All posts by Princess Sparkle

Freedom of speech. Unabridged speech from Intelligence Squared Debate 8 May 2012

Topic: Freedom Of Speech Is Over-Rated. I spoke for the affirmative.

Watch here (with Julian Burnside)

Not only is freedom of speech overrated the claim we actually have freedom of speech, as opposed to a perception of freedom of speech, is not only ludicrous but deeply offensive to those with the inability to exercise freedom of speech. Which is most of us.

The threat of negative consequences, be they legal, economic, social or emotional compounded by the oppression of the illusion of the enshrined right to free speech (or in the case of Australia the implied right to free speech) makes freedom of speech for all a perception, not a reality.

Select people have the right to say some things some of the time without the threat of negative consequences.

Look in the mirror. If you are a rich, white, middle aged, middle class straight or straight acting god fearing or pretending man with disproportionate access to power, control, decision-making, leisure and money you are almost certain to be one of these select people. 

If you are a woman, gay, atheist, an activist for disability rights, action on climate change, the rights of asylum seekers you can look forward to a life of to be undermined with micro aggression (radical, militant, loony, fundermentalsist, extreme)  at best and being gagged at worst.

Let me illustrate:

Men have opinions. Women are opinionated.

Men speak. Women are outspoken.

Men are passionate. Women are strident.

Men have mouths. Women are mouthy.

How could we discuss freedom of speech without mentioning the Leadership Conference of Women Religious

The LCWR is the largest organization of nuns in the United States.

The Vatican recently found the nuns’ organization had ”radical feminist tendencies “ and has appointed an Archbishop to the get the nuns to heel.

The Vatican did an inquiry into the LCWR and found the nuns spent too much time supporting programs like homeless and healthcare and had not taken a strong enough stance against women’s ordination, gay marriage, abortion and contraception.

A spokesperson for the Catholic Church said “Occasional public statements by the LCWR disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals”

Some people can say some things some of the time.

Still in the U.S., The New York City Department of Education is currently seeking to have words they deem upsetting removed from tests in schools

“Fearing that certain words and topics can make students feel unpleasant, officials are requesting 50 or so words be removed from tests.”

One of the words is dinosaur.

The word “dinosaur” made the hit list because dinosaurs suggest evolution which may offend creationists.

Halloween- because it suggests paganism;

 Birthday- because birthdays aren’t celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Also banned “divorce” and “disease,” because kids taking tests may have relatives who split from spouses or are ill.’

Other words; celebrities, loss of employment and In-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge. Try that in Melbourne.

Let’s talk blasphemy.

There are people who equate “freedom of speech” with “immunity from criticism.”

The United Nations has accepted several non-binding resolutions condemning “defamation of religion.” Despite the fact that blasphemy is a victimless crime.  And that offence is a healthy byproduct of free speech.

More damage is caused taking offence than giving it. And no one has the right not to be offended. Even Cardinal George Pell.

Let’s take Andrew Bolt. He’s a rather opinionated, outspoken, strident and mouthy columnist for a Melbourne tabloid who lost a racial discrimination case last year.

Bolt lamented his gagging the following day on the front page of Australia’s highest circulating newspaper in a lengthy piece and continued to rail against his silencing on his radio and his television show that week. And continues to. 

The judgement by Justice Mordecai Bromberg included this paragraph.

 ”Language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilized. It is language which invites the reader to not only read the lines, but to also read between the lines.” 

At the time the Institute of Public Affairs took out a full page ad in the Australian newspaper, claiming Australia’s freedom of speech was under threat.

They even set up a website  www.supportbolt.com/

The IPA was very fast to support freedom of speech when it came to someone who was a mouthpiece for their agenda. I am yet to see them support free speech when it comes to someone they disagree with. Perhaps someone questioning who they are funded by.

Unlike the IPA I support free speech. Even when I don’t like what is being said.

Anzac Day is a perfect example of how some people are allowed to say some things some of the time.

In Australia you are only allowed to speak about Anzac Day

  1. if your grandfather fought in the war,
  2.  if you do not question the myths that hijack ‘the origin of our national spirit’

On Anzac Day 2010 I sent out a dozen tweets raising the question of the authenticity of the myths, manipulating of the facts and the political opportunism of ANZAC DAY.

