Fine Art with a paint roller

This is an opinion piece centered around attitudes discussed in Australia during the week of December  14th-20th...

So much static in newspaper comments sections this week after what has come to be known as the #sydneysiege. 

I read all of the papers, even the horrifically biased ones. I read them all, to glean the facts from the speculation, and observe in wide-eyed wonder the journalistic leaps and assumptions that get made without basis every day. By professional journalists.

And the comments sections are just lousy with people trying to pin everything that happens on the opposing political party (aren't we collectively sick of that juvenile partisan buck-passing yet? Don't we expect more?), and the never-ending battle between the 'right' and the 'left' (whatever they are).

I don't belong to either demographic. I'm rabidly equal rights for women, but in no way feminist. I'm a humanist- I believe in equality, not the splintered misandrist embarrassment feminism has been allowed to become under the hateful watch of Jessica Valenti and Jess Zimmerman. 

I believe in sustainable energy, but also in mandatory minimum prison sentences, which puts me on both sides of the equation. I am heavily pro-CCTV for crime prevention and to aid in prosecution 'after the fact', but believe wholeheartedly that asylum seekers are not getting a fair go in Australia. I'm a big fan of mil-spec tech, but only for those who have been adequately screened and trained.

So what?

When talking about Man Haron Monis, the utterly abhorrent perpetrator of the killings of two innocent people in Martin Place this week, reactions have fallen into two main categories:

1. Muslims are a threat and must be stopped.
2. Australia is a shining example of multicultural success, we must encourage tolerance.

When examining these assertions prima facie, one seems negative, and two seems positive.

And positive is always better, right? Not when it runs counter to logic...

We witnessed the birth of the #IllRideWithYou campaign on twitter, an outpouring of support for Muslims by a population desperate to distance itself from The Cronulla Riots 9 years ago.

And I read waves of comments and posts from people in the community who defended religious freedom in Australia, supported Islam, and accused anyone who spoke against Islam in the context of the siege as Islamophobic, racist, of being a redneck, or a bogan.

But it's not that simple. The facts don't lie on the side of one political ideology or the other. Some people aren't racist or phobic of any religion per se,  but their inbuilt pattern recognition software has logged an inordinate number of spikes in the column for Islamic violence (or violence perpetrated by followers of Islam, whether they were lone-wolves or card carrying members of ISIS). Some others would put forward this has more to do with media bias. And they may even be right. The same can be said for christianity, too.

We've gotten so caught up in what is the definition of terrorism, and the finger pointing that comes with anyone suggesting that Monis fits the bill due to his recent shift in allegiance between Islamic denominations, that we've ignored a simple fact.

If someone identifies as Catholic, then we consider them Catholic. If a Catholic identifies as Christian, then we accept them as Christian. Even though the act of being a Catholic biblically (not a word) precludes them from Christianity, due to Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", and John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I'm not religious (we'll get to that), but the point here is that the bible (which is the canonical collection of texts sacred to Christianity), is the playbook for Christianity, and if you ignore the playbook- you're off the team. Simply put- logically, Catholics are not Christians. But if they call themselves that, it's only pedantic losers like me who intensively studied Philosophy for years at University that call them out on it.

In the case of Monis, he identified as ISIS, which is a jihadist sect of Sunni Islam. Therefore, who are we to say he isn't? Commentators are at pains to point out he was a "lone gunman" who worked without support, but that's impossible. Even though he was considered a lunatic by his own people, someone still gave him a shotgun. He has been enabled by women all throughout his adult life (and as it transpires, killed one of them). If he claims ISIS, he's ISIS. By their own definition, they encourage and supply tactical information to lone wolves who they've never met, but who have answered the call to arms.

Others would argue that his mental state is where my assertion falls down. He was a crazy misogynist attention-seeker, not a terrorist. So... ISIS isn't packed to the mashrabiya with crazy misogynist attention-seekers? Wait, isn't that their core constituency?

Also, many in Islam protest that ISIS and Al Quaeda don't represent "true" Islam. What is true Islam? What makes one interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth any more relevant than a slightly different one?  Or more relevant than Buddhism or Pastafarianism? If all of these religions claim to be right, why pay attention to any of them? Especially when none among them can offer proof? You can't come up with a slightly different version of science that also passes the repeatability test every time, that's why we only have one science. Everything else is just mythology.

But all of that is just semantics really. It's academic. None of it brings the victims back. 

But it can stop it from happening again.

You see, the people who call "tolerance!" and the unconditional support that #IllRideWithYou offers, are making things worse. They don't mean to, and I know it. They mean well. They are being positive. But that blind acceptance of Islam is illogical.

More specifically, blind acceptance of anything is illogical.

