There has been a spate of cab drivers charged with sexual and violent offences. According to ABC news (via Triple J radio) the police have asked women to be "careful" by sitting in the back and being aware of cabbie registration
I have many feelings about the police asking me to modify my behavior to avoid rape, but just this to say: Why not make a public service announcement reminding people not to rape?
Really, why not?
Is it because rape is already illegal, and you shouldn't have to ask twice? Nice thought, but it clearly isn't working, so why not put out a little reminder?
Is it just easier to ask women to change their behaviour? Do you see us as more compliant?
Maybe its because you suspect that women getting in cabs, alone, at night, are kinda the problem? The hussies! /sarcasm
Is it less confronting to appeal to women than to ask men to not act like self-important misogynist jerks? Is it hard to face a group who, lets face it, look more like you than I do (the majority of the police force still being men) and ask them to change?
And why is it still ok to talk about women, when you mean potential victims of rape, but not about men when you mean potential rapists?
No I'm not suggesting the all men are rapists , and yes, I know women can be rapists, but I am very uncomfortable with rhetoric that gives a gender to victims, but keeps the identity of rapists in the dark, as if the vast majority of rapists were some other species, rather than being (most often) men.
Whatever the reason, its about time you got over it. Last time I checked, not getting raped was not my full time responsibility, but not being a rapist is still part of the citizenship contract, isn't it?
Credit where it is due:
The "full time responsibility" line comes from this article (love the line): http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/01/supply-side-rape-prevention.html
August 19, 2010
This Saturday I'm voting Green Part One: Tony Abbott is Dangerous
I wanted to explain why this time, I'm voting Greens (again). I have many positive reasons, really I do, and I'll get to them in time, but I just can't help thinking about my beloved Greens in contrast to the others.
So, I've broken this into three parts: Part One, Tony Abbott is Dangerous, Part Two, The ALP Only Care About Keeping Their Seats, and Part Three, Why Vote Green?
__________________________________
This Saturday I'm Voting Green
Part One: Tony Abbott is a Dangerous Man
I'm not going to make jokes about swimwear. I'm not going to cast (many) character aspersions. I'm not even going to speculate over the ability to manage the economy, military or foreign affairs.
I don't need to. The reasons I don't like Tony Abbott can be found on his own website, www.tonyabbott.com, and that's the only source I'll use.
Below are just some of the areas where I have trouble with his views, and some quotes to highlight my concerns. Make up your own mind.
Climate Change
The following extract of an interview with Laurie Oaks sums it up for me. Abbott's position changes based on what he thinks we want to hear, but he doesn't have a firm belief in the need for action, and he doesn't believe that Australian action makes a difference.
LAURIE OAKES: Ok. Well, you told Malcolm Turnbull once that you were a weathervane. Does Australia need a weathervane as a Prime Minister?
TONY ABBOTT: It was a bit of light-hearted banter.
LAURIE OAKES: It was followed by the word ‘mate.’
TONY ABBOTT: Yeah, and it was light-hearted banter, and obviously I want to do what I’m saying I’m going to do. And that is, as we said earlier, it’s to end the waste, it’s to repay the debt, it’s to stop the new taxes and stop the boats, Laurie.
LAURIE OAKES:That was specifically about your attitude to climate change and an emissions trading scheme. You’ve had more positions on that than the kama sutra, haven’t you?
TONY ABBOTT: That’s an old joke, Laurie.
LAURIE OAKES:But it’s true.
TONY ABBOTT: Look, I have always thought that climate change happens. The important thing, though, is how do you deal with it, and I think that the best way to deal with it is to take practical action that will achieve the 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020.
LAURIE OAKES:That’s now. But last year you wrote an op ed piece in a newspaper saying the best thing for the Coalition to do was to pass the emissions trading legislation, get it out of the way.
TONY ABBOTT: I was trying to support the leader. And, obviously, the leader then had a rather different position to me on this.
LAURIE OAKES:Then you said climate change was crap.
TONY ABBOTT: I think what I actually said was the idea of the settled science of climate change is a bit aromatic.
LAURIE OAKES:And then you said you only said that, in fact on this programme you said you only said climate change was crap, because you were trying to persuade a group of Liberals in Beaufort, Victoria that negotiating an improved ETS scheme would be the best thing to do.
TONY ABBOTT: Sure, Laurie. Look, we can go over all the history. But the important thing -
LAURIE OAKES:Then you had another position when Malcolm Turnbull did negotiate a compromise, you pulled the rug out from under him, and you became leader and said no ETS now or ever.
TONY ABBOTT: The important thing, Laurie, is what will happen if the Coalition wins. We will achieve our 5 per cent reduction through some direct action measures. What will happen if Labor wins? If Labor wins, we’ll have a carbon tax, simple as that. And that will put up the price of everything. A $40 a tonne carbon tax will double the price of electricity.
LAURIE OAKES:But isn’t it important if you become Prime Minister that Australians can believe what their Prime Minister says?
In response to a question on his website, in 2008, Tony said:
"I don’t like excess but I don’t like over-reacting to excess either. My problem with the wilder side of the Green movement is the religious conviction they bring to matters which are basically issues for prudent and balanced judgment. Even if global warming is as bad as the doomsayers claim, it’s better to respond correctly than to respond tomorrow. Man-made CO2 emission have been happening for centuries and I daresay the planet could cope if we respond intelligently in 2012 rather than foolishly in 2010. "
Women's Rights
What do we know about Tony when it comes to feminism and womens rights?
Well we know he is anti-choice, that alsmost goes without saying. But did you know he's into blaming women for "failing" to cope with difficult situations?
" To a pregnant 14-year-old struggling to grasp what’s happening, for example, example, a senior student with a whole life mapped out or a mother already failing to cope under difficult circumstances, abortion is the easy way out."
From the same article comes this gem:
" When it comes to lobbying local politicians, there seems to be far more interest in the treatment of boatpeople, which is not morally black and white, than in the question of abortion, which is. "
We also know that he thinks he understands the implications of a medicine better than the medical experts:
"We deserve to have parliamentary scrutiny of decisions We deserve lo have a voice on issues and not simply leave them to boards of experts."
And we know he likes to get on his high horse and tell feminists they aren't being feminist enough when they express concerns over the positions of women in politics, such as Sarah Palin:
"She may not know the name of the Polish president but seems to have the right stuff for high office. Pity the feminists who prefer a left-wing man to a conservative woman who’s beaten men on their own terms. "
I think one of the respondents on the website rebuts this argument best when he says,
"Tony, I actually think that it is her stance on Abortion that would be turning the feminists away. Most people don’t take kindly to governments telling people what they can and cant do with their own bodies."
This also sums it up well for me:
"Ok, but it’s hard to credibly be a “women’s activist” if it’s only certain women that you support. The sisterhood doesn’t like being shown up as selective. For myself, I don’t support “women’s” causes. I support conservative causes."
Gay Marriage
He's nothing if not clear on this issue.
"it is our absolutely crystal clear policy that marriage is between a man and a woman."
In this speech, he proudly proclaims:
"Since 1996, the Government has made it easier for religious schools to expand, banned gay marriage, allowed a private members bill to overturn the Northern Territory’s euthanasia law, and stopped the ACT’s heroin trial. "
Asylum Seekers and Refugees
"The Coalition will also reintroduce temporary protection visas and require those on these visas who receive benefits to make a contribution through a ‘work for benefits’ scheme, as is required of Australian citizens."