At the time I was writing a weekly column for The Age. I was told by my editor I was not allowed to write about Anzac Day because it would be old news by the time the column came out. On the day I wrote a column about Olivia Newton John on the back page. On the opinion page of the same paper  on the same day a man wrote a column not just about Anzac day but about my Anzac day tweets.

Free speech? For some. Not all. 

In Australian the illusion of free speech is staggering.

Take our defamation laws.

In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of gagging people and halting public discourse. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings, whether or the claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others.

We may be equal in the eyes of the law. But we are not equal in the eyes of the banks.

But what about laggers?  We’ve all seen Prisoner. We all know what happens to laggers? They get their hands put in the press.

Whistleblowers, squealers, leakers and laggers are considered the lowest of the low in Australia.

Despite a 2007 Federal Government pledge of reforms to restore trust and integrity in government, more than 500 secrecy clauses, which effectively criminalize the release of government information, remain in place. 

Which leads us to Julian Assange. 

Our Prime Minister Julia Gillard copped a bucket load within her own party for failing to support Assange after calling Wikileaks “an illegal act” and suggesting that Assange’s Australian passport should be cancelled.

Hundreds of lawyers, academics and journalists came forward in his support, with the Attorney-General, unable to explain how Assange had broken Australian law.

Wikileaks was and still is widely criticized in the media for doing exactly what the Fairfax and Murdoch press do EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Jemima Khan, who provided surety to Julian Assange at his London hearing, “The best justification governments can find to shut down information is that lives are at risk. In fact, lives have been at risk as a result of the silences and lies revealed in these leaks.” 

There are middle aged middle class rich white men like Kyle Sandilands, Jason Akermanis, Sam Newman, Andrew Bolt or Steve Price who suffer freedom of too much speech. 

But how free do the rich, white, middle aged, middle class straight or straight acting god fearing or pretending men feel to speak. 

How free do they feel to say “I’m scared”, “I’m gay”, “I’m an atheist” “I hate my job” “I feel like a corporate maggot” “I think I’m an alcoholic” or “I may be suffering depression”?

Freedom of speech for all is a brilliant concept. But that’s all it is. A perception. And an over rated one at that. 

There is no right to see, hear, smell or a right to grow hair. We take that as a given. 

The mere fact that there’s even the term ‘the right to free speech” proves unequivocally that all we have is an illusion of freedom of speech for all.

There are self appointed bodies that issue it, define the parameters and retract it to suit their objectives.

To be given the permission indicates that freedom of speech is not a born right.

And may I suggest that the illusion of freedom of speech is a little like cheese to mice, to flush out the dissenters so they can be punished, silenced and used as human piñatas in order to limit speech with the method ‘Kill one scare a thousand.’

See whole debate here.

Go Back

My ten point response to offensorati trolls

015 653125-catherine-deveny

1. Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right.016 Unknown-1

2. I’ve had cancer. It’s not all bad, you get free biscuits.

3. My nana died of arse cancer and I have a high chance of contracting it. Not just because of our genetic predisposition but because I have enjoyed a lot of anal sex with uncircumsised men.

4a. I’m a comedian.

4b. I’m me.

5. More damage is caused by taking offence than giving it.

6. “It’s a comedian’s job to know where the line is and cross it”- George Carlin. So a couple of people are offended by one of my tweets? I’m offended by Packed to The Rafters and the gender balance on the ABC. You don’t see me calling the wahmbulance.

7.  Who hasn’t used colourful language to describe someone they think is Satan?

8. Who cares? It’s just words. And I do not have the power to give a person arse cancer through a tweet. Yet.

9.’I hope you get arse cancer’ is a traditional Irish greeting. “Tá súil agam go bhfaighidh tú ailse asal” is often exclaimed as a child is baptised or as a coffin is lowered into the ground.

