s gender or age, or get it wrong. Apologise (once is enough), and make sure you get it right next time.

DON’T interrogate them about their trans status.

DON’T assume you have the right to any medical or anatomical information about their body or genitals, it’s none of your friggin’ business unless they decide to share that with you.

DON’T EVER share the information that someone you know is trans or intersex, it can be humiliating or even dangerous for that person if you do so. A lot of trans people just want to get on with their lives without people knowing, and besides, ‘Outing’ someone for anything is a pretty shitty thing to do – they have the right to do it themselves if they choose to.

DON’T ask what their given, or ‘real’ name was. This is extremely rude.

DON’T assume you know the details of their transition, they may not be transitioning at all, or might choose to have some operations and not others. Again, none of your business.

DON’T ask if they’re sure about it, or remind them that it’s permanent or anything like that. Most trans people have already done a lot of soul-searching to get to where they are.

DON’T make this all about you, it might feel weird, maybe you’ve never had a trans friend or whatever, but however uncomfortable you’re feeling rest assured living as a trans person is a million times harder.


DO use the names and personal pronouns they prefer.

DO ask if you're not sure how someone prefers to be addressed.

DO take them at face value, let them be who they are now. Leave the past and the future alone.

DO listen if your trans friend has something they want to share about their experiences with you – it’s an enormous privilege, and needs to be respected.

DO educate yourself about trans life, watch films (TransAmerica and Boys Don’t Cry are both fantastic), read books, watch TV shows (Ugly Betty is pretty good), look it up on the net (try http://www.agender.org.nz/ ) – there are plenty of great resources out there, it’ll help you put yourself in your trans friend’s shoes.

And most importantly,

DO treat each trans person as an individual – we’re all unique and not one of us is the same as anyone else.

Catastrophe!!

Ohmigod, ohmigod, ohmigod!!

I slept in and missed the Student Association AGM!!

Aaarrghhhhh!!!!!!!


Being medicated sucks

Everything and Nothing

There are any number of labels and adjectives you could use to describe me. As an exercise, here's my own list, stream-of-consciousness style.

Bisexual. Polyamorous. Male. GenderQueer. Short. Pakeha. Pale. Brunette. Heavy. Timid. Nerdy. Quiet. Thoughtful. Apostate. Post-Gay. Musical. Literary. Creative. Artistic. Scruffy. Fantastical. Cautious. Reserved. Pessimistic. Untidy. Introverted. Repressed. Unusual. Fanciful. Needy. Emotional. Rational. Whiny. Reclusive. Ambiguous. Ambivalent. Bi-Polar. Liminal. Fun. Popular. Over-Committed. Inquisitive. Obsessive. Undisciplined. Unruly. Moral. Judgemental. Accepting. Tolerant. Neurotic. Suicidal. Self-Loathing. Average. Effeminate. Anxious. Arrogant. Vain. Depressed. Lonely. Talkative. Reticent. Secretive. Nonconfrontational. Poorly dressed. Whimsical. Passive. Lost. Worried. Moody. Meddlesome. Subversive. Poetic. Ironic. Bitter. Begrudging. Forgiving. Forlorn. Independent. Irritating. Curious. Quirky. Complacent. Concerned. Pedantic. Punctual. Submissive. Empathic. Compassionate. Escapist and Eloquent...

I am all of these, and none of these. I am ever-changing; there has never been, nor will there ever be, one concrete, permanent Danny Rudd. I'm always in the middle, in the grey, six of one, half a dozen of the other, neither here nor there.

Loathing

Dear S,

I’m sorry, I don’t know what to say to you anymore. I know I’ve been rude to you lately, but sometimes I just don’t want to look at you, I don’t want to talk. The thoughts are all mixed, I can’t make any sense of my life.

You’re better off without me. I’m childish, selfish, paranoid, neurotic, moody, pessimistic and angry. I’m not there for you nearly enough, I don’t visit your house nearly enough, I don’t ask you about your day, I’m vain and attention seeking and self-obsessed. I wait for you to text me so I can ignore it. I think of you as my enemy rather than my boyfriend – I don’t think you’re on my side, I don’t think you’re interested in me, I feel like you’re always more interested in dvds and my computer than you are in me.