Race and Religion
It was hard to decide where to put this quote. I can't quite figure out what makes me angrier: his assumption that Muslim men find it harder to respect women than other men, his assertion of an excuse for not respecting women, or his attempt to be a feminist.
"How can alienated Muslim males be expected to respect women, for instance, when this city's bookstands, billboards and TV shows proclaim that women are sex objects?"
Ok, I cheated, this one is from the WA Times:
"The Opposition Leader labelled the burqa a "particularly confronting" piece of clothing.
Industrial Relations
Work choices said it all, really.
So, I've broken this into three parts: Part One, Tony Abbott is Dangerous, Part Two, The ALP Only Care About Keeping Their Seats, and Part Three, Why Vote Green?
__________________________________
This Saturday I'm Voting Green
Part One: Tony Abbott is a Dangerous Man
I'm not going to make jokes about swimwear. I'm not going to cast (many) character aspersions. I'm not even going to speculate over the ability to manage the economy, military or foreign affairs.
I don't need to. The reasons I don't like Tony Abbott can be found on his own website, www.tonyabbott.com, and that's the only source I'll use.
Below are just some of the areas where I have trouble with his views, and some quotes to highlight my concerns. Make up your own mind.
Climate Change
The following extract of an interview with Laurie Oaks sums it up for me. Abbott's position changes based on what he thinks we want to hear, but he doesn't have a firm belief in the need for action, and he doesn't believe that Australian action makes a difference.
LAURIE OAKES: Ok. Well, you told Malcolm Turnbull once that you were a weathervane. Does Australia need a weathervane as a Prime Minister?
TONY ABBOTT: It was a bit of light-hearted banter.
LAURIE OAKES: It was followed by the word ‘mate.’
TONY ABBOTT: Yeah, and it was light-hearted banter, and obviously I want to do what I’m saying I’m going to do. And that is, as we said earlier, it’s to end the waste, it’s to repay the debt, it’s to stop the new taxes and stop the boats, Laurie.
LAURIE OAKES:That was specifically about your attitude to climate change and an emissions trading scheme. You’ve had more positions on that than the kama sutra, haven’t you?
TONY ABBOTT: That’s an old joke, Laurie.
LAURIE OAKES:But it’s true.
TONY ABBOTT: Look, I have always thought that climate change happens. The important thing, though, is how do you deal with it, and I think that the best way to deal with it is to take practical action that will achieve the 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020.
LAURIE OAKES:That’s now. But last year you wrote an op ed piece in a newspaper saying the best thing for the Coalition to do was to pass the emissions trading legislation, get it out of the way.
TONY ABBOTT: I was trying to support the leader. And, obviously, the leader then had a rather different position to me on this.
LAURIE OAKES:Then you said climate change was crap.
TONY ABBOTT: I think what I actually said was the idea of the settled science of climate change is a bit aromatic.
LAURIE OAKES:And then you said you only said that, in fact on this programme you said you only said climate change was crap, because you were trying to persuade a group of Liberals in Beaufort, Victoria that negotiating an improved ETS scheme would be the best thing to do.
TONY ABBOTT: Sure, Laurie. Look, we can go over all the history. But the important thing -
LAURIE OAKES:Then you had another position when Malcolm Turnbull did negotiate a compromise, you pulled the rug out from under him, and you became leader and said no ETS now or ever.
TONY ABBOTT: The important thing, Laurie, is what will happen if the Coalition wins. We will achieve our 5 per cent reduction through some direct action measures. What will happen if Labor wins? If Labor wins, we’ll have a carbon tax, simple as that. And that will put up the price of everything. A $40 a tonne carbon tax will double the price of electricity.
LAURIE OAKES:But isn’t it important if you become Prime Minister that Australians can believe what their Prime Minister says?
In response to a question on his website, in 2008, Tony said:
"I don’t like excess but I don’t like over-reacting to excess either. My problem with the wilder side of the Green movement is the religious conviction they bring to matters which are basically issues for prudent and balanced judgment. Even if global warming is as bad as the doomsayers claim, it’s better to respond correctly than to respond tomorrow. Man-made CO2 emission have been happening for centuries and I daresay the planet could cope if we respond intelligently in 2012 rather than foolishly in 2010. "
What do we know about Tony when it comes to feminism and womens rights?
Well we know he is anti-choice, that alsmost goes without saying. But did you know he's into blaming women for "failing" to cope with difficult situations?
" To a pregnant 14-year-old struggling to grasp what’s happening, for example, example, a senior student with a whole life mapped out or a mother already failing to cope under difficult circumstances, abortion is the easy way out."
From the same article comes this gem:
" When it comes to lobbying local politicians, there seems to be far more interest in the treatment of boatpeople, which is not morally black and white, than in the question of abortion, which is. "
We also know that he thinks he understands the implications of a medicine better than the medical experts:
"We deserve to have parliamentary scrutiny of decisions We deserve lo have a voice on issues and not simply leave them to boards of experts."
And we know he likes to get on his high horse and tell feminists they aren't being feminist enough when they express concerns over the positions of women in politics, such as Sarah Palin:
"She may not know the name of the Polish president but seems to have the right stuff for high office. Pity the feminists who prefer a left-wing man to a conservative woman who’s beaten men on their own terms. "
I think one of the respondents on the website rebuts this argument best when he says,
"Tony, I actually think that it is her stance on Abortion that would be turning the feminists away. Most people don’t take kindly to governments telling people what they can and cant do with their own bodies."
This also sums it up well for me:
"Ok, but it’s hard to credibly be a “women’s activist” if it’s only certain women that you support. The sisterhood doesn’t like being shown up as selective. For myself, I don’t support “women’s” causes. I support conservative causes."
Gay Marriage
He's nothing if not clear on this issue.
"it is our absolutely crystal clear policy that marriage is between a man and a woman."
In this speech, he proudly proclaims:
"Since 1996, the Government has made it easier for religious schools to expand, banned gay marriage, allowed a private members bill to overturn the Northern Territory’s euthanasia law, and stopped the ACT’s heroin trial. "
Asylum Seekers and Refugees
"The Coalition will also reintroduce temporary protection visas and require those on these visas who receive benefits to make a contribution through a ‘work for benefits’ scheme, as is required of Australian citizens."
"We will turn back boats where circumstances allow."
"These increased penalties will complement the Coalition’s other border protection measures, and help to stop the boats."Race and Religion
It was hard to decide where to put this quote. I can't quite figure out what makes me angrier: his assumption that Muslim men find it harder to respect women than other men, his assertion of an excuse for not respecting women, or his attempt to be a feminist.
"How can alienated Muslim males be expected to respect women, for instance, when this city's bookstands, billboards and TV shows proclaim that women are sex objects?"
Ok, I cheated, this one is from the WA Times:
"The Opposition Leader labelled the burqa a "particularly confronting" piece of clothing.
"I find the burqa a particularly confronting form of attire and I would very much wish that fewer Australians would choose it," Mr Abbott told reporters when asked about the case."
Industrial Relations
Work choices said it all, really.
June 24, 2010
I'm a feminist, and I'm not rejoicing.
Did you hear the news? We have a new Prime Minister, and this one's got a vulva.
I awoke (rather late) today to find my inbox cluttered with messages from people wanting to celebrate Australia's first woman Prime Minister.
Celebrate? What, exactly?