10.  You bored, envious, petty, panty-elasticated wowsers, haters, hypocrites and prudes. No one cares except you and your sad tragic mates in the relevance deprivation cess pool. Go fuck yourselves. Love Dev xxxx

P.S. You may like this too and this is another bit on trolls I wrote.

b4tdf4.jpg

 

Go Back

Fairfax may own The Age but it belongs to Melbourne

I wrote this for The Age in 2008 and the wouldn’t publish it.

Isn’t this newspaper about varied voices, rigorous discussion and dissecting the important issues that affect us all? Isn’t Melbourne the place where we love a chat and are not afraid, indeed we relish a stoush, an argument and a heated discussion about what’s going on in our world no matter how close to home and uncomfortable it may be?

Isn’t Melbourne the culture capital, the coffee capital and the chinwag capital of Australia and weren’t we recently universally recognized as mad for words, bang up for ideas and not afraid of rigorous debate when UNESCO named Melbourne as it’s second city of literature.  Why Melbourne? Because we have more writers living in our town, more bookshops per head and because we devour more books, newspapers and magazines than anywhere else in this sunburnt country. And we’re proud of it.

Aren’t we passionate about bravely nutting out our changing world and isn’t this newspaper a crucial part of that?

The Age newspaper is an enormous part of the heart and soul of Melbourne.  It’s up there with trams, footy, potato cakes, pots of beer, Flinders Street Station, wenchy girls in black with red wine colored lips and blokes who proudly push prams. The Age sponsors, among other things, the Melbourne Comedy Festival and The Melbourne Writers Festival. Places people come for entertainment but often leave saited after being dazzled with ideas and  confronted with uncomfortable truths.

Then hang on here ladies and gents, can anyone explain to me why there have been no opinion articles published about Fairfax media cutting 550 jobs from their media business despite recording a net profit of $386.9 million for 2007-08. And no comment about Sydney Morning Herald’s Mike Carlton being sacked for refusing to cross the picket line and file his weekly column?   Fairfax promises that the cuts won’t undermine the quality of the newpapers and the CEO David Kirk suggest that it’s “mischievous” for outspoken staff to suggest otherwise. Isn’t it great we care? Isn’t that what you would want as an employer?  Employees that give a rats? Staff went on strike on Friday and the good news is that Fairfax Media has reached an agreement with the striking workers. So it’s business as usual.  For now.

Corporate anorexia is rife in these tumultuous times and Fairfax is no different to any other business.  Last year it posted a big fat healthy profit.  The job cuts are part of a predictive damage control initiative to combat the projected effects of the dramatic changes in mainstream media from print to digital. The whole media landscape is changing. We all know that.  The dissemination of information is moving online because that’s where the readers and the advertisers are heading.  But not all of them.  We’re from Melbourne.

Ben Eltham from New Matilda reported that The Age has been one of the very few newspapers anywhere in the western world to increase circulations in the past three years.  Do keep in mind that Melbourne is one of the only places in the world where Starbucks coffee and McDonald have been forced to close stores.  Yep you aren’t from round here are ya?

This paper, our paper was once run by a company with ink in it’s veins, a company passionate about newspapers.  It’s now run by a corporation.  Business people, accountants and lawyers who view news and information as a product. It’s your job, as readers, to keep an eye on them.   A newspaper is not the same as a fruit shop.  When you own a newspaper you have a corporate responsibility to contribute to and encourage national debate and to remember that you provide a community service, not just profits to the shareholders. The content of your newspaper and how it’s communicated effects the fabric of the society we live in and the culture we become. My kids want to eat ice cream for breakfast everyday.  That doesn’t mean I give it to them.

Since I have been writing for The Age I have been astonished and heartwarmed by the level of pride and passion that people have who work for this paper.  And the loyalty of the readers. Readers who are disappointed in the quality or content or feel let down by editorial direction are vocal, noisy and as wounded as a jilted lover.

Sure, Fairfax owns this newspaper.  But it belongs to us.  The readers and the people who make this paper.  Cherish it and protect it because when you start dismantling things nut-by-nut, bolt-by-bolt, screw-by-screw it can be impossible to put it back together again.  Make your voices heard about how you want to digest your news, your culture, your sport and your commentary. Because if you don’t you may end up with a newspaper outsourced to India and delivered by text to your mobile phone.  And then how will you be able to cut a Leunig cartoon out and stick it on your fridge?