The LGBTQI+ communities, and those of us who support them, have been campaigning for marriage equality rights in Australia for years. Many of those who said #IllRideWithYou support this campaign too. And while it's noble to offer support to a community of people who perceive being a homosexual as not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God; is it right?

I'm old enough to remember the protests against apartheid in South Africa. Protests against disgusting and discriminatory views against people were not only absolutely deserving of equality, but who were in fact indigenous to the nation (Sound upsettingly (again, not a word) familiar?)

We didn't support South Africa. We actively boycotted and sanctioned and shamed them until they saw reason. We didn't offer to ride with them. Not at least, until they adjusted their disgusting and hurtful behaviour. And they did.

So why exactly do people who are pro Gay marriage think it's positive to support members of a religion that actively not only persecutes gay people, but imprisons or kills them? Why aren't we having a national dialogue that starts with "If you want our support, it's a two-way street"?

And how many success stories came from that hashtag? *facepalm*

Did it occur to all of the privileged white Aussie girls with their imported makeup and thigh tattoo-revealing H&M skirts that most Muslim women wouldn't want to be seen dead with them? That the way they dress and flaunt themselves is an affront to Muslim decency? That the person who started the hashtag wasn't even sure about the actual factual circumstances around which she started it, that no one consulted the Muslim community, and that it's fucking insulting to think skinny white girls from Brisbane are somehow superior to Muslim women from Western Sydney, who need 'rescuing' by members of a culture they don't naturally associate with?

People are calling me a racist right now- an Islamophobe. Islam isn't a race. And I'm phobic of every single religion and toxic ideology on this planet. It's 2014, religion isn't needed any more- we have science now. We have logic (not that the 3/4's of the population of the world who actively ascribe to a religion reflects that).

But I'm not trying to hate on Islam here. Islam is irrelevant to me, just like all religion. I want facts, not invisible friends and sky fairies. I'm trying to point out the dangers inherent in painting fine art with a paint roller.

Monis was an asylum seeker. He was granted residency here, and he repaid that by sexually assaulting tens of women, and killing two. He also killed a man.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that all of the people bleating on about how Australia needs to just open the gates to asylum seekers are illogical, and dangerous.

But as I tried to illustrate in the fifth paragraph- it's not just black and white. 

This fact doesn't therefore excuse Abbott and Morrison's brutal war on asylum seekers. There is a balance, and we as a nation need to find it. We need to find the balance between screening potential threats to the country like Monis, and at the same time treating asylum seekers with dignity, respect, and compassion. That's who we are as a country. Those are qualities we have.

We need to stand up to Islam and say "(Some of) your collective attitudes have no place in this country, and we will only stand beside you when you take responsibility for those attitudes." We also need to implement their Islamic banking system tomorrow, because it's awesome.

We need to stop being so scared and conditioned to not speak out against Islam for fear of having fingers pointed at us by people who accuse of us being hateful. I'm sure the Catholic Church accused Nicolaus Copernicus of the same thing, but how wrong were they?

The movement of blind acceptance is so strong in this country. The majority of people here have never seen a war or truly suffered as a consequence of religion. Empathy is in overdrive, and the sheep are so quick to jump on the support bandwagon, without ever asking the hard questions, or saying the hard statements.

Islam needs to change if it is to ever be respected in Australia. In short, it needs to stop being Islam. The Catholic Church needs to stop raping young boys and covering it up, also- to stop being Catholic. And people without religion need to do exactly the same thing- the right thing, within our shared societal contract.

If you accept every Muslim, poisonous ideologues like Monis will kill your countrymen or families. There are people just like Monis out there right now, who have slipped through the cracks- and blind empaths are out there too, riding with them. To be clear, there aren't a lot, but any number higher than one is enough to make this whole nation mourn. If you accept every conservative right-winger, poisonous ideologues among them will also kill people in the community. Blind acceptance isn't a virtue.

Not all Muslims are hardline, but they are, by definition, anti qualities of acceptance that the majority of Australian's hold dear. If they want acceptance- give acceptance. It's their turn. 

The problem is, Islam can't change. It can't be progressive. It can't lose the bad parts and ramp up the good. Because it's set- the laws are already written. The only way Muslims can change in a way that is acceptable and in line with modern thinking, is to stop being Muslim.

Not going to happen.

And if we were allowed to throw poison-spewing Australian citizens in jail or to deport them, talkback radio would cease to exist.

So what can we do? 

Think about your position on matters. Educate yourself. Look at both sides of each story and ask yourself where the ethical position lies. Don't just hashtag a MEME on Instagram then go to Stereosonic or Summadayze and get hammered and high.

The number of thoughtless people in this country is staggering. The herd mentality is terrifying, but ubiquitous. So many people think they are moral but only act from self interest. We as a culture have massive problems relating to our own attitudes. 