My friends weren't the only ones cheering. The Australian online is claiming that this move had "fulfilled the feminist dream", (I didn't realised we had one unifying dream). The ABC are, predictably, calling it a "giant leap for womankind".
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad our PM is a woman, and it is a big step in the right direction- I'm just not ready to say my 'feminist dream' has been fulfilled. So, I'm gonna play the fun-wrecking feminist, and point out why.
The ALP is not Australia's voting public
One reason to celebrate may be that we have reached that mythical point in time at which Australia became ready for a female Prime Minister.
Unfortunately this has not yet been tested. While Gillard is Officially Australia's first women PM, she wasn't actually chosen by Australia. I know, I know, we don't directly elect our Prime Minister, so really, the parliament always chooses our leader for us. It doesn't make her position any less legitimate, but it does mean that her role has been approved by the elite of the ALP, and signals a change in their thinking, not the thinking of my next door neighbor.
I recognise this as a first for the country, and I acknowledge the platform this will give her for shaping the views of voters. I sincerely hope a Government is eventually voted in after going to the polls with the stated intention of installing a woman as PM. When that happens, I'll join in with a cheer.
One woman is not Any Woman.
Another possible cause to celebrate could be that some form of political equality has been reached.
But have women politicians noticed a sudden change in the way they are represented by the media? Has everyone stopped obsessing over their hair, their clothes, their childlessness or their sexuality?
No? Alright, but has their been a major change in the number of seats held by women? Or the number of seats held by non-white women? Or the number of women candidates nominated into safe seats? No?
Has it gotten any easier for women to work and raise children? Are they more likely to be in a partnership where the domestic work is carried out equally? Another no.
Having a woman PM is one step toward equality in politics, but lets not forget that Julia Gillard is not any woman. She is privileged, middle-class, able-bodied, white woman with a university education and no children*.
Woman does not equal feminist
We come now to the most important and most overlooked consideration. Having a woman as a leader is not going to help feminist causes, unless she is a feminist woman, committed to feminist action.
Julie Bishop is a woman. Sophie Mirabella is a woman. Across the oceans, even Anne Coulter is a woman. They all have vulvas, and yet I'm hardly inclined to call them sisters in the struggle.
On electing a woman leader, did the ALP suddenly change all their policies? Are they going to legalize abortion for good? Are they going to take steps to dismantle rape culture? Cease all gender identity and sexuality-based discrimination? Have they come out as being for or against anything different than yesterday?
No, they haven't.
Julia Gillard is fabled to be a lefty, feminist type, and that's great, but the ALP are a (ahem) democratic organisation, and as with other political parties, the policy agenda is at least in part outside of the leader's control. Sure, she'll wield power and make decisions, along with the cabinet (or not, a la Rudd), and certainly she'll influence the rest of the party, but unless she wields her influence in the direction of feminist aims, it just isn't feminist.
Don't forget, it was the factional Right who helped get her the gig.
So, I'm hoping
I did read the news this morning with a smile. I hope that some of these things will happen, that the media will give our Prime Minister enough respect to report on her words and not her clothes, that my neighbors will get used to seeing a woman on tv in a position of power, and that the Government will take some (any) feminist actions.
Julia Gillard, I congratulate you. I'm sure it wasn't easy to get where you are, I don't want to diminish your achievement, and I wish you well. I hope you do good things, but if you don't mind, I'll save my rejoicing for when Australia has a Government that gives a shit about women (and refugees, and the environment, or anything other than clinging to their own seats) and backs it up with real action.
There are more feminist perspectives on this story. Check out what they're saying at HoydenAboutTown, SpiltMilk, TheDawnChorus, and MissEaglesNetwork.
*I'm not gonna get on the barren-bashing-bandwagon, but it should be noted that women raising children face real difficulties progressing in their careers, especially careers that require long hours and lots of travel.
I awoke (rather late) today to find my inbox cluttered with messages from people wanting to celebrate Australia's first woman Prime Minister.
Celebrate? What, exactly?
My friends weren't the only ones cheering. The Australian online is claiming that this move had "fulfilled the feminist dream", (I didn't realised we had one unifying dream). The ABC are, predictably, calling it a "giant leap for womankind".
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad our PM is a woman, and it is a big step in the right direction- I'm just not ready to say my 'feminist dream' has been fulfilled. So, I'm gonna play the fun-wrecking feminist, and point out why.
The ALP is not Australia's voting public
One reason to celebrate may be that we have reached that mythical point in time at which Australia became ready for a female Prime Minister.
Unfortunately this has not yet been tested. While Gillard is Officially Australia's first women PM, she wasn't actually chosen by Australia. I know, I know, we don't directly elect our Prime Minister, so really, the parliament always chooses our leader for us. It doesn't make her position any less legitimate, but it does mean that her role has been approved by the elite of the ALP, and signals a change in their thinking, not the thinking of my next door neighbor.
I recognise this as a first for the country, and I acknowledge the platform this will give her for shaping the views of voters. I sincerely hope a Government is eventually voted in after going to the polls with the stated intention of installing a woman as PM. When that happens, I'll join in with a cheer.
One woman is not Any Woman.
Another possible cause to celebrate could be that some form of political equality has been reached.
But have women politicians noticed a sudden change in the way they are represented by the media? Has everyone stopped obsessing over their hair, their clothes, their childlessness or their sexuality?
No? Alright, but has their been a major change in the number of seats held by women? Or the number of seats held by non-white women? Or the number of women candidates nominated into safe seats? No?
Has it gotten any easier for women to work and raise children? Are they more likely to be in a partnership where the domestic work is carried out equally? Another no.
Having a woman PM is one step toward equality in politics, but lets not forget that Julia Gillard is not any woman. She is privileged, middle-class, able-bodied, white woman with a university education and no children*.
Woman does not equal feminist
We come now to the most important and most overlooked consideration. Having a woman as a leader is not going to help feminist causes, unless she is a feminist woman, committed to feminist action.
Julie Bishop is a woman. Sophie Mirabella is a woman. Across the oceans, even Anne Coulter is a woman. They all have vulvas, and yet I'm hardly inclined to call them sisters in the struggle.
On electing a woman leader, did the ALP suddenly change all their policies? Are they going to legalize abortion for good? Are they going to take steps to dismantle rape culture? Cease all gender identity and sexuality-based discrimination? Have they come out as being for or against anything different than yesterday?
No, they haven't.
Julia Gillard is fabled to be a lefty, feminist type, and that's great, but the ALP are a (ahem) democratic organisation, and as with other political parties, the policy agenda is at least in part outside of the leader's control. Sure, she'll wield power and make decisions, along with the cabinet (or not, a la Rudd), and certainly she'll influence the rest of the party, but unless she wields her influence in the direction of feminist aims, it just isn't feminist.
Don't forget, it was the factional Right who helped get her the gig.
So, I'm hoping
I did read the news this morning with a smile. I hope that some of these things will happen, that the media will give our Prime Minister enough respect to report on her words and not her clothes, that my neighbors will get used to seeing a woman on tv in a position of power, and that the Government will take some (any) feminist actions.
Julia Gillard, I congratulate you. I'm sure it wasn't easy to get where you are, I don't want to diminish your achievement, and I wish you well. I hope you do good things, but if you don't mind, I'll save my rejoicing for when Australia has a Government that gives a shit about women (and refugees, and the environment, or anything other than clinging to their own seats) and backs it up with real action.