This Sunday June 24 Catherine Deveny In Conversation with Stella Young 3pm North Fitzroy Star. BUY TICKETS HERE with QandA, special guest Nelly Thomas, door prizes and a musical act you’ll be talking about for weeks.

Go Back

School. Clipboard holding school shoppers. GET A LIFE!

IT’S that time of year when parents begin wringing their sweaty palms about where their child should start school next year. I laughed like a drain when I heard reports of parents at primary school open days with clipboards. I didn’t believe it, of course, until a mate told me that several of her mother’s group were guilty as charged.012 images-1

 

“With clipboards?” “Yes, with clipboards.” “To check out a school?” “No, to check out about six schools.” At this point I fell off my chair in hysterics. “So tell me, what are these mothers (and it’s always mothers stressing about this occasionally fathers jump on board in solidarity but are never (perhaps I should pur the word rarely in there to hose down the trolls) the initiators) trying to find in a school?” “Well, Dev, they are trying to find the school that is going to turn their child into a genius.” BINGO. So if they can’t be a genius maybe their kid can be the genius they might have been. Now that sounds like healthy parenting. Why would anyone want their kids to be a genius? I just want my kids to be well rounded, resilient and not in jail. All I hope is that by the time they are 25 they have survived a broken heart, a flat tyre, food poisoning and have a couple of good mates. Bad mother, me.

When my eldest started school I met a woman at the school information night. She listed off eight primary schools that she had already checked out. I said: “We haven’t seen any others we’ve just booked him into this one.” By the grave look on her face it was as if the principal was Pol Pot and the teachers were ex-military personnel from Abu Ghraib. I’d love to tell you that I turned to her and said: “Get over yourself.” But I didn’t. All we wanted was for our son to turn up on the first day of school and know a familiar face from kinder. And for it to be a fair reflection of the society he’d be living in. Because you can’t tell if a place is right for your kid simply by wandering around the corridors.

Here’s a tip. If you have checked out more that two schools it’s probably a good idea to consider getting yourself a life at some stage. If you have a good reason not to send them to the local primary school send them to the next closest. If you feel the difference is between a child who will be a Nobel Prize winner and a child who is a crack-addicted hooker you’re wrong.

Here’s a message from all of us here at Calm Down International: “If you are so tragic that you need your kids to go to a certain school to feel better about yourself may I suggest that you take a short course, do some volunteer work or try yoga.”

What is best for kids is not the idyllic  school environment as perceived by their anxious, hovering parents.  Children are better equipped in life by learning persistence and  motivation through failure, disappointment and frustration than by some  fantasy school created by their parents’ inner five-year-old. Kids just  want: a place to play chasey, some teachers who know their name and a few  mates they can laugh and swap lunches with.

Most kids don’t give a  rat’s about the improvised music workshops, organic gardens and  interpretative dance classes they do at school. But the parents, eyes  blazing, face alight, will bore people senseless about it in an attempt to  convince you of their coolness. All it actually does is convince us that  they are Wannabe Creatives; insecure dags who had friends in bands but  were never in bands themselves. Too much exposure to organised creativity  immunises children against creativity. I can guarantee you that they will  never hunger to paint like Monet, read Shakespeare or play cello like  Casals because: “Nah. I did that when I was six and I was crap at it.  Let’s go to the casino!”

As far as holding them back for an extra  year; when in doubt hold them back. If kinder has suggested that they can  do with another year, hold them back. If you are thinking that the earlier  you get a child into school the more you can stuff into them, hold them  back. If these instructions from me are pissing you off because people  around you are suggesting that you hold your kid back, hold them back. I  do not know of one parent who has held a child back and regretted it, but  know dozens of parents who sent them early who do. If your defence is that  they’ll be bored at home, trust me, kids are always bored at  home.

013 images

There have been countless studies showing that starting children early may have academic, social and psychological disadvantages, but it’s simply common sense to have kids coping as best as possible in the classroom rather than struggling, or worse still, being held back. It’s an individual decision and the Government desperately needs to increase funding to kindergartens and establish more preschool programs for four-to-five-year-olds attached to schools to make this decision easier.