I’m not good-looking enough, I think you could do a lot better, and I take your interest in other people as proof of my own inadequacy. I think you’re a bit of a hypocrite, you want monogamy but you’re always checking other people out online, in movies and in real life – to me it’s the same as actually sleeping with them. You’re a lot better looking than me, I get comments all the time, and sometimes I wish you’d cheat on me or tell me to fuck off. I want you to hit me instead of have sex with me, I want you to call me fat, stupid, lazy, selfish and pathetic. I think I gave up on us a long time ago, before we broke up the first time. And in 2008 I guess I gave up on ever being in a relationship with anyone again.

I missed you, but I got used to the idea that I was going to be lonely the rest of my life. I can’t function sexually anymore, I don’t want anyone to ever see me again, and I don’t want to be touched. I can’t get you off anymore, I’m not what you want.

I want to kill myself – I think about it a lot – I don’t want to make it to 30. I imagine hanging myself, setting myself on fire, walking out in front of traffic, overdosing in the bath. Sometimes I actually try it. I’ve started throwing up again. At the UniQ conference in Auckland, while the rest of you went out clubbing, I went to the park and made myself puke out everything I’d eaten that day. I spent a little while crying, and then when I ran out of tears I climbed on the motorway barrier and tried to will myself to jump. What stopped me was not a will to live but fear of pain and the fact that couldn’t ruin someone else’s life that way.

I feel like I’ve boxed myself in, painted myself into a corner – I’ve made sexuality my whole life, stupidly, knowing that it’s something distresses me, that sexual satisfaction is something I can’t ever have because my life situation prevents me – now I’m too old, fat and ugly, I have too many mental health problems, and my body doesn’t work. I wish I was asexual, but the more I want it, and the more my body keeps responding sexually – though never fully – the more sex disgusts me.

I have made myself a laughing stock by being openly bi and polyamorous, people don’t want me and it’s because I’m fat and ugly. The gym won’t change that – neither will dieting – all that happens is that the skin gets looser and the stretch marks get worse. I’m sorry I ever mentioned it to anyone – I’ve probably embarrassed you too. I never want to be seen again, I just want to die. I keep thinking about suicide but I’m scared of getting it wrong and ending up even worse off. I have every intention of doing it before I turn 30. And I don’t want anyone to know what happened – I want to just disappear. No funeral.

It’s hard to look at you because I think you’re beautiful, and you make me look even uglier. When we go anywhere together I think I hear people laughing at me, calling us ‘fatty and skinny.’ I never want you to take my photo again, I want all photos of me erased or burned.

GRRR!!!!!! -- CHAFF 2 2009

What gets me, I mean, what really gets me, is the arrogance.

I had trouble with my enrolment for Semester One this year, enough to cause me to lose sleep and have homicidal thoughts about the various administrative staff with whom I came into contact in the process. The story goes that due to illness combined with some distressing family circumstances I had to withdraw from my papers in the second semester last year, and the university granted me fee exemption and automatic re-enrolment due to the unforeseen and exceptional nature of the situation. I went to StudyLink and told them what was going on, and provided the documentation they asked for, which included letters between my doctor, a counsellor on campus, the university and myself. The agreed course of action was that I would take a break and get better, enrol in a Summer School paper to keep my hand in, and continue with full time study as of the first semester this year.

So I enrolled for Summer School, having sorted out most of what I needed to sort out to get myself well. I started going for regular doctor’s and counselling appointments (by the way, the Student Counselling services here are really good – I recommend it if you find yourself floundering or stressed out). I sat my ass down and got reading, I was disciplined and diligent, I really applied myself and got the work done, handed in my assignments. It was all good.
Then I find out – at the end of the semester no less – that my access to Library services has been cut off, a bugger if you have no internet access at home. I go to Registry to ask what’s up, and I am informed ( in what I can only describe as a curt manner) that because my Summer School fees hadn’t been paid my results for my work over summer would be withheld, and that my enrolment for the First Semester wasn’t going to be processed.