There are more feminist perspectives on this story. Check out what they're saying at HoydenAboutTown, SpiltMilk, TheDawnChorus, and MissEaglesNetwork.
*I'm not gonna get on the barren-bashing-bandwagon, but it should be noted that women raising children face real difficulties progressing in their careers, especially careers that require long hours and lots of travel.
June 10, 2010
Betrayal, Fiona McIntosh: A brief feminist reading
Recently I've been getting into a bit of fantasy/sci fi reading. I've just finished reading Betrayal, Book One of the Trinity series, by Fiona McIntosh.
I loved the book. I literally couldn't put it down. It was entertaining, fast-paced, it had characters I liked, and some I really hated, I constantly felt that I just had to know what happened next. I enjoyed the casual dialogue and the occasional humor, and I liked the concept of the paladin and the intrigue of the half finished stories. I even got the second book out from the library before I had even finished this one, so I wouldn't have to wait.
So I liked it.
That said, my feminist sense was tingling while reading it, and on reflection, I have some issues with Betrayal.
As is my way, I'd like to illustrate my concerns with subheadings.
****SPOILER ALERT****
IF YOU PLAN ON READING THE BOOK, STOP READING THIS REVIEW NOW
Woman characters, boldly following their men
There are plenty of women populating the main cast of this novel. In terms of numbers, I can't fault it. I am however annoyed at who they are. We have a mother/wife, who cooks for everyone; a pretty girl who is powerful, but not as powerful as the main character; a herb lore expert who follows the orders of her husband; a Queen who is beautiful, and follows the orders of her husband; a great number of sex-workers; a woman who is chased by potential rapists, then sleeps with her savior; the widow of a circus performer who feeds everyone, is looked after by her brother in-law, and jealous of the pretty girl; a whole convent of 'untouchable' sexless women, one of whom is pretty, obsessed with the dark-arts, and (wait for it) jealous of the pretty girl; a hermit-priestess; a benevolent spirit; and some midwives and pregnant women.
Hmm. So women are either sexual objects bought for money, 'maternal' types who feed everyone, healers, or powerful individuals who won't use their power without the help/advice/direction of a man.
They aren't entirely passive, thankfully. Queen Nyria disagrees with the King, although she doesn't follow through with any consequences, and Alyssa shows disdain and hatred for the King, although she similarly doesn't follow through, on the advice of another man.
With the exception of the spirit/god Lys, who appears to be an actor in her own right, all the women characters on the side of good have little say in the direction of their lives, and willingly or unwillingly, follow the wishes of the men in their lives.
Xantia, the one woman on the side of evil (in this, the first book of the series), is the only woman character who acts of her own free will. This plays to one of the oldest anti-woman myths: women who act of their own accord, without deference to their men-folk are bad. This usually plays out in the reverse, as it has here: bad women act without deference to men. In the end, even Xantia does not act alone, as she teams up with one of the bad-guys.
In addition, even though she acts of her own will, Xantia is motivated by jealousy of another woman, over a man. So even her autonomous decisions are based on her relationships to men, and we have yet another example of women acting against each other, if they act at all.
Violence against women is (almost) always sexual
The entire book is punctuated with acts of violence, against both genders, although committed only by men.
The violence committed against men does occur- soldiers are drugged, some are slain; a crippled man is tortured; two boys are killed; one man is beaten and crippled; a man is stoned to death- but with one exception made for a rapist, who is castrated, none of this violence is sexual, committed due to their gender, or focused on their sexual organs.
Violence against women is a different story. It is always either sexually motivated or involves harm to their sexual organs.
The first person in the story to be victimised is a young woman, who was publicly stripped, and had her genitals and breasts maimed during a 'bridling'. This process is said to occur for those of either gender, however it isn't a man, or even an older woman (often portrayed as sexless) who was picked by McIntosh to illustrate the practice, but a young woman.
Another bit-part character is chased by gypsies, who intend to rape her.
And of course, their is the main female character, Alyssa, who is abused and neglected by her drunk father, raped, and chased around with the intent of rape on more than on occasion.
Perhaps I can understand why there are so few (none) rape victims in the book- they don't feature quite so often in real-life, either, and we certainly don't discuss rape of men and boys as openly as we discuss the rape of women and girls. What bugs me is that a woman was chosen to be the victim of bridling, that the woman running through the forest was running from rapists, not robbers, and that the only woman who suffers any non-sexual violence is a child, not a soldier, or some other active character.
The frailties of woman
The thing that bugs me most is the life-story of the main female character. She grows up motherless, with an abusive father. Then her boyfriend skips town, so she runs away with a herb woman. She is pursued and raped (and saved by a man), so she runs away again and joins a convent, and shuns the thought of all men.
She reunites with her boyfriend, gets pregnant, only to almost die in childbirth. Her now husband dies, and at the beginning of the second book, she becomes a midwife, then a primary school teacher.
Blech! Of all the characters, Alyssa has actual reasons to become some sort of active resistance, yet instead she passively falls into careers centered around pious virginity, then birth, then children.
I'm not dissing mid-wifery, herb lore (also known as medicine), or teaching. It just shits me that a woman character chooses all these, and never something non-traditional.
I also object to Alyssa being constantly thrown violent, gender based life challenges. To be a hero, all Tor (the male lead character) needs is to be told he is special. He is given confusing information and a magical friend, and then sets off into the wilderness actively seeking his destiny.
Alyssa doesn't do anything until her boyfriend leaves and her dad hits her. She doesn't have any plan of her own, and after she is raped, she passively excepts life in a convent. She never goes actively in search of her destiny, although she has inklings of what it may be, and is eventually given information such as that Tor was given.
Apparently, women characters aren't interesting or sympathetic without a dark past, while male characters just need to be made told that they're the hero in order to play the hero.
She's also slim, blond and beautiful, and everyone lusts after her (boyfriend, rapist, teenage boys, village men/boys, the King etc). Because, you know, that's important to a main female character.
Yes, the main male character is frequently described as being attractive, and a womaniser, but its different. He actively charms women, pursues women, and initiates sex with women. Alyssa has boys follow her against her will (then they die), a man rape her, and then a husband re-initiate their relationship (then he dies). He uses his beauty, while she is beautiful but she can't use it. She is the phallus, he has the phallus. (Thanks, Lacan.)
The same old patriarchal world
Most of the issues above stem from this one, central problem: of all the possible universes in the human imagination, Fiona McIntosh chose (like the vast majority of authors) to set her story in a patriarchal society.
Women are mothers or sex workers, healers or whores. Men are soldiers, women are not. Men make the decisions, women follow.
Why is it that time and again, fantasy/sci-fi authors chose to set their stories in the same old almost-medieval-but-in-another-world-with-kingdoms-and-spirits-and-magic place?
In Summary
In all, I still enjoyed the book, for all the reasons I claimed a the beginning of this post. I hold out some hope that the issues I have mentioned will be addressed in the next two books. Maybe Alyssa becomes actively powerful (I've got a suspicion that she and a certain other character are actually the same, but we'll see)? Maybe Nyria turns into someone a little more interesting (although I'm hoping she's had an affair herself, not that she gets jealous, cos that would just bug me even more)? Maybe Xantia finds another motivation, or at least acts as an independent baddie? And maybe, fingers crossed, one of the paladin could be a woman who gets into a little more rough and tumble than healing or marrying.
Lets hope.