I love this conversation ‘Oh (INSERT NAME OF SCHOOL DE JOUR HERE) has a great reputation.’ ‘From who? Only from the parents who send their kids there. To get over their own insecurity they keep banging on about how great their kid’s school is.

They’ll tell you they want their kids to meet the right people. Right people is just code for white people. This social engineering I find tragic and telling in more or less equal proportions.

“The heaviest burden a child carries is the unlived life of their parents” Carl Jung. 014 helicopterparent

FFS everyone, send em to the local. Stop trying to give your perfect child that perfect trajeectory into the perfect life you feel you never had.

The amount people bang on about the school their child attends is in inverse proportion to how successful they feel. Chill out, stop trying to live your life through your children and do some work on yourself. Your children are not you. Google ‘ego confusion’ for more information.

Catherine Deveny In Conversation with Stella Young! This Sunday June 24 3pm Tix $25/$22 secrets, swearing, champagne and rivetting candid chat. With q&a, door prizes, special guest Nelly Thomas and musical act BUY TICKETS HERE! 

Go Back

Domestic Violence. Going the thump on misogynists response to Roxon.

Nicola Roxon and all involved are today’s heroes after this magnificent triumph for victims of domestic violence. 009images-5

This incredible justice has been met with tantrums from some, who I can only assume are abusers or sympathetic to abusers because they conveniently prop up many of their beliefs and prejudices. These people assert changes in the law will lead to an ‘avalanche’ of false claims by vindictive partners and that there are ‘millions’ of false rape and abuse claims. By women.

Shouldn’t these thug apologists who all seem to believe men are the hidden majority of domestic violence victims be thrilled by this news? Why are they not ecstatic  more women will be punished and justice be done for this disproportionate amount of silent male victims?

Bone up.

1. Over 75% of domestic violence cases go unreported.

2. Now we’ve added emotional, verbal, social and financial abuse to the definition of domestic violence the percentage of unreported and reported cases will increase significantly.

3. 95% of domestic violence victims are women. 

4. Domestic violence is the leading cause of death or injury for women aged 15 – 44. 

5. The most dangerous place for a woman or girl is in her own home.

6. The person most likely to injure, assault or kill a girl or woman is a man she is related to. 

7. Most women don’t report domestic violence. Most don’t even consider it violence as many are chosen as partners by bullies and creeps precisely because these women are naive, vulnerable and/or easy to manipulate and have been convinced abuse is their fault or minimized the abuser’s resposibility for their actions. Some studies suggest greater amounts of empathy could make some more susceptible to becoming victims of domestic violence than others. 

8. The amount of false claims are minuscule (and the amount of false claims that lead to charges 1000 times smaller than minuscule) in comparison to the amount that go unreported or result in no charges.

9. Misogynists will amplify the false claims and amount of female perpetrators and minimise the amount, extent and variety of abuse.

10. It is not only domestic violence if there are bruises, cuts, broken bones or blood you can see. Domestic violence is an epidemic.

This change in the law is not making the goal posts wider but a long overdue catch up. The law has been behind for centries and finally it’s beginning to catch up. Victims of domestic violence are not now ‘out in front’ , they are just a little less behind than they are and have been for years.

Let’s hope social attitudes from Neanderthals, internalized misogynists and self-hating women will follow.

It’s not okay to bully, slap, punch, stalk, hate on, scream at or hurt bitches, slags, nags or sluts either.

Even if they were ‘asking for it’.

Come and see me In Conversation With Samuel Johnson June 17 buy tickets here.

010 428518_10151049505487316_1609095502_n

 

Go Back

Dentist mine and Dexter ours.

I’VE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE a dentist and my dentist has always wanted to write comedy. He’s one of the funniest people I know. I keep telling him he should do a one-man show called Dental As Anything. He wants to call it Game On Molar.

Our conversations generally begin with respectable topics such as kids, television and current affairs, then pretty rapidly disintegrate into dental erotica, nasally delivered erectile dysfunction solutions and anal ozone (don’t ask).