Maybe it's easier to call someone an Islamophobe than it is to look inside and see the gaps in our own logic.

Stop making excuses for things and indignantly shouting down anyone who you think is being negative- it's not all fluffy puppy land out there. Confront it, and only then you can change it...

Otherwise, nothing changes (just like with the swinging voters who voted in Abbott). And you will only have yourselves to blame.

Ten Years Later (AC/DC LANE SIGN, PART 3).

So if you ever read this or this, you probably won't be surprised to be reading this...

The skinny is, this Wednesday (October 1, 2014), I'm unveiling this:

Actually, I'm unveiling three of them.

And before they're even up, word has been spreading all over the interwebs in quite a delightful way. So rather than going over how I made them (been there, done that), I'm just going to post some of the things I've seen posted online over the last few days.

It's pretty amazing how much a few simple points can be misquoted, so just to clear up the confusion in some of the pieces below...

-I was the guy who put up the first lightning bolt in ACDC Lane.
-The National Collection requested a replica lightning bolt, not a picture of one.
-Cherry isn't doing free beers all night, just a couple of kegs to kick it off.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens once they're all up :)

THUNDERSTRUCK!!!

The Arbiter of pointless things.

Sometimes you take a gamble on yourself, and you lose.

I moved to this city about 14 years ago, which in retrospect is enough time to make a teenager. Luckily I've avoided doing that.

I moved here because there was a pretty exciting (I don't want to use this word, but it's 4:56 am on a Sunday night and I can't be bothered looking for a thesaurus) scene happening at the time, and I caught the tail end of it.

And then I just stayed.

I left a few times for work or holidays, but I kept coming back (because my things were here I guess). I had accumulated an intense amount of physical stuff. Like a literal bicycle factory. 

But I never liked this town, and the fact I'm still here makes me an idiot.

Back toward the beginning of those 14 years, I was working for bands, some huge, some niche; and even though the hours were ridiculous and you'd finish one show with 10 hours until you had to be set up in another country, I managed to create a lot of fun and adventure.

I met pretty much all of my idols, and the best thing for me was to feel a part of something dare I say, magical.

Those moments when the band would be playing something that meant something to the 30,000 people standing in front of them, and the transference of energy between the two was like nothing else.

Knowing that you'd in many cases made the impossible happen... You'd stopped the drummer and the lighting guy from strangling each other to death, driven non-stop for 3000 kilometres (apart from gas refills and toilet dumps), slept for 15 minutes, and somehow built a fully-functioning rock show in a paddock somewhere. And tens of thousands of people turn up, and suddenly... it's utterly magical.

I've banged on endlessly about some of the darker moments of my childhood already, so there's no need for repetition. But for the uninitiated, the synopsis is I've never had any self-esteem.

I've never seen anything in myself that I feel elevates me above the sweaty masses of humanity, the same sweaty masses that I just can't stand to be honest. Special people are so rare, and I'm not one, so I never saw any reason to claim I was worth anything.

One of the times I was most cut by someone else's words was when a guy I was friends with for a time said to me "You're not as good as you think you are."

It hurt because it showed he didn't know me at all, because I never truly believed I was good... ever. I do a good impression I guess,  but it's only one of those ridiculous masks that Sartre used to write about. It's the only thing that allowed me to leave the safety and familiarity of my house to take part in a world where everything frightens me.

The thing was, the whole time I was on the road (or backstage, or at the video shoot, or the magazine cover shoot, or the radio interview, or... you get the picture), I had this nagging voice in my head asking me how much of this ego-inflating mirage was enough?

When you hang out with celebrities, you become a de-facto celebrity, and even though people don't know your name or your story, because you're with the celebrities, then you're somebody.

And in a weird way, that's a very comfortable and nice feeling.

In a world where you can't even remember what your bedroom looks like, but you can navigate from memory the mazes that constitute the egress points of all the major airports, or what the water pressure is like in the showers of the world's hotels; having people you've never met like you is a very warm and convenient thing.

And when you've been living that life for years, and hot TV presenters/models/singers/other breeds of celebrity you've had a crush on for the longest time turn up in your bed unannounced, it's really easy to forget the only reason those people are there is because of the band you work for (or if I was playing in the band, whoever the singer was).

It's so easy to lose yourself in an orgiastic confluence of neural pathways and psychic apparatus, that you start to believe you really are that interesting, that you're the type of person that these beautiful influential artistic people are drawn to, that somehow, in a world of AIDS, corrupt Governments, and economy-worship, that it's somehow your destiny to be adored by those the masses adore.

Spoiler alert: It's not.

And the most wounded and scared part of my brain knew it.