I loved the book. I literally couldn't put it down. It was entertaining, fast-paced, it had characters I liked, and some I really hated, I constantly felt that I just had to know what happened next. I enjoyed the casual dialogue and the occasional humor, and I liked the concept of the paladin and the intrigue of the half finished stories. I even got the second book out from the library before I had even finished this one, so I wouldn't have to wait.
So I liked it.
That said, my feminist sense was tingling while reading it, and on reflection, I have some issues with Betrayal.
As is my way, I'd like to illustrate my concerns with subheadings.
****SPOILER ALERT****
IF YOU PLAN ON READING THE BOOK, STOP READING THIS REVIEW NOW
Woman characters, boldly following their men
There are plenty of women populating the main cast of this novel. In terms of numbers, I can't fault it. I am however annoyed at who they are. We have a mother/wife, who cooks for everyone; a pretty girl who is powerful, but not as powerful as the main character; a herb lore expert who follows the orders of her husband; a Queen who is beautiful, and follows the orders of her husband; a great number of sex-workers; a woman who is chased by potential rapists, then sleeps with her savior; the widow of a circus performer who feeds everyone, is looked after by her brother in-law, and jealous of the pretty girl; a whole convent of 'untouchable' sexless women, one of whom is pretty, obsessed with the dark-arts, and (wait for it) jealous of the pretty girl; a hermit-priestess; a benevolent spirit; and some midwives and pregnant women.
Hmm. So women are either sexual objects bought for money, 'maternal' types who feed everyone, healers, or powerful individuals who won't use their power without the help/advice/direction of a man.
They aren't entirely passive, thankfully. Queen Nyria disagrees with the King, although she doesn't follow through with any consequences, and Alyssa shows disdain and hatred for the King, although she similarly doesn't follow through, on the advice of another man.
With the exception of the spirit/god Lys, who appears to be an actor in her own right, all the women characters on the side of good have little say in the direction of their lives, and willingly or unwillingly, follow the wishes of the men in their lives.
Xantia, the one woman on the side of evil (in this, the first book of the series), is the only woman character who acts of her own free will. This plays to one of the oldest anti-woman myths: women who act of their own accord, without deference to their men-folk are bad. This usually plays out in the reverse, as it has here: bad women act without deference to men. In the end, even Xantia does not act alone, as she teams up with one of the bad-guys.
In addition, even though she acts of her own will, Xantia is motivated by jealousy of another woman, over a man. So even her autonomous decisions are based on her relationships to men, and we have yet another example of women acting against each other, if they act at all.
Violence against women is (almost) always sexual
The entire book is punctuated with acts of violence, against both genders, although committed only by men.
The violence committed against men does occur- soldiers are drugged, some are slain; a crippled man is tortured; two boys are killed; one man is beaten and crippled; a man is stoned to death- but with one exception made for a rapist, who is castrated, none of this violence is sexual, committed due to their gender, or focused on their sexual organs.
Violence against women is a different story. It is always either sexually motivated or involves harm to their sexual organs.
The first person in the story to be victimised is a young woman, who was publicly stripped, and had her genitals and breasts maimed during a 'bridling'. This process is said to occur for those of either gender, however it isn't a man, or even an older woman (often portrayed as sexless) who was picked by McIntosh to illustrate the practice, but a young woman.
Another bit-part character is chased by gypsies, who intend to rape her.
And of course, their is the main female character, Alyssa, who is abused and neglected by her drunk father, raped, and chased around with the intent of rape on more than on occasion.
Perhaps I can understand why there are so few (none) rape victims in the book- they don't feature quite so often in real-life, either, and we certainly don't discuss rape of men and boys as openly as we discuss the rape of women and girls. What bugs me is that a woman was chosen to be the victim of bridling, that the woman running through the forest was running from rapists, not robbers, and that the only woman who suffers any non-sexual violence is a child, not a soldier, or some other active character.
The frailties of woman
The thing that bugs me most is the life-story of the main female character. She grows up motherless, with an abusive father. Then her boyfriend skips town, so she runs away with a herb woman. She is pursued and raped (and saved by a man), so she runs away again and joins a convent, and shuns the thought of all men.
She reunites with her boyfriend, gets pregnant, only to almost die in childbirth. Her now husband dies, and at the beginning of the second book, she becomes a midwife, then a primary school teacher.
Blech! Of all the characters, Alyssa has actual reasons to become some sort of active resistance, yet instead she passively falls into careers centered around pious virginity, then birth, then children.
I'm not dissing mid-wifery, herb lore (also known as medicine), or teaching. It just shits me that a woman character chooses all these, and never something non-traditional.
I also object to Alyssa being constantly thrown violent, gender based life challenges. To be a hero, all Tor (the male lead character) needs is to be told he is special. He is given confusing information and a magical friend, and then sets off into the wilderness actively seeking his destiny.
Alyssa doesn't do anything until her boyfriend leaves and her dad hits her. She doesn't have any plan of her own, and after she is raped, she passively excepts life in a convent. She never goes actively in search of her destiny, although she has inklings of what it may be, and is eventually given information such as that Tor was given.
Apparently, women characters aren't interesting or sympathetic without a dark past, while male characters just need to be made told that they're the hero in order to play the hero.
She's also slim, blond and beautiful, and everyone lusts after her (boyfriend, rapist, teenage boys, village men/boys, the King etc). Because, you know, that's important to a main female character.
Yes, the main male character is frequently described as being attractive, and a womaniser, but its different. He actively charms women, pursues women, and initiates sex with women. Alyssa has boys follow her against her will (then they die), a man rape her, and then a husband re-initiate their relationship (then he dies). He uses his beauty, while she is beautiful but she can't use it. She is the phallus, he has the phallus. (Thanks, Lacan.)
The same old patriarchal world
Most of the issues above stem from this one, central problem: of all the possible universes in the human imagination, Fiona McIntosh chose (like the vast majority of authors) to set her story in a patriarchal society.
Women are mothers or sex workers, healers or whores. Men are soldiers, women are not. Men make the decisions, women follow.
Why is it that time and again, fantasy/sci-fi authors chose to set their stories in the same old almost-medieval-but-in-another-world-with-kingdoms-and-spirits-and-magic place?
In Summary
In all, I still enjoyed the book, for all the reasons I claimed a the beginning of this post. I hold out some hope that the issues I have mentioned will be addressed in the next two books. Maybe Alyssa becomes actively powerful (I've got a suspicion that she and a certain other character are actually the same, but we'll see)? Maybe Nyria turns into someone a little more interesting (although I'm hoping she's had an affair herself, not that she gets jealous, cos that would just bug me even more)? Maybe Xantia finds another motivation, or at least acts as an independent baddie? And maybe, fingers crossed, one of the paladin could be a woman who gets into a little more rough and tumble than healing or marrying.
Lets hope.
May 2, 2010
What's up with the boobs?
I like to read fitness magazines. Its a guilty pleasure. I will buy one, or borrow one from my local library, and lovingly savour the 'new' workout moves, nutrition research findings, recipes, interviews and comments. Sometimes I'll sit with it for hours until every line of text is read, and every picture considered. In the lean times I will try and stretch out my reading pleasure to last me a week or more, limiting myself to only one article at a time.
With its much larger market, America seems to have much larger variety of fitness magazines. As such most of my reading material comes form the US, and the little bit that is edited here at home will often use images from photo shoots carried out by their American sister publications.
Flicking through them, one thing has always struck me in these American mags: fake boobs. So many of the women in the US magazines have made-to-order breasts. There are just so many of them. Mountains of them, if you will.