Dr Dentist was doing something in my mouth the other day. (I don’t know what it was but it cost the earth, I don’t look any different and the only reason I had it done was because he assured me that if I didn’t it would cost even more later, that is if I hadn’t died of teeth disease first.) Anyway, after saying “This won’t hurt a bit,” he turned to his assistant and said, “Can you turn the radio up?”

Can you believe that?

So when he said “Big mouth”, I said “Tiny penis”. That shut him up. I’m pretty sure he’s qualified. In something.

At one point he was performing some medieval torture on me and I said, “Have you ever done this before?” To which he responded “Once. On a dead guy.” I don’t know why I go either. I think it’s because he gives me a sticker.

So my number two thing I’d like to be is a blood-splatter analyst and part-time serial killer. Which is probably why I like Dexter.

People constantly buttonhole me at school functions, meetings with my parole officer and swingers’ nights and tell me that I should watch some particular television show or other. If they ever bothered to read this column, they’d know I loathe television. Most of the time I’d rather drill a hole in my head than flick on the tube. And when I’m a dentist I’ll be able to.

Dexter was one of the many shows that people kept mentioning to me, only to then find it was “on cable”. It was a bit like finding out something that I really wanted to buy in the ’80s was from “overseas”. Was on cable. Now on Network Ten. Seriously.

So Dexter (played by Michael C. Hall, or as most people refer to him, the gay funeral director fromSix Feet Under) works for the cops as a blood-splatter analyst by day and kills people as a hobby. I know what you’re thinking, sounds like Tony Abbott’s dream job.

Sure it’s got your good actoring, your fine writering and some top little stories propelling the narrative along, but what really floats my boat is the quirkiness of it. The weirdness.

Dexter is very unhingeing as a character. It’s so refreshing not to have the world evenly divided into good guys and bad guys. The world isn’t polarised. It’s messy and unpredictable.

And if we were out in the world and not glued to the couch we’d be reminded of that. Dexter is good at his job, great brother, very caring. Sure, he’s a sociopath but he’s a really sweet guy.

A bit like my dentist.

Go Back

Why are some people so touchy about the name changing thing?

IT LOOKS like I’ve finally achieved my aim of whittling my readership down to three. So hello to Nana, Mum and Germaine — if you’re still reading. Last week I wrote a column questioning, among other things, women taking their husband’s surname. Talk about stroppy! There were more noses out of joint than in a Jeff Fenech lookalike competition.

The response was massive, totally unexpected and absolutely fascinating. Reader feedback, the letters editor and the opinion editor were flabbergasted by the sheer volume of people wanting to put their two cents in. Even Kerri-Anne Kennerley bagged me. She was “offended”, called me a “judgemental feminist” and said that I “probably couldn’t get a man”. I laughed for an hour. It seems you’re either with me, or with Kerri-Anne …

It was a case of Team Deveny versus Team How Dare You. Game on! Poke that animal in the cage!

I was shocked by what a deeply and blindly patriarchal society we still live in. How can this name thing still be an issue? Didn’t they discuss this on The Age’s weekly women’s issue page, Accent, in the 1970s?

I’ve poked the cage of private schools, clipboard-carrying parents, unnecessary caesareans, 4WD owners, even God, and I have never been so overwhelmed by a response (equally positive and negative). Team How Dare You were extremely defensive and highly emotional. There was a stunning lack of clear rational thinking in every response. It was glaringly obvious that many women who have changed their names have a deep conflict about the true motivation behind their decision and the convenient excuse they present to the world. The blokes were just as illogical. And angry.

Why would anyone care what I think? Who’d give a monkey’s about what a stranger writing in a newspaper would think about their choice? If someone had a go at something I’d decided to do, I wouldn’t give a rat’s. I’m happy with my choices.

I don’t give a stuff what you do. I’m just paid to write what I think. There’s no gun to your head. Turn the page. If you can’t stand the heat, read the Herald Sun. Why bother trying to set me straight. All you’ve done is prove my point.

The defences were, well, defensive. “Well it’s just your father’s surname anyway.” No, it’s not. It’s mine. I was born with it. And if you follow that argument through, then you are not changing your surname to your husband’s but to your father in-law’s.