I'm at a party. I'm recognized by someone, and to be honest, I have no idea who they are, so I just act like I do and smile and play at being interested.

And they introduce me to someone else, and I listen closely for clues as to how I may know the first person, and the second person is attractive to me. And because I'm at this party and was introduced by, oh look at that, he's the head of an International record company, the second person thinks I'm someone she should probably fuck, and so we do that.

And one part of me is all "Yeah, this is how life is for me, because I'm a pretty rad dude." and the other part of me is all "Holy shit, how can you not see that if you weren't somehow tenuously connected to all this, this person wouldn't stop to piss on you if you were on fire?"

And I asked myself how many big bands I had to have on my résumé before my ego was satiated to a point where I could maybe go do a job in an industry where they allow you to sleep once every now and then?

And I rolled the dice and said "Right now", and I left that life, and suddenly found myself feeling very sad when it was festival season and I had to line up for tickets like everybody else.

And the part that hurt the most was suddenly, not only was I nobody to the people I used to basically live with; but I was nobody to everyone else as well.

Suddenly even the normal people (italics on purpose) didn't see any value in me either, and I was left to wrestle with my own hideous personality and ridiculous sense of entitlement for a few years.

I had to navigate a world where I was no longer able to measure myself on who I was associated with, or whose entourage I was a part of; but rather what have I fucking done that's worth anything?

Spoiler alert: Pretty much nothing tbh.

And I don't mean live performances or newspaper pieces, or amazing travel stories (although I managed to accumulate more of all of those anyway) ; I mean wisdom, and discipline, and humanity, and humility.

Obviously I can't say if I've been successful in those endeavors, because if you say you have, then it means you haven't. But I've been working on it, let's say that.

I know there are people that check my blog and social media for any sign that I might be suffering, and that those signs are celebrated and treasured. I just don't care though. Because this is my life, and it doesn't come neatly packaged and charged-up, ready to use. It gets rough and confusing, and it hurts, and it's meant to. 

So I'm not going to hide my reality away on the off-chance it will give someone horrible ammunition to throw at me so they can forget their own rough, confusing, and hurtful life.

So here I am.

I'm an essentially broken person. I leave the house for work and that's it. I make no effort to stay in touch with friends. I have no plans to change that. I've stopped striving to achieve things that will bring me fame or celebrity. 

I know my place, and it's not there.

I've been working really hard to actively cast away all the things (physical and non) that keep me anchored to this city, and saving to move to a place away from people and closer to nature.

Right the fuck up in nature, to be precise. Because that's where I feel like a human person the most.

And all the dramas, misunderstandings, relationship failures, competitive friendships, and nasty personalities can stay here and do whatever they want to do without me.

Because in the last few months, I have finally found the strength to stop making excuses (based on age and the comfort of my present lifestyle), and to leave this country.

And since I've made that decision, all the white noise has gone silent, and I feel purposeful in a way I have never felt before. If there's one thing I know about me, it's that when I have a mission, I'm like a dog with a bone.

And most importantly, that decision to walk away from my old life, where I was 'somebody', where people knew me... That was the best decision I have ever made. It just took me 15 years to see it.

Sometimes you take a gamble on yourself, and you lose. 

But not this time...

Nudity, Dirty Energy, Cosmetics, and the nature of being Human.

Robyn Lawley is a celebrity model with 66,000 more Instagram followers than I have.

She's a lot better looking than I am, so I'm not mad about it; and while some may see what I'm about to write as a direct criticism of her, it isn't. 

I'd like to shine a light on a behaviour the vast majority of we who call ourselves human share, that being denial, and maybe a peppering of ignorance also.

Let's get to it...

We live on a molten ball of iron and rock, hurtling through space at thousands of kilometres per second, surrounded by a tenuous wisp of atmosphere; beyond that? Endless, dark, vast, unknowable space. There is only one planet we exist on. Finite resources. Finite atmosphere. Danger everywhere.

So maybe a dose of denial is a necessary prerequisite to human happiness?

While looking at horrible faux-news clickbait sites that survive on ad revenue from page views, I saw this picture:

 

It's from Robyn's Instagram account, and is in protest of current and proposed coal mining here in Australia. If you read the comments (some of which will make you want to kill yourself if you have a brain and understand things like logic), you will get a feel for both sides of the argument.

I, myself, support Robyn's side of the argument. The Abbott Government removing funding for renewables and throwing open contract after contract to their friends in big coal is definitely worth the scrutiny of a future Royal Commission. It feels like every move they make is a short-sighted grab at cash from those who destroy our environment most, and it's pretty heartbreaking to witness not just that, but the brainwashed small-minded idiots who argue that jobs are more important than the environment (as if there is only one type of job available), or that 'clean coal' isn't an oxymoron.