Now, I don't take issue with what other women do with their bodies (sort of, but its an issue for later discussions). If you'd like to enbiggen your boobs, far be it for me to stop you. I also don't mean to cast any judgement or offend any women who have larger breasts. I'd love to think we can all love what we've got. But I am a tad perplexed at the near monopoly that larger breasted women appear to have on the fitness modelling industry in America, as well as why it isn't as prevalent here in Australia.
One issue of Fitness Rx For Women magazine has 14 images of women with what appears to be altered breasts (whether via severe push-up bras, implants, or digital altering, I don't know). These images are of models, for the most part, either in advertisements or demonstrating moves.
This is a magazine designed to cover fitness and nutrition issues for women. Active women, who partake in athletics, weight training, and competitive sport and fitness.
Now, although I am sure there are exceptions to this rule, most women I know who are engaged in such high intensity activities have smallish breasts. Some have larger breasts, and find the need to secure them to make sport a more comfortable experience. Some had larger breasts, but have found (for better or worse) that they have shrunk due to exercise.
Most of the women pictured in this magazine are thin, and appear to have VERY low body fat percentages. Given this, it seems quite unlikely that they would have enough natural breast tissue left to fill their crop tops the we they do. So one has to assume that either the woman herself or the advertiser has felt the need to 'fill her out' either surgically or digitally.
But why?
Large breasts have long held the imagination of the masses. They can be found on billboards, used to sell cars, cigarettes, dishwashing liquid, clothes or phone companies, seen in movies, pornography, on children's toys for goodness sake. I'm rarely surprised, though generally annoyed, to see a woman with large breasts in an ad for just about anything (except fashion, what's with that?). But I get very concerned when a women's magazine that claims to promote health and fitness, an active lifestyle, and positive body image decides to jump in with the rest of the world on the issue.
The same magazines that tell us not to be afraid of the weights room, and not to be concerned about 'bulking up', are still pushing the message that extreme femininity is required to compensate for strength.
It leads me to some questions.
Do you, fit women of the internet, feel unfeminine due to your training regime?
Do you feel the need to compensate? Have you increased your bust, and why did you choose to?
In either case, do you feel it is appropriate for magazines claiming to support your goals to prey on your fears?
And, most puzzling of all, does anyone know why American mags seem so keen on the fakies, while Aussie ones aren't? Do we have fewer implants in Oz? Or is there something more to it? Am i the only person who has noticed this odd phenomena?
March 26, 2010
Quick effective at-home workout for older women (and the rest of us!)
Enough of the ranting for a little while. My partner is beginning to worry about my health ( a concern met with another rant from me about pathologising angry women), and its not the only thing this blog is supposed to be about.
So big deep breaths, and on we go to something positive.
I work with a number of older/mature/menopausal/fabulous women. I am often surprised to find that many women, especially older women, feel that they should not be doing any weights or resistance training. Some fear injury, others feel it is unfeminine, many are concerned they will begin to 'look like men', and others are intimidated by the masculine-ness of the weights area.
This is a shame, as its so important for women to stay strong and capable, and I feel that the fears listed above are at least in part due to long-held societal beliefs about women's frailty. Unfortunately these beliefs keep women frail. (not to mention they lead to replicated role modelling for younger women, odd ideas about the inability of older women to look after themselves, keep women less capable of defending themselves, and make it even more impossible for women to match up to that other long-held societal pressure on women, the beauty standard.)
All women (and men) need to exercise their heart regularly to keep it in good shape, and need to challenge their muscles and bones to keep them strong. This is especially important for older women. As we age we lose bone density, which can lead to increased likelihood of fractures (ouch!). We may also lose muscle mass and strength, if we don't continue to exercise. This is a problem because our muscles help us move - lessening physical strength is what leads to difficulty getting out of chairs! - and they also fuel our metabolism. Declining muscle mass is one factor in declining metabolic rate among older people, which may lead to weight gain.
Strong women remain physically independent for longer, lessen their risk of heart disease and diabetes, have healthier bone mass (did I mention exercise can keep your bones healthy?), have less trouble regulating their weight, and benefit from increased happy hormones (not the official terminology).
Unfortunately many people, and older people in particular fear that they will either incur or worsen an injury, or that they are not fit enough to exercise or strong enough to do weights.
While the risk of incurring or exacerbating an injury is real, there are many safe and effective exercises that you can do in the comfort of your own home. I have put a few body weight exercises together below, to help you start off. Please note these exercises will be safe for the vast majority of people. However if you have specific concerns, feel free to visit your doctor to check what the right moves are for you.
You can do these exercises in 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions, 2-4 times per week, leaving a day off in between to let you muscles recover. i.e. 9 lunges, then rest, then another 9 lunges, then rest, then another 9 lunges, then rest then move on to push ups.
You can change the order, however if you find them very difficult, keep them in the order they are presented here (to ensure you don't lose focus for the more difficult moves). You can walk, swim or do other exercise on the days in between, but make sure you give your worked muscles some rest. I have noted the possible contraindications for each exercise, but let your body be your guide.
I've set these up to involve no extra equipment, however if you have them feel free to use weights or water bottles, and of course if you can afford the gym, be my guest!
I've not got any images of women doing these exercises that I can fairly use, so for now they come with instructions, and some links to the lovely people at exrx.net, who tend not to use images of women with fake boobs wearing bikinis, which suits me. Also, they know their stuff.
1. Lunges
Works: Legs, Bum
Not if: Don't do this exercise if you have knee pain - see your doctor for another exercise.
How: Start standing, Feet together, knees slightly bent, head up. Take a big step forward with your left leg. Slowly bend your right knee and come down just until your left thigh is parallel to the floor. Keeping your head up, rise again and bring you feet back together. Repeat on the other side. That is one repetition.
2. Push Ups
Works: Chest, arms, abs
Not if: avoid this exercise only if you have elbow or shoulder concerns. Check with a doctor if you do.
How: Start in the plank position, either on your knees or your toes, with your hands on the floor a little wider than shoulder width apart. Keep your body stiff and flat like a board. eyes down. Slowly bend your elbows to lower your upper body to the floor. Straighten them to come back up. That's one repetition.
If you can't do 5 from your knees, start instead on your toes, but with your hands on the side of the bed, or on a chair or bench. As you get stronger, you can make it more challenging by beginning lower, and eventually doing them on your toes on the floor. Move to the next level once you can do 12 at your starting level.
3. Squats
Works: Bum, legs
Not if: Squats are a relatively safe exercise for most people.
How: Start standing, with feet a little more than hip distance apart, toes facing forward. Keeping your head up, eyes forward and back straight, bend your knees to squat back. Imagine you are trying to sit on a chair, sending your bum back. Squeeze your bum and press your hips forward to come back up. That's one repetition. If this is easy, hold something a little heaving in front of your body, and do them slowly.
4. Dips
Works: Triceps, shoulders
Not if: again, if you have shoulder injuries check with a doctor.
How: Start by sitting on a stable chair, bench, or low table. Place your hands on the surface, fingers facing the front. knees bent, slide your bum off the table, holding yourself up with your arms. Bend your elbows slowly and lower your body toward the floor. lower until your forearms are nearly parallel with the floor, then slowly come back up, keeping your bum off the bench. That's one rep. To make it harder, keep your legs straight, or put them up on another chair.