I thought this had been cleared up months ago. Luckily the Summer School paper I had chosen was entirely internally assessed so I didn’t have to worry about not being able to sit an exam, but I’m pretty pissed at this point because I had made sure I’d gone and done all the paperwork before I even started Summer School, and had received assurances that I had the green light. So I ring StudyLink and ask what the Capital F is going on, and am told that the problem is because they had thought my withdrawing from Semester Two the previous semester meant I was done with university study.

I then had to run around getting the various correspondences to provide to StudyLink again because they claim to have no record of them, and then talk to the university explaining the situation. The university then rings StudyLink for verification, StudyLink acknowledges the fault and says they’ll fix it up, and I’m promised that it should all be cleared up in three working days.
I was pretty stressed by this point, I was having what I think are quite justifiable fears (given the lack of communication) that I would not be enrolled in time and that my allowance would be cut off unexpectedly while studying, and so on my next counselling appointment I told the sordid tale and my counsellor went off to make a phone call, I guess to see what the story actually was and come back with assurances that would put my mind at rest.

Well he came back, but the news wasn’t good. Even after the university contacting StudyLink directly to see why the Student Loan payment for my Summer School fees hadn’t gone through, even after StudyLink had acknowledged they’d fucked up and promised to rectify the situation, nothing further had been done. I was still in limbo. But after a bit of further harassment by my counsellor and the university, the resolutions were actioned and it all went into processing, which I was told would take about three days or a week. Again.

The part that really, REALLY gets to me is the aforementioned arrogance. Everyone I spoke to in this administrative process -- from both the university and StudyLink -- treated me like I was causing them hassles they didn’t need, like I was just a complication, like it was my fault that things hadn’t gone smoothly, when the truth of the matter is that it was poor communication between the two organisations and staff at StudyLink failing to follow through on procedures that was really to blame. The admin staff at both just go with the assumption that the student is in the wrong, and it’s both insulting and unfair. I went through all the hassle of consulting with the university and StudyLink when I made the decision to withdraw last year, I provided all the required documentation and got their advice and information about what I could expect, and yet it would have gone more smoothly and caused me less anxiety in an already trying situation if I had simply failed the papers for which I was enrolled, given my good academic record. I should point out that I’m not alone in my anger and frustration, it seems a number of my friends have experienced similar attitudes from staff and had similar complications, even without the medical dramas.

Why all this confusion? Why is documentation going missing, why are StudyLink decisions being suddenly reversed, why aren’t agreed resolutions being followed through? I attribute it to what I see as two serious failings in the way StudyLink operates. The first is that students are largely excluded from the actual decision making process. When calls were going back and forth between the university and StudyLink, though I was physically in the room I was shut out of the conversation, it was all jargon and acronyms, with no explanation offered to me of what any of it meant, in fact no questions or comments directed to me at all. It was bloody confusing, is what it was, and then I was pretty much shunted from the office without any clarification. I had to actually go and make further enquiries at reception just to find out what the hell had just happened.

The second problem that I see is that StudyLink doesn’t actually assign case-managers, and so you end up talking to several different people, none of whom consult with each other or go higher up the chain when they’re not sure of what to do in a particular situation. Person A says the appropriate action is such and such, and then Person B, not knowing why person A did that, simply says ‘Oh well, that wasn’t the correct action to take, we’ll have to change it,’ and so on. Decisions are overturned because the people making the initial decision aren’t familiar with the case history or sure what to do and so they guess. A few minutes consultation or even rescheduling the appointment with the client to sort out exactly what the current standing of their application is would be adequate, and having particular staff assigned to particular cases would make this a lot easier. It would certainly mean friendlier service.

DannyR

CHAFF Review - Gran Torino

Gran Torino A+ or 9.5/10

Directed by Clint Eastwood. Starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her.

I wasn’t really sure what I was getting myself in for when I agreed to go to see Gran Torino with some friends on my birthday, all I knew was that it was something about an old guy and a car, and that said old guy was Clint Eastwood. Sure, cars can be cool, and old people are fun to laugh at occasionally, but I was kind of amazed that Clint Eastwood was even still alive, let alone making films. So it was with much trepidation that I accepted my free ticket and jumbo-sized cup of branded, carbonated sugar-water and trudged into the theatre.