So- Robyn made her point (I see how getting naked to make that point was guaranteed to get her message out their quickly and effectively. It's a shame that that's what guarantees virality, but she didn't make the rules, she's just using them for everyone's benefit).

Here are her words-

OK, so, to my mind, fair point. 

Robyn spoke her mind from a perspective of feeling that she couldn't sit on this information any longer. So she used her considerable social media reach to spread her message, using a proven trick of advertising 'sex sells' to guarantee virality (and to no doubt win her social media accounts a few new followers also).

I agree with all of this so far.

But what I don't agree with is not the fact she posed naked for the picture, but that she wrote her message in lipstick. I posted a comment (which I will include below), but Robyn didn't reply. I'm sure she has more important things to do than reply to every comment, so I understand. But I would have liked to have heard a response from her about what I thought.

I'm not going to go into detail about the negative impact of lipstick on the environment, on animals, or on human health, but I have linked relevant Google searches to each so all of you intelligent humans can do your own research and not just believe everything I say.

But if massive de-forestation, cancer, lead-poisoning, negative effects on unborn children, or vivisection aren't reason enough to evaluate what it is you're smearing across your mouth, let's look at this instead:

Lipstick has one stated purpose- to make women to feel glamorous and desirable. It does this (apparently) by using colour and texture to highlight the mouth area, thereby bringing attention to it. 

Glamour is a matter of perspective, as is desirability. My personal perspective is that women's mouths are perfect exactly the way they are, and don't need any help to make them more so. Also, I just won't kiss anyone who is wearing lipstick (not even Robyn Lawley). Some guys fetishise it, but some guys also fetishise drinking piss or having sex with their sister, so that doesn't strike me as a solid basis for argument. Having said that, I don't claim to speak for all men- I'd just like to make some points for people to consider.

And of course there are the girls who say "I don't wear makeup for boys, stupid!", and I see them all the time grossly exaggerating their lip lines as if we are idiots who can't see, and asking "Why can't I get a boyfriend?" when the lower half of their face is covered in a layer of whale fat, preservatives, lead, and oils (for no reason other than vanity).

I know for a fact that those girls wouldn't do it at all, and would never have thought of doing it if someone before them didn't tell them to. Like people's choice in religion- if they were raised in isolation with a family of scientists, none of them would be Christian, Muslim, or Shinto. They'd just be well informed people who weren't lied to.

Just like smoking (zero benefit to the user, great financial benefit to rich people who couldn't care less about you or the planet you live on), cosmetics is a staggeringly enormous industry that feeds on insecurity, and invents new ways for you to feel bad about yourself so they can sling you some new potion for youth/hotness that you not only don't need, but is actively bad for you.

And women buy into it, not only supporting it, but defending it.

So here's my statement- Lipstick isn't a necessary thing. It doesn't serve a real purpose (unless you fetishise it). It is a product that has a negative effect on people, animals, and the environment; solely for the benefit of rich people you wouldn't like if you met them. A huge number of men don't like it, and some actively avoid it. Just like diamonds, they have been marketed to you as a crucial element of femininity, when the thing that makes you feminine is the way you carry yourself (it's not exclusively therefore, sole property of women).

If you know all of this, and you still elect to wear lipstick, then that's your business. I'm not here to criticise people like that. If you're armed with information, and you make choices after gathering that information, then I respect the fact you went to the trouble to inform yourself. I may not respect your decision, but a person's decision is their own, and other people don't get a say in it. 

But a decision isn't a decision unless, armed with the facts, you have decided.

But don't be like all of the stupid girls on Robyn Lawley's comment section for the above picture, saying how stupid the Government is for destroying the environment by being pro-coal, while their Instagram pages are packed full of selfies where they are never seen without (forest eliminating Palm Oil packed) lipstick. Where they say they love animals and would never hurt them, but wear a product that is the main reason why species of animals (including apes) are threatened with extinction from habitat destruction.

Don't be like the even more stupid girls who for some crazy reason think that Rihanna is worth taking life advice from, or who is worth any kind of adoration. She's not a 'Queen'. Seriously you guys.

Just because someone tells you something, doesn't make it true. Like religion. The cosmetics industry, the fashion industry, the tabloid press, your Sisters and Mothers and Cousins; they have all said lipstick equals glamour. And because you trust these sources, you simply believe it. This is not what critical thinkers do! People you love can be ill-informed or wrong, so simply swallowing whatever they tell you is a terrible way to find your way through life. 

People influence people, and that is my problem with Robyn Lawley. She's a woman who thinks, is passionate about causes, is successful- there is so much about her to admire. But she took the bait that lipstick is a positive thing, and through her influence, passes on that message subconsciously to anyone who listens.

This is the greatest marketing trick in history, and the shame of it is, the people who do it are in the main completely unaware.