5. Bridges
Works: Bum, lower back, legs.
How: Lie on the floor, knees bent with feet on the floor, arms by your side, palms down. Breath out and recruit your tummy muscles. Slowly roll your back off the floor, vertebra by vertebra, until just your shoulders and feet are on the floor. arms remain down. Squeeze your bum, then roll down during a breath in. That's one rep.
6. Superpersons
Works: upper and lower back, bum.
Not if: don't try this if you're pregnant.
How: Lying on your stomach, stretch out so your arms are above your head, palms down, and your legs are straight out, top of feet flat on the floor. keeping your forehead on the floor, squeeze your bum. Then raise one arm and the opposite leg off the floor just a few inches. Hold, then bring back to the floor in a controlled movement. Repeats with the opposite arm leg combination. That's one repetition.
7. Toe taps
Works: abs
Not if: pregnant women may want to check with their doctor. Those with lower back problems, stick to the easy version of this move (first version) and don't continue if it causes you problems. It should help strengthen, but lets not do that at the expense of your back.
How: Lying on your back on the floor, arms at sides with palms down, raise both legs so knees
and hips are at 90 degree angles, knees together. breathe out, drawing your tummy muscles in. try to hold those muscles throughout the exercise, continuing to breathe (very important!). Gently lower one leg to the ground, maintaining the bent knee position, to tap the toe, return your leg up. Repeat on the other side. That's one rep.
When you can comfortable do 12 on each side without your lower back lifting off the floor, you can begin to lower your leg to straighten it out along the floor, then return to the bent position.
8. Plank
Works: abs
Not if: careful here if you have lower back problems. Begin in the bent knee position, only graduating to the toes position if you are comfortable.
How: This looks like a push up, but we hold it at the top. Start with your knees bent, body very straight, eyes down, and forearms on the floor. You can clasp your hands if its comfortable. Hold this position for as long as you can. To come out bend your knees and take your butt to your heels. Only complete this exercise three times in total, with a rest in between. If you hold this for 60 seconds, try it on your toes.
9. Body twists
Works: abs and obliques (side ab muscles)
How: Stand with your knees slightly bent, facing forward. Hold something (a book, a water bottle, the baby (kidding)) with straight arms out in front at about shoulder height. Breathe in and draw your tummy muscles toward your spine. Breathe out, holding tummy in, and twist your upper body to face your right side, continuing to hold the object out. Don't move your hips. Breathe here, then breathing out again, check your tummy muscles are till 'on' and turn back to the front. Repeat on the other side. That's one rep.
If you want to save time and work your heart more effectively, you can do one set of two exercises, then rest. i.e one set of lunges, then one set of push ups then rest. this is called a superset.
Some muscle tightness and soreness will be experience the day after you complete the exercises: this is the feeling of small tears in your muscles being repaired and making them stronger. If you stretch afterward you may alleviate this a little. You may also feel something like a burn during the exercise - this is normal. However please stop if you feel pain during the exercise that resembles stinging, tearing, or any other physical sensation that worries you.
Enjoy, and get to it!
So big deep breaths, and on we go to something positive.
I work with a number of older/mature/menopausal/fabulous women. I am often surprised to find that many women, especially older women, feel that they should not be doing any weights or resistance training. Some fear injury, others feel it is unfeminine, many are concerned they will begin to 'look like men', and others are intimidated by the masculine-ness of the weights area.
This is a shame, as its so important for women to stay strong and capable, and I feel that the fears listed above are at least in part due to long-held societal beliefs about women's frailty. Unfortunately these beliefs keep women frail. (not to mention they lead to replicated role modelling for younger women, odd ideas about the inability of older women to look after themselves, keep women less capable of defending themselves, and make it even more impossible for women to match up to that other long-held societal pressure on women, the beauty standard.)
All women (and men) need to exercise their heart regularly to keep it in good shape, and need to challenge their muscles and bones to keep them strong. This is especially important for older women. As we age we lose bone density, which can lead to increased likelihood of fractures (ouch!). We may also lose muscle mass and strength, if we don't continue to exercise. This is a problem because our muscles help us move - lessening physical strength is what leads to difficulty getting out of chairs! - and they also fuel our metabolism. Declining muscle mass is one factor in declining metabolic rate among older people, which may lead to weight gain.
Strong women remain physically independent for longer, lessen their risk of heart disease and diabetes, have healthier bone mass (did I mention exercise can keep your bones healthy?), have less trouble regulating their weight, and benefit from increased happy hormones (not the official terminology).
Unfortunately many people, and older people in particular fear that they will either incur or worsen an injury, or that they are not fit enough to exercise or strong enough to do weights.
While the risk of incurring or exacerbating an injury is real, there are many safe and effective exercises that you can do in the comfort of your own home. I have put a few body weight exercises together below, to help you start off. Please note these exercises will be safe for the vast majority of people. However if you have specific concerns, feel free to visit your doctor to check what the right moves are for you.
You can do these exercises in 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions, 2-4 times per week, leaving a day off in between to let you muscles recover. i.e. 9 lunges, then rest, then another 9 lunges, then rest, then another 9 lunges, then rest then move on to push ups.
You can change the order, however if you find them very difficult, keep them in the order they are presented here (to ensure you don't lose focus for the more difficult moves). You can walk, swim or do other exercise on the days in between, but make sure you give your worked muscles some rest. I have noted the possible contraindications for each exercise, but let your body be your guide.
I've set these up to involve no extra equipment, however if you have them feel free to use weights or water bottles, and of course if you can afford the gym, be my guest!
I've not got any images of women doing these exercises that I can fairly use, so for now they come with instructions, and some links to the lovely people at exrx.net, who tend not to use images of women with fake boobs wearing bikinis, which suits me. Also, they know their stuff.
1. Lunges
Works: Legs, Bum
Not if: Don't do this exercise if you have knee pain - see your doctor for another exercise.
How: Start standing, Feet together, knees slightly bent, head up. Take a big step forward with your left leg. Slowly bend your right knee and come down just until your left thigh is parallel to the floor. Keeping your head up, rise again and bring you feet back together. Repeat on the other side. That is one repetition.
2. Push Ups
Works: Chest, arms, abs
Not if: avoid this exercise only if you have elbow or shoulder concerns. Check with a doctor if you do.
How: Start in the plank position, either on your knees or your toes, with your hands on the floor a little wider than shoulder width apart. Keep your body stiff and flat like a board. eyes down. Slowly bend your elbows to lower your upper body to the floor. Straighten them to come back up. That's one repetition.
If you can't do 5 from your knees, start instead on your toes, but with your hands on the side of the bed, or on a chair or bench. As you get stronger, you can make it more challenging by beginning lower, and eventually doing them on your toes on the floor. Move to the next level once you can do 12 at your starting level.
3. Squats
Works: Bum, legs
Not if: Squats are a relatively safe exercise for most people.
How: Start standing, with feet a little more than hip distance apart, toes facing forward. Keeping your head up, eyes forward and back straight, bend your knees to squat back. Imagine you are trying to sit on a chair, sending your bum back. Squeeze your bum and press your hips forward to come back up. That's one repetition. If this is easy, hold something a little heaving in front of your body, and do them slowly.
4. Dips
Works: Triceps, shoulders
Not if: again, if you have shoulder injuries check with a doctor.