“You are only a real family if you have the same surname.” Wrong. If a family wants the same surname, why don’t half of these families have the mother’s surname? It seems only women have names that are hard to spell, they aren’t attached to or they don’t like. Not men. Odd. And convenient.

Women told me their husbands would have been happy to change their surnames. But they didn’t. I asked some of these blokes who, according to their wives, would have been happy to. They either said. “No, I wouldn’t have but don’t tell her” or just shuffled their feet and muttered, “I dunno, probably.” You can say what you like now the deal is done.

I did a few radio interviews, and the callers were a real eye-opener. Men told me they agreed with me totally then proudly said: “I told my wife she didn’t have to change her name” or “I let her keep her name but the kids had to have my surname.” Where do I start?

It’s a choice, but what’s informing this choice is the issue. Why is it that it’s “just easier” for “the wife” to change name in almost 100 per cent of situations? It’s easier for many not to take on convention and consequently reveal the depths of dormant patriarchy among their nearest and dearest. Then it’s easier still to say: “It’s just easier.”

The stories I have heard of a backlash towards some women who kept their names were jaw-dropping. More women than you would think have confronted extremely angry reactions, with people telling them it is “illegal”, “unethical” and “selfish” not to change their names. Others just ignore the woman’s wishes and address her as Mrs He.

It’s the mindless default setting, the convenient and flimsy excuses, the extreme defensiveness and the lack of rationality that’s the worry. The personal is political. Surnames don’t need to be uniform. Our society can cope with an equal mix of families with the male surname, the female’s, both, hyphenated (both mother’s and father’s surnames first), male kids get one surname, female kids get the other and new family names. Bureaucracy can cope, but can you?

My theory? Many women want the same name as their children. They know their husband won’t change or they don’t want him to change (in fear of his being branded henpecked and/or she as a femonazi), and they are certain that he won’t accept the children having her surname or hyphenating. So change it is. And everything stays the same.

Go Back

Why do most women change their surnames when they get married?

Insecure or conservative or stupid women are bowing to the wishes of their husbands.
WHO the hell is Jana Rawlinson? Jana Wendt I know, Jana Pittman I know, but Jana Rawlinson? So I check out the snap. It looks exactly like Jana Pittman. But her name is Jana Rawlinson. How bizarre. That has to be some crazy coincidence. A woman called Jana with a different surname who looks exactly like Jana Pittman. And, get this, she’s a hurdler too. Freaky.

(I wrote this in 2007. Jana has since divorced and changed her name back to Pittman)

Oh, I get it. She has put a few noses out of joint in the past so she’s keen on a bit of incognito action. You’d think she’d change her first name too. Then it dawned on me. She has got married, bizarre enough in itself these days, and changed her last name to her husband’s. What an anachronism. Maybe she changed her name to go with the chastity belt, the crinolines and the stick “no thicker than his thumb” that her husband is allowed to beat her with.

Wake up! We are in 2007. Women are no longer owned by their father and then their husband. So why are some women still changing their surnames? And why do some men still want them to? It’s sad, it’s misogynous, it’s archaic, it’s insecure and it’s unnecessary.

Why would you do something so drastic simply because you decided to delude yourself it was easier? Because you are deeply insecure, deeply conservative or deeply stupid. And in deep denial.

I ask women why they change their last name. They tell me “it’s just easier”. It’s not. How easy is it changing the name on everything from your driver’s licence to your library card? It’s not. Many of the families I know have up to three different surnames and have no problem at all.

If people really believe that mum, dad and the kids having the same surname is easier, why doesn’t the guy change his name? Why don’t they flip a coin and it’s heads we go for her surname and tails we go for his? Because it is not about it being easier. It makes me despair. We’ve come all this way and we’re still here.

Many women will say that their husbands wanted them to change their surname. So they did. Here’s a flash for you sister: if you do everything that your husband wants you to do, you may find yourself teetering round in a pair of stilettos and an apron all day saying, “Shall I fix some more food for you and the boys?”, or wearing a burqa.

Thanks to feminism, women should be allowed and encouraged to do anything they want. But the question I ask is why do some women still want to change their surnames? READ PART TWO. And then read about Why Children Almost Always Have Their Father’s Surname.