I posted to Robyn's comment section because, as a thinker and environmentalist, I believe if she knew the full story behind the lipstick industry and the product itself, she would re-evaluate her stance on it. Would she become anti lipstick? No one knows but her. But like I said before, knowing the full story is always a good place to start.

I wish this conversation would spread, that more women became aware of the facts, and made their minds up not from peer pressure or viral marketing, but from facts.

And I wish women who are inspirational and influential for others would stop helping the cosmetics industry get rich by destroying the environment, poisoning people, and testing on animals- all based on a lie, that you need their products to be beautiful.

I should mention Megan Gale here too. She's the brand Ambassador for L'Oréal's 'Colour of Hope' campaign. 

The campaign is basically a way for the company to sell more product and get an edge over their competitors. In reality it's a way to give yourself cancer. The sad part is that a portion of the proceeds of lipstick sales go to Ovarian Cancer research. Is that irony? Ever since Alanis Morisette I haven't been able to tell.

So Megan Gale (who I have hung out with, who is beautiful and hilarious, and who I am 100% confident has no idea), is getting paid to sell a product containing cadmium, mercury, aluminum, cobalt, titanium, manganese, chromium, copper and nickel, which both cause cancer, as well as harm the development of your baby’s brain, kidney and nervous system, create learning or behavior problems, and/or cause you to miscarry.

So who loves a 'strong red lip' now?

Some people know the risks and do it anyway. Like Lily Allen who happily smoked through her pregnancy and then looked really sad when her baby died in front of her. Was it a direct result of her smoking? I'm not the coroner, so I can't say. But I can say she rolled the dice, and that makes her a terrible person.

Even if you use a vegan lipstick, that doesn't make it safe for you or your baby. And even if you crush berries from your garden onto your lips as a lipstick that has no negative environmental or health effects, there is still a negative ethical effect:

People may copy you. And if they don't know how you do it, or if they don't have access to that method, or if they're just lazy, they may buy products that do have negative effects. Same reason why vaping isn't harmless- it continues the glamourisation of something negative, thereby creating a demand/market for cigarettes or lipstick (my two least favourite things that people use).

Basically, if you buy into the bullshit that lipstick is sexy, you're one of those people who believe that diamonds are rare and valuable, or that Tony Abbott isn't a liar. People only believe those things because someone else said it was true, and you never checked your sources.

Some people have asked me "What about eye makeup, do you hate that too?" Actually, I really like it and enjoy seeing it on people. The main difference being (if it's ethically sourced) that you don't ingest the component chemicals leading to long-term exposure/poisoning; and it doesn't go in my mouth if I kiss you.

As for anti-ageing creams etc- do some research! Most of it is utter horseshit, some of it actually exacerbates the problem, and a teeny tiny number of products actually work.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, or how to think here... I'm just begging you to think. To actually think. And to share your thoughts with other humans.

You want glamour? You want sexy? Nothing is more glamorous or sexy than a woman who thinks for herself.

Nothing.

Here is my comment to Robyn:

 

This just in- I saw this on The Guardian site today, and felt it definitely warranted inclusion.

Text-

No industry has aligned itself more closely with the breast cancer movement than the cosmetics industry. It’s long flooded the market with pink ribbon products: pink ribbon lipstick, pink ribbon nail polish, pink ribbon perfume.