How: Start by sitting on a stable chair, bench, or low table. Place your hands on the surface, fingers facing the front. knees bent, slide your bum off the table, holding yourself up with your arms. Bend your elbows slowly and lower your body toward the floor. lower until your forearms are nearly parallel with the floor, then slowly come back up, keeping your bum off the bench. That's one rep. To make it harder, keep your legs straight, or put them up on another chair.
5. Bridges
Works: Bum, lower back, legs.
How: Lie on the floor, knees bent with feet on the floor, arms by your side, palms down. Breath out and recruit your tummy muscles. Slowly roll your back off the floor, vertebra by vertebra, until just your shoulders and feet are on the floor. arms remain down. Squeeze your bum, then roll down during a breath in. That's one rep.
6. Superpersons
Works: upper and lower back, bum.
Not if: don't try this if you're pregnant.
How: Lying on your stomach, stretch out so your arms are above your head, palms down, and your legs are straight out, top of feet flat on the floor. keeping your forehead on the floor, squeeze your bum. Then raise one arm and the opposite leg off the floor just a few inches. Hold, then bring back to the floor in a controlled movement. Repeats with the opposite arm leg combination. That's one repetition.
7. Toe taps
Works: abs
Not if: pregnant women may want to check with their doctor. Those with lower back problems, stick to the easy version of this move (first version) and don't continue if it causes you problems. It should help strengthen, but lets not do that at the expense of your back.
How: Lying on your back on the floor, arms at sides with palms down, raise both legs so knees
and hips are at 90 degree angles, knees together. breathe out, drawing your tummy muscles in. try to hold those muscles throughout the exercise, continuing to breathe (very important!). Gently lower one leg to the ground, maintaining the bent knee position, to tap the toe, return your leg up. Repeat on the other side. That's one rep.
When you can comfortable do 12 on each side without your lower back lifting off the floor, you can begin to lower your leg to straighten it out along the floor, then return to the bent position.
8. Plank
Works: abs
Not if: careful here if you have lower back problems. Begin in the bent knee position, only graduating to the toes position if you are comfortable.
How: This looks like a push up, but we hold it at the top. Start with your knees bent, body very straight, eyes down, and forearms on the floor. You can clasp your hands if its comfortable. Hold this position for as long as you can. To come out bend your knees and take your butt to your heels. Only complete this exercise three times in total, with a rest in between. If you hold this for 60 seconds, try it on your toes.
9. Body twists
Works: abs and obliques (side ab muscles)
How: Stand with your knees slightly bent, facing forward. Hold something (a book, a water bottle, the baby (kidding)) with straight arms out in front at about shoulder height. Breathe in and draw your tummy muscles toward your spine. Breathe out, holding tummy in, and twist your upper body to face your right side, continuing to hold the object out. Don't move your hips. Breathe here, then breathing out again, check your tummy muscles are till 'on' and turn back to the front. Repeat on the other side. That's one rep.
If you want to save time and work your heart more effectively, you can do one set of two exercises, then rest. i.e one set of lunges, then one set of push ups then rest. this is called a superset.
Some muscle tightness and soreness will be experience the day after you complete the exercises: this is the feeling of small tears in your muscles being repaired and making them stronger. If you stretch afterward you may alleviate this a little. You may also feel something like a burn during the exercise - this is normal. However please stop if you feel pain during the exercise that resembles stinging, tearing, or any other physical sensation that worries you.
Enjoy, and get to it!
Rant: Is exploitation creative? Is rape art?
Recently I have come across many articles covering the response to a number of t-shirts being sold at Roger David, a menswear store in Australia.
The shirts, which feature a woman with a gag in her mouth, and two semi naked women with a strip over their eyes, are a part of a clothing line that prints artwork on their t-shirts.
A backlash amongst the uneasy coalition of feminists and conservatives has erupted on Facebook and elsewhere, designating the t-shirts as exploitative, and claiming they mock rape.
In a written response to the backlash, a spokeswoman for the brand said, ''Art is meant to inspire and educate, and the meaning and interpretation is left in the hands of the viewer.'' In an article at TheAge.com she is also said to have suggested they would spark debate.
Argh. What are we suppose to be debating, exactly? Whether exploitation is cool? Who the female body belongs to? What are these images supposed to inspire? I'm only getting anger. I thought we'd had the rape debate out already, and came to the only sane conclusion: rape is not ok, exploitation of women wrong.
Some have suggested that as the word "hollywood" is written across the gag it should be considered an artwork commenting on the influence of film and the media. Assuming one was to look hard enough at the shirt to realise the word was there, this point may be somewhat valid. Although, given artists (and the rest of us) have been decrying white American cultural hegemony since the 80s, its hardly a point that is creative, original, or likely to start debate.
There has also been suggestion that as the prints are based on original artworks, they should be uncensored. I am all for the rights of artists to free expression as long as they don't cause harm. The image, within the elective space of a gallery, or an art magazine or website, would be able to "educate and inspire" whomever chose to see it. However the same image, on the street, has a very different audience, and it causes harm.
How do we measure the harm done when this image is viewed by young boys and girls, who get the message that exploitation and violence are cool? Or that its okay to look at women, so long as they don't look back? Or the damage done to rape survivors who are forced to recall their won experience? Or other women, who are once again made to feel objectified, less equal in a public space?
Roger David have removed the t-shirts from their website, but not from their shelves. You can contact Roger David at their website, and tell them exactly what you think. I have done so, and will publish the reply, should I receive one.
You can also contact Blood is the New Black, the brand that printed the t-shirts, at press@bloodisthenewblack.com.
The shirts, which feature a woman with a gag in her mouth, and two semi naked women with a strip over their eyes, are a part of a clothing line that prints artwork on their t-shirts.
A backlash amongst the uneasy coalition of feminists and conservatives has erupted on Facebook and elsewhere, designating the t-shirts as exploitative, and claiming they mock rape.
In a written response to the backlash, a spokeswoman for the brand said, ''Art is meant to inspire and educate, and the meaning and interpretation is left in the hands of the viewer.'' In an article at TheAge.com she is also said to have suggested they would spark debate.
Argh. What are we suppose to be debating, exactly? Whether exploitation is cool? Who the female body belongs to? What are these images supposed to inspire? I'm only getting anger. I thought we'd had the rape debate out already, and came to the only sane conclusion: rape is not ok, exploitation of women wrong.
Some have suggested that as the word "hollywood" is written across the gag it should be considered an artwork commenting on the influence of film and the media. Assuming one was to look hard enough at the shirt to realise the word was there, this point may be somewhat valid. Although, given artists (and the rest of us) have been decrying white American cultural hegemony since the 80s, its hardly a point that is creative, original, or likely to start debate.
There has also been suggestion that as the prints are based on original artworks, they should be uncensored. I am all for the rights of artists to free expression as long as they don't cause harm. The image, within the elective space of a gallery, or an art magazine or website, would be able to "educate and inspire" whomever chose to see it. However the same image, on the street, has a very different audience, and it causes harm.
How do we measure the harm done when this image is viewed by young boys and girls, who get the message that exploitation and violence are cool? Or that its okay to look at women, so long as they don't look back? Or the damage done to rape survivors who are forced to recall their won experience? Or other women, who are once again made to feel objectified, less equal in a public space?
Roger David have removed the t-shirts from their website, but not from their shelves. You can contact Roger David at their website, and tell them exactly what you think. I have done so, and will publish the reply, should I receive one.
You can also contact Blood is the New Black, the brand that printed the t-shirts, at press@bloodisthenewblack.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)