John Laws 1
So John Laws and other shock jocks, such as Jeremy Cordeux, are being investigated for doing deals with corporate interests in exchange for favourable comments on their products and services?
The general population may be vaguely reassured that this investigation will expose the inappropriate behaviour of these journalist/entertainers who collude with banks and other multi-national corporate interests.
What kind of slap in the face will Laws et al receive?
Quietly snuggled amongst the pages of the Weekend Australian (July 31) was an ad for a publicist position (no salary mentioned) with Foxtel, owned, of course, by Newscorp and Rupert Murdoch. The main task of this new position will be to promote a "flagship" program called Laws, aimed at "ensuring a positive representation of the Laws show, John Laws, AUSTAR and 2UE".
Sounds strangely like another reward for Laws in exchange for maintaining the integrity of the capitalist system, corporate interests and its media propaganda machine.
Murdoch and Co. must be literally laughing all the way to the bank while ordinary people are actually paying to watch these programs. It simply reinforces the absolute necessity of alternative independent media such as Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly.
Adelaide
@letterhead =John Laws 2
Nowadays, an "inquiry" usually represents a formal attempt at damage control by the corporate elites, those amoral and anti-social proponents of deregulation, privatisation, enforced competition and commercial secrecy.
Six inquiries into the John Laws case would suggest a temporary panic has set in, in case too many citizens start asking awkward questions about what's actually going on.
John Laws himself might be justified in feeling aggrieved, and even puzzled. It just happens he's been more successful than most within a culture where greed and sharp practice have acquired the status of religious virtues.
He might also be wondering whether our corporate masters, and their courtiers and spin doctors (including those in state and federal parliaments), might be prepared to offer him up as a sacrifice to safeguard their own survival.
Inverloch Vic
Jabiluka
When the World Heritage Committee decided against endangered status for Kakadu National Park, the Committee caved in to a well-orchestrated lobbying effort costing Australian taxpayers well in excess of $1 million. The beneficiary of this lobbying?: Energy Resources of Australia.
In late 1998 the World Heritage Inspection Team visited Kakadu and after extensive surveying determined that uranium mining appeared incompatible with preserving the heritage values inherent to declaring Kakadu protected under the World Heritage scheme.
The government's response completely ignores the reality that uranium from Ranger and Jabiluka will end up as nuclear waste. There is no known method of safely containing nuclear waste for the its half-life of tens of thousands of years.
The government is silent on the fact that a significant quantity of depleted uranium fuel becomes weaponry, such as bullets and armour for tanks.
The government predicates much of its case upon its allegedly excellent record in protecting World Heritage Areas within Australia, and cites numerous national laws existing to protect these Areas. Laws, where they exist, can only work if the government dedicates itself to enforcement, which apparently is not the case today.
Within Australia's national law, the World Heritage Protection Act, mining is an activity expressly discouraged within World Heritage Areas. To evade this, Australia has conveniently excised Ranger and Jabiluka sites from the actual World Heritage Area.
The World Heritage Commission has reneged on its duty to protect the world's population from the risks inherent in all phases of the nuclear industry by permitting the mining of uranium to continue in an area surrounded by a World Heritage Area as unique as Kakadu.
Coorabell NSW
[Abridged.]
Men's space 1
Our society has unhealthy (sexist) gender roles for both women and men. The feminist movement gives women a place in which to fight the unhealthy gender roles they have grown up with. Men may not suffer from systematic undermining of self-confidence, but they have no place to come together to challenge their social conditioning and find better (non-sexist) gender roles for themselves.
You [a Resistance magazine article in GLW #369] say men's emotional problems are a "result of their socialisation as the oppressor sex", and that the only way to cure this is by "eliminating sexism from society".
I say eliminating sexism requires re-socialisation of men. They need to learn to think about themselves, and relate to others in new and healthier ways. How? Come together and talk about what it means to be men.
Men's groups provide an opportunity for men to find better gender roles, get to know themselves and feel supported in their fight against sexism — crucial steps towards removing sexism from our society.
Lower Mitcham SA
Men's space 2
You [Resistance magazine article in GLW #369] write: "Far from denying 'masculine energy', our society glorifies it".
I was taught that being masculine meant being like the bullies at school, or the man who beats his wife, or a rough Aussie bloke who likes beer and football and votes for the Liberal party. This is the "masculine energy" our society glorifies.
Do you think Erik Vigo was referring to the same masculine energy? I suspect he was talking about something more refined and healthy.
You write: "Men do not suffer this systematic lack of confidence to fight for change". What makes you think that? I feel that sexism is constantly undermining my confidence to fight for change and last time I looked I was a man.
How will campaigning against sexism change anything if we do not offer men any alternative? How will men's "socialisation as the oppressor sex" be changed if not by groups of men talking things through?
Lower Mitcham SA
Men's space 3
Some advocates of men-only space or groups, including the writers of two letters in GLW #370, seem genuine in their desire to end sexism. Their strategy, however, achieves the opposite.
Robin Davidson argues that men need to deal "with our feelings about oppression", "acknowledge ... these feelings [of guilt, anger, etc.] if we are to be effective activists in the struggle against sexism".
This perspective falsely implies that women's oppression is caused by individual men not acknowledging their feelings. But women's oppression is inflicted systemically — through government policies, religious doctrines and "laws", corporations, military dictatorships, the education system, the family, etc. Acknowledging our feelings won't provide free child-care, free access to abortion, or any other demand of the women's liberation movement.
Secondly, even if acknowledging our feelings about sexism was necessary for men to be allies of feminists, surely women should not be excluded from this process. Banning women from discussions around sexism is akin to banning black people from discussions about racism, or gays and lesbians from discussions about homophobia.
Davidson argues that if men-only meetings are not organised "they will happen anyway, informally, as men naturally seek out other men to share their feelings about sexism with". But there is nothing "natural" about men seeking out other men (to the exclusion of women) to share their feelings with. This is a result of (sexist) gender socialisation.
Stevie Bee writes that whether or not men's spaces are anti-feminist depends on the intention of those involved. But one intention is, by definition, very clear — to exclude women, and that is exactly what this sexist society has always done to women.
Excluding the oppressed gender does not, as Bee argues, help break down the imbalance between the genders. To apply his logic consistently, Bee would also have to advocate white-only consciousness raising groups, capitalist chat clubs and heterosexual-only space. These might exist (e.g., the KKK, business councils and most social spaces), but they are most certainly not advocated by progressive people.
Rather than indulging in exercises to "come to terms" with their sexism, progressive men should devote their energies to fighting the systemic causes of women's oppression, by actively campaigning in defence of women's rights in every arena and uniting in political action with feminists to strengthen the movement for women's liberation.
Parramatta NSW
[Abridged.]
When are we going to face reality? There aren't going to be enough jobs for the foreseeable future. And, leaving aside environmental repair tasks, the more work that is done, the more the environment is damaged.
Given these facts, why don't we make life without work a more attractive option? What we need is to break work — not welfare — dependency.
We need to both increase the incomes available to those without work and to educate people on how to use their free time creatively and productively. Then unemployment could produce less poverty, depression and ill health, and more social — and hopefully socialist — activity.
Certainly, the government should be vigorously generating more environmentally sensitive paid jobs for those who seek them, but the mind-set that you can't be — or don't deserve to be — happy without a job has to go. It is a tragedy that as we enter the 21st century this 19th century ideology is being furiously pedalled by Labor's back-to-the-future man Mark Latham.
Rydalmere NSW