 

Go Back

Why do most children still end up with their father’s surname?

Why do (don’t go there) most children(don’t go there) still end up with (don’t go there, don’t go there, don’t go there!) their father’s surname?

(Me on WTF do women change their names when they marry and why marriage is bullshit)

Let’s first acknowledge the existence of and look past the invisible electric fences, rumble strips of social convention and cattle prods of ”please don’t question our convenient answers because behind them is a scary place we don’t want to see”, and ask why, in 2010, most children in Australia (it’s impossible to find the figures but let’s have a conservative stab and say 95 per cent) are still given their father’s surname?

I asked women who never even considered changing their own surnames, but whose children ended up with the father’s surname, with little or no discussion in 95 per cent of cases.

Answer: ”It’s just traditional.”

”But you’re not married/re-married/work full-time/are assertive. That’s not traditional.”

Answer: ”It’s convention.”

”But you’ve kept your own name. That’s not conventional.”

Answer: ”It would upset his parents.”

”What kind of people would be upset by their adult offspring and partner making an informed choice to promote equality, or just because they wanted to? How healthy is it to conform to someone else’s medieval preferences and not do what you want?”

Answer: ”I didn’t really care.”

”Why? You cared deeply about the colour of the napkins at the wedding, the colour you painted the house and keeping your own name. Why didn’t you care about this?”

Answer: ”We didn’t even have the discussion.”

”Why not?”

Answer: ”We had the discussion.”

”So that’s enough? How deep did the discussion actually go?”

Answer: ”Neither of us really cared.”

Well, why, at the very least, didn’t 50 per cent of the kids whose parents said ”neither of us cared” end up with the maternal surname, a hyphenated one or a hybrid? Not 95 per cent paternal.

Answer: ”I hate hyphenated and hybrids.”

”Well, what about the maternal?”

Answer: ”Both of us were adamant we wanted the baby to have our surname. But in the end (INSERT EASILY DISMANTLED REASON HERE) we used his surname.”

Here’s one I heard: the deal was the children got his surname but had to barrack for her football team. And can I ask those fathers who ”didn’t care either way” why they got their way in the end? Occasionally women say: ”My partner is very conservative.” Really? Not according to the porn history on his laptop. Or better still, without even realising, they said: ”I didn’t want to have the argument.” There. Stop there. You just said it. You knew there’d be an argument. Why didn’t you want to have that one? The surname is extremely important – hence the prevalence of the father’s surname in our society.

But the real issue is the denial, the self-delusion, the mutually accepted ”don’t go there” zones that inform the decision and the reluctance to rationally discuss it in depth. Discuss what we are still getting out of this primitive decision – the paternal surname providing proof, or illusion, of paternity and the hope of protection for our progeny and the genes we are hitching our wagon to?

Why are so many people still clinging to this convention in this day and age of divorce and DNA? A convention that insidiously reinforces power, control and ownership.

It’s a patriarchal minefield we deny even exists. Despite so much social change, this is a rusty nut that will not budge. And don’t be fooled by being fobbed off with ”it’s not important”. It is. Wait for the feedback from this column. Readers will doubtless attempt to undermine the importance of the issue, then me personally. They’ll announce their ”special circumstances”. Declare that it ended up going paternal because his name sounded better, his family name was dying out, it was important to his family, my surname is in the middle, etc.

They’ll offer examples of how other people are doing something else. But not them.

 

 

 

 

Go Back

Interview with Lip Magazine about The Feminist Supremacy

Catherine Deveny -author, writer for the ABC’s The Drum, a former columnist for The Age, social commentator, and stand up comedian – is a woman with a lot of things to say.

lip_magazine

She was in Sydney recently for the Sydney Writer’s Festival, where she appeared with Tara Moss, Emily Maguire, Kathy Lette and Julia Baird on a panel to discuss perceptions and ideals surrounding contemporary feminism. Deveny is perfect for such discussion,as evident by her creation of ‘No Chicks, No Excuses’, a website she launched with Leslie Cannold and Jane Caro after they were concerned about the lack of female representation in public arenas. The website was designed to allow people to find intelligent, articulate women to speak at events.

READ MORE

Go Back