The NFL's breast cancer scam sells bunk science to profit off pink clothes

Karuna Jaggar

Read more

Yet while they prominently claim to care about women with breast cancer, their pink ribbon products all too often actually increase risk of the disease – and, as if that’s not bad enough, they’re also pushing toxic products on women in active cancer treatment.
Look Good Feel Better is a psychosocial support program run by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), the largest national trade group for the cosmetics industry, and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the nation’s largest cancer charity. They hold free workshops that give beauty tips and complimentary makeup kits to women in cancer treatment – support that some women understandably value while facing a cancer diagnosis and treatments that may alter their appearance.
Member companies of the Personal Care Products Council (like Avon and Estee Lauder) donate cosmetic products for the kits given to cancer patients. The American Cancer Society administers the program nationwide. Cosmetologists donate their time to run the workshops. It’s all selfless altruism, until you look a bit closer.
Cosmetics and personal care products are notoriously unregulated and full of toxic chemicals, and for years activists have been pushing back on cosmetics companies putting pink ribbons on products containing chemicals linked to breast cancer. But many of the Look Good Feel Better kits contain what are commonly referred to by regulators and scientists as “chemicals of concern”, including carcinogens and hormone disruptors.
Carcinogens are implicated in directly causing cancer, and hormone disruptors can increase breast cancer risk by messing with our body’s hormonal system. When these are products used daily – and the average woman uses 12 personal care products each day containing 168 unique ingredients – these doses add up.
The ACS claims that “the benefit of this program outweighs the risk”, which demonstrates a shocking commitment to the cosmetics industry and a blatant disregard for patient well-being.
These chemicals of concern do not just increase breast cancer risk: some may actually interfere with breast cancer treatment. Most breast cancers are hormone-driven and common treatments target the body’s hormonal system. Many scientists are concerned about the ways hormone-disrupting chemicals in our daily lives can increase the risk of breast cancer. Some hormone disruptors – including methylparaben, which is in concealer and face wipes the ACS is giving to cancer patients – have been shown in a lab to interfere with Tamoxifen, a common hormonal breast cancer treatment.
Currently, no one ensures that cosmetic products are completely safe before they come on the market. Personal care products are regulated by approximately two pages of federal law that has only been updated once in the past 76 years. The Food and Drug Administration lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test personal care products for safety before they are sold to consumers (or given to cancer patients). While the European Union has banned 1,300 chemicals from use in cosmetics, the United States has banned fewer than one dozen. The Personal Care Products Council spends millions of dollars lobbying against cosmetic safety regulations to make sure it stays that way.
Furthermore, cosmetic manufacturers do not have to disclose the ingredients that constitute “fragrance” due to a regulatory gap in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973. The term “fragrance” often hides ingredients that have not been assessed for safety and often contain phthalates and parabens; “fragrance” was listed as an ingredient on numerous products in Look Good Feel Better bags, including in mascara.
If the PCPC truly cares about consumer safety as it claims to, the group should hold member companies to a much higher standard of safety instead of lobbying against regulations that would make personal care products less likely to help cause cancer.
And the American Cancer Society must stop protecting the cosmetics industry and started protecting women’s health. They can provide the program’s benefit without the toxic harms. The ACS knows that breast cancer is not pretty, no matter how many pink ribbons are attached – and no matter how many free toxic cosmetics are given to cancer patients.

Tits/I can't even.

I managed to hold my tongue through the Elliot Rodger debacle. 

Debacle/Mass Killing, whatever you want to call it.

My heart grew heavy, watching an all-out war develop over the #YesAllWomen hashtag on Twitter. An all-out war between defensive women and defensive men.

The battle of the sexes moved its front lines to social media, and I witnessed heretofore never before seen amounts and examples of confusion and vented anger. Frustration, even hatred.

It became seemingly okay to say outrageously sexist and ignorant things to each other in defense of a concept of anti-sexism. You read it, you must have noticed... 

Is #YesAllWomen logically feasible? No. There exist women who spoke up and said at no time did they ever feel threatened by a man. Unfortunately it seems those women are in the vast minority, and that breaks my heart, but they exist. And all it takes for one person like that for an exception to a rule to be officially recognised. So #YesAllWomen is based on a non-factual premise, and therefore needs to be re-stated in a more truthful way.

But we get the message, and it's embarrassing and horrible and tragic.

But #FreeTheNipple? I can't stay silent any longer.

Let me commence with a statement:

I fully endorse and support gender equality.

By that, I mean, anything it's legal and okay for men to do, by extension, I feel it is equally okay for women to do. Ideally, this world wouldn't even see a difference, it would just 'be'.

I absolutely support the feminist ideals I encountered in my formative years, in that I feel women should have the same rights as men, and that men should work actively to support and help women to achieve this state of normality. Imagine if the glass ceiling was shattered from above?! I can't put into words how proud I would be to be a part of that action.

I'm more of a humanist though, in that gender should be irrelevant.

We should all start from the same place, and distinction and merit should be attained by individual skill and capability, not by the number of chromosomes we were born with. This is fucking kindergarten here.

And logically, I extend this right to people of all genders, and those of no gender.

I wrote an observation on Twitter today, regarding the #FreeTheNipple hashtag.

I observed that some women are using the hashtag as a means to get male sexual attention, hijacking the cause as it were, to advance their own agenda of ego satisfaction.

Please note that when I wrote "from the supposed patriarchy", what I was trying to illustrate within Twitter's very tight confines was that the topless photos in question were being posted in order to receive attention from normal, everyday, non-sexist males who want no part of any patriarchy; but who do appreciate a naked woman's body in a photograph, on a sexual level, without any evil intent whatsoever.

I understand that there is a real, vested patriarchy which protects its ideology with all of the resources it has at its disposal (and ironically by including power hungry neoliberal women). I acknowledge it's real, but I'm trying to say that there exists a proportion of men (and let's hope that percentage is very high), who reject the credo of male supremacy.

So when I say "supposed patriarchy" I mean those men, who are in no way gender-biased, but who are labelled as such by some people simply because they are male (which is of course, sexist). 