The movie starts with unpleasant old bastard Walt Kowalski at his wife’s funeral, standing stoically beside the coffin and observing his family as they enter the church, disgust and disapproval radiating from him. Everything you need to know about Walt, you learn in the first ten minutes – his two adult sons want nothing to do with him, his grandchildren think he’s a waste of space, his daughter-in-law wants him put in a home so they can sell the house. He’s a war vet who worked on an assembly line for an American car manufacturer for 40 years, he flies the Stars and Stripes outside his front door, and his pride and joy is his 1972 Gran Torino Sport (which, by the way, is a stunningly beautiful machine).

This man is a relic, a fossil, a dinosaur. But we can kind of relate, and that’s the genius and beauty of this movie. His grandchildren really are loathesome, grasping little shits. The way his own sons can’t be bothered with him, even when he’s just lost his wife, it’s just plain heartbreaking. This is a man who must stand by and watch as everything he and his immigrant family worked so hard for, for so many years, is simply discarded – forgotten, deemed worthless and irrelevant. This is a man watching the sun set on the American Dream.

But Walt finds the things he values – hard work, family, respect for elders, pride in one’s heritage – in the last place he expected to see them. After the funeral, at his wife’s wake, he quietly slips out the front door of his own house, unwanted, unnoticed, alone. It’s heart-wrenching. And that’s when he first sees his new neighbours moving in – a family of Asian immigrants, excited and noisy, being all foreign and stuff. Eastwood’s lip curls in that iconic grimace we’ve all seen a thousand times, and Walt’s disgust is plain to see. There goes the neighbourhood, the sun has set.

But Walt comes to see that though at first glance we may not see any common ground between us and those alien to us, by looking under the surface and behind closed doors – literally, in this case – we can find a lot to respect. The film progresses slowly, set against the backdrop of a decaying suburbia rife with violent crime and gang warfare. Through his entanglement in the lives and struggles of his new neighbours, Walt finds that all is not lost, that he can still make a difference, that standing up for what he believed in was not a waste of his life.

After a bit of thought, I’ve decided that Eastwood has targeted this film at both the liberal Democrats, who have traditionally been more welcoming of ethnic minorities and change but intolerant of conservative values, and equally at conservative Republicans, who have dug in their heels and refused to acknowledge the changes the late 20th and early 21st Century have brought. And he does it brilliantly, by giving us a struggling, hard-working immigrant family to represent progressive concerns and a lovable old coot for traditionalists to relate to, showing how their interests come together and that each can learn from the other and that each has something valid to say. I’m surprised to be saying it, but Clint Eastwood is an amazing actor and director, and this might be the best movie I’ve seen in years. I loved it, it was moving, intelligent, and genuinely funny.

It also showed me just how much fun swearing and insulting others can be. In that spirit, then, I tell you to go see this fucking movie, you fucking dipshit wastes of taxpayer’s money. Peace out.

Danny Rudd

Unfinished

When anyone meets my beautiful friend
They're sure to fall in Lust;
They worship the ground he walks on as
Inevitably they must.

He's earthy and warm and strong and dark,
His eyes gleam like burnished brass;
Compared to the plucked and waxed faggots
He's an angel of ages past.

But what makes him so attractive
Is his cheerful honesty,
He's happy to see you and says so
He wears his heart upon his sleeve...

- DannyR

One Of Us! One Of Us!! -- Deviant 2, CHAFF, 2009

So you’re new to Massey, new to Palmytron, new to flatting and washing your own underwear and having your eftpos card decline when you go to buy 50c noodles at the supermarket. And you’re a homo.

Maybe you’ve only just worked it out, or maybe you’ve suspected for years that something was different about you, in between sneaking a look at Cosmo at the newsstand and turning tricks after midnight at the local public toilets. Whatever. Now you find yourself asking, just what is there to do in Palmerston North when you’re young, broke and lesbian/gay/bi/trans/etc?? Are you, in fact, the Only Gay in the Village??

Fear not, assorted fruits!! Deviant, your friendly neighbourhood Queer* page, is here to tell you all about the sheer fabulousity that is Palmy’s LGBT scene. Are you strapped in back there? Good, now sit back and enjoy the ride.

First stop on the tour, of course, is UniQ (pronounced yoo-nee-cue), Massey’s own Queer student social/support group. We meet on Tuesdays in town at our secret headquarters and work to implement our dastardly Gay Agenda (more on that later), sacrificing kittens to our Dark Lord and plotting to overthrow the government and destroy families. Also, we have cookies. If you’re interested, drop us a line at the email address in the side-bar and we’ll add you to the email list to be kept in the loop, or pop up to MUSA and ask – the staff are friendly and helpful and confidentiality is assured. We also bring you Deviant every week, so make sure you pick up a copy of CHAFF to see what we’re up to.

Then there’s the Manawatu Lesbian and Gay Rights Association (MaLGRA), our awesome local volunteer-run organisation that serves the LGBT community for the district. This is important, so listen up. MaLGRA provides some really great services and hosts some great events throughout the year. Let’s run through them, shall we??

Probably the main one you’ll be interested in is Club Q, our sooper-dooper Queer bar and nightclub down the end of Jersey Lane in town. It’s open Friday and Saturday nights from 10pm, and is a great place to meet people, get plastered for cheap and make eyes at hot guys/girls/whatever without getting your block knocked off. It is the place to be seen, darlink. There is a door-charge, but it’s only a few dollars and is more than made up for by the good music, friendly and safe atmosphere inside and convenience to buses and late-night pie-shops.

Don’t just show up though, because Club Q is run on a Clubs License you need to be a member, or the guest of a member, to enter. There are a bunch of membership options, the cheapest of which is $5 which is more than good enough, and someone who is already a member needs to vouch for you. This sounds like a hassle, but it’s actually a really good thing, it ensures your safety because let’s face it, there are still plenty of homophobic morons out there who feel threatened by anyone of the same sex thinking they’re cute and will smack a homo over for looking at them. But it does mean if you don’t know anyone who’s a member, you’re screwed, and not in a fun way. If you’re in that boat, come along to UniQ, get to know some of the gang, and voila! Problem solved.

MaLGRA also runs a couple of support groups, there’s a Lesbian/Bi women’s night at the club rooms on Wednesdays and a Gay/Bi men’s evening on Thursdays, same place. These groups hang out, go to movies, cafes, and shows, and are great if you want something to distract you from that assignment that’s due Friday. MaLGRA also runs a group for Queer kids in schools, Closet Space, but I’m guessing if you’re reading this you’re too old to go to that. However, if you think you might want to help out occasionally or get involved as a co-ordinator, enquire at UniQ or up at the Club and someone will have a talk with you about it.

MalGRA also puts on some really cool shows and things at Club Q some weekends, and they’re always looking for people to get involved as dancers/drag artistes/DJs etc... keep an eye on Deviant through the year for upcoming events and reviews.

There’s a social cricket match that happens every two or three weeks while the weather is good, it’s usually Lesbians vs Homos but it’s pretty relaxed so anybody can join in, and sometimes the boys actually win!! If sports aren’t your thing, just showing up to watch the drag queens run in heels is always worth a giggle.

And of course there are plenty of things to do that aren’t specifically LGBT-themed but which attract the gays like ants to the delicious Goody-Gumdrops ice cream I dropped on the ground when that bully knocked it from my nancy homo hand just now. Treat yourself to a decent haircut in town occasionally, or chat up the male shop assistants in clothing stores. Try local performing arts groups like the Massey drama club or the Fire Club, attend a poetry evening, check out what’s happening in the local arts scene by popping into the town library and picking up a brochure, or there’s my favourite sure-fire way to spot homos – just hang out at the gym and observe as they pose, pout and preen.

Remember you don’t have to go it alone, there are plenty of people around to help out and to hang with, so make ’09 your year, get active, get involved, get freaky and have fun, ‘cos Palmy (and university generally) is what you make of it!!

*Queer is a reclaimed word that represents sexual and gender diversity, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, takataapui and fa’afafine identities, and we acknowledge that it is not the preferred term for everyone.

DannyR