I am aware that the ACTUAL patriarchy is the target of the campaign. But the women who post topless pics for attention and not actually to further the cause are not aiming their posts in that direction.

So let's move on...

I received replies from a number of women, most understood what I was saying, but some did not. Some of the replies were of the same faux-intellectual dramatic style that made #YesAllWomen so exhausting; from the kind of people who see sexism in everything, whether it's there or not.

This kind of thinking and attitude actually works against the cause, by making enemies of allies, by accusing them of being sexist when they actually support the same cause you do (albeit in a non-confrontational way that doesn't rely on invective and finger pointing, with no logical or even realistic basis). 

So here we go. I am aware of what the cause is about, thanks for pointing out what is already obvious. "...but of course you don't see it" is sexist. Why can't I see it? Because I'm male?

 We've already established the whole movement is for attention, that's the point of a movement. Without attention it doesn't move. But there is good attention, bad attention, and attention that claims to be part of the movement but in reality serves its own interests.

I am au fait with the concepts of how to successfully run and manage a media-based action campaign. Some of you may remember I did a lecture tour of Australian Universities in the late 90's about it, and a publication for The Environmental Defenders Office (which went on to become N.S.W. Government policy, and the training manual for almost every Police Department in the country). 

But you know, enough about me...

I was obviously highlighting two different types of attention- both desired by women, but desired by different groups of women, for different reasons. So saying "...what you tweeted is redundant" when it is actually the textbook definition of essential, (as it highlights a necessary distinction) is an empty assertion (designed solely, I think, to win arguments on the internet). 

The distinction is so necessary, that without it, my opinion actually would have been redundant. 

So Melida identifies the most non-redundant part of the assertion as redundant. There is no logic there.

Now I didn't post this to try to embarrass Melida (who I don't follow, and who doesn't follow me, so I have no idea why she'd feel attacking me on my own Twitter timeline over a fact that is observable and quantifiable would be at all warranted), but to shine a light on a particular kind of personality.

People like this feel passionate about a subject, and seek out people to disagree with (or in their mind, conquer). They feel empowered by their cause, and are extremely fast to shout "Sexist!", even when the person they are shouting at is on their side.

I tried to explain this but it quickly became apparent she had no interest in speaking logically, rather that she just wanted someone to insult and to tell herself she is better than.

And you have to ask yourself, "What's the point?"

It's very much like going to a car dealership, wanting to buy a specific car; and for the sales person whose best interests it is in to sell you that car, to greet you by calling you an asshole. Sure, you still like the car, but the confusing sales technique leaves you scratching your head, and less than interested in dealing with that sales person again.

I understand that not everyone agrees with everyone else. I also understand that perhaps some people haven't seen these examples of girls going topless, and while claiming they're doing it for feminism, they're the same girls who do it anyway for 'not-feminism'. Blaming me for pointing out a thing that exists is counter-productive, illogical, and it makes you look stupid. Like the Church when it denied astrophysics or those who deny the spherical reality of our planet.

I'm perpetually frustrated by the fact we share a common language (in this case, English), that we understand and know more or less how to use it to express our thoughts and needs; but that some people seem to view as more of a guide. Like the Dictionary is merely a suggestion, and that if you want to make-believe words and phrases mean something else that suits your agenda (but actually don't), then you can just go ahead and use them however you like, and expect everyone else to understand what you mean.

But it happens a lot.

I may be wrong, but I feel like the Elliot Rodger case was the most significant example of a polarising gender boundary of this generation. Hearing the horrible regard in which so many women hold men (whether 'some' or 'all' depends on the individual), and imagining the even more horrible things that must have happened to those women at the hands of some men, is enough to break your spirit.

Arguing about the statistics of men who are raped by women, or the fact that most men live in fear of other men doesn't help this situation. If you want to talk about an issue, talk about the issue, not surrounding issues which I believe all deserve their own talks and scrutiny and hopefully even solutions.

None of this should be about men versus women. We are all people. Unfortunately the number of people who are men and who are responsible for the repression and theft of self-agency (and worse) from women is disproportionate to the number of women we share the planet with. And that's an issue.

Is #FreeTheNipple a campaign worthy of support? Absolutely. There is a disparity and it needs to be addressed. Is it the most pressing issue we face? Fuck no. But that doesn't diminish its relevance.

My message here is that gender politics has the ability to be explosive and even divisive in the wrong hands. And if we let it divide us, guess who wins? Rapists, murderers, misogynists, and misandrists. 

I would say they've had a voice for far too long. Let's work this out together...







The best thing for these situations is humour, so here's some from my twitter buddy Bianca:

If you're bored with nothing to do, here's how I tried to argue by logical counterexample (ie: massive word spaz) within the confines of Twitter's word limit: