Fabrication
Joyce Wu ("Labor Left in bed with the sex industry", GLW #456) states: "Lafayette claimed that feminism is merely a 'sectional' interest, rather than a 'universal concern'".
This statement is a fabrication and its continued circulation by Wu seems be motivated by spite rather than evidence. It is somewhat surprising that GLW did not seek to confirm the veracity of the claim prior to publication. I have always considered feminism to provide universal opportunities for analysis and practise and will continue to do so.
In an email to Wu's lecturer, the notorious anti-erotica campaigner associate Professor Sheila Jeffreys, on June 21 I announced that the conference, as the first of a series, was dedicated primarily to universal interests rather than the sectional interests based on identity politics.
It is an implausible leap of logic however to suggest, as Wu has, that somehow that this means that feminism is a sectional interest. Such a proposition would suggest that all women are feminists (we can only wish) and feminist analysis only applies to women's affairs. I would imagine that Wu doesn't believe either statement is true. Then why the lack of humility in accepting responsibility for such a damaging and untrue statement?
Lev Lafayette
North Fitzroy
Cops
Melanie Sjoberg (GLW #456) tells us cops aren't workers. Really? I'm sure that comes as a shock to most of them.
Yes, police are "an arm of the state". Of course they are. Would you rather a private police force? In the pay of someone other than a democractically elected government?
The statement that police "primarily protect corporate property and interests" is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. Most police work is actually concerned with the interests of Joe Average — dealing with theft, assaults, domestic disputes and the myriad of other difficult jobs that come with day-to-day police work. The amount of time they spend guarding anything "corporate" would be minuscule by comparison, and handled no differently than any other public duty they perform.
As someone who believes in democracy and protection for all by an impartial police force — I can't agree that they should have taken sides with the trade unions on the day. I don't want a police force that takes sides, I want one that upholds the law without fear or favour. If they should bow to one interest group, what is to stop them bowing to another — perhaps one that you don't agree with?
Yes, you get police in large numbers anywhere there's a crowd involved and a chance of trouble breaking out. Be that at union protests, sporting events or whatever. And to compare the actions of Australian police with those overseas is as unfair as comparing the actions of protesters here with those overseas.
I'm not a cop nor have I ever been one. But I do think police do a very tough job, for little reward. Yet we all are thankful for them when you hear someone breaking a window downstairs in the middle of the night.
Dominic Hughes
Leichhardt [Abridged]
Tony Abbott
Conservatives have rushed to defend Tony Abbott's latest comments about poverty on Four Corners. He spoke the truth, so what's the problem?, they argue.
In fact, some of Abbott's claims were false. Poverty involves a lack of income. Abbott's assertion that unemployment is the main cause of poverty is, therefore, nonsense.
If unemployed people were paid more than the poverty line, there would be no connection between unemployment and poverty.
Abbott was also wrong to say that people's expenditure habits cause poverty. If people spend heavily on alcohol or gambling they might not have a good life but, provided their initial income was high enough, they are not statistically poor.
There are facts and facts. Promoting Abbott's "facts" reduces community empathy with poor people.
We should constantly remind people of these facts — 13% of Australians live in households with less than half the average income for a household of their type (in some northern European countries, the corresponding figure is about 5%); there is one job vacancy for every 40 social security recipients (including age pensioners) and 27% of jobs are only part-time.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
Aston by-election
The author of the editorial "No one wins in Aston" (GLW #457), reflecting typical media commentary on female politicians, may too have been blinded by Democrats leader Natasha Stott Despoja's "sexy image" in attributing the party's improved vote to it. However, such a shallow, not to say misogynist "analysis", deserves correction.
Perhaps your editor's view of the world is shaped by scrutinising the daily media in an isolated environment, but the fact is that many people take little note of the minutiae of election campaigns as reported and highlighted by the media. Rather they cast their vote on an understanding of issues and political stances of parties and individuals gleaned over a longer period of time.
An improved vote for the Democrats was always on the cards following the leadership spill because (as not only did the media report at the time but, more powerfully, people rightly perceived) it was payback to Lees for her sycophantic GST sellout. Stott Despoja, as Democrat deputy leader, had opposed the hated GST on the floor of parliament. People tend to admire that sort of guts and principle.
As a supporter of the most effective progressive political force in Australia, the Greens, I don't gain any satisfaction from an improved Democrats vote in any election. But useful politics cannot be based on such a skewed and crude analysis of reality as displayed in GLW's editorial on the Aston by-election.
Rose McCann
Kogarah NSW
'Bullshit feminism'
I must take issue with Joyce Wu's comments equating Maureen Matthews with "bullshit feminism". I too was at that conference and yet heard very different messages from the speakers.
Torney was obviously there to speak solely about censorship and how it affects the availability of all varieties of both text and visual material — including ethnic minority publishing. Maureen Matthews agreed that there are enormous problems with the exploitation of women in industries dealing with sex but she did not believe that a "knee-jerk blanket ban" was the answer to those problems.
Indeed she made repeated efforts to honour the concerns of the women disrupting her talk and even suggested that the issues were so important that they deserved a conference of their own. Ms Wu's interpretation that Matthews proposes "that women can, and indeed must, fuck their way to social freedom and justice" is absolutely false.
As someone who has experienced sexual violence I am thankful that I was unable to see "the horrific picture of a woman being vaginally and anally raped" that Wu flashed around because I certainly did not consent to have that put in my face. Kudos to Matthews for instantly pointing out that it was an illegal image of an illegal act and nobody there was advocating the publishing of such material.
At that point the little troupe of anti-eroticists cut short the lively debate by leaving the conference.
A. Mattes
Fitzroy Vic
Globalisation
On May 12 the London Economist reported United Nations figures stating that between 1990 and 1998, the world's 49 poorest countries (minus Bangladesh) saw growth of real GDP per head of just 0.4% per year. Perhaps impressed by these figures, Treasurer Peter Costello assured us on July 26 that the effects of globalisation were "boosting the living standards of the world's poor."
Let's think what the figures really mean. If the world's poor are patient enough to wait for 200 years, their countries' real GDP per head will roughly double. Then instead of having $2 per day, the poor will have $4 per day.
Globalisation, anyone?
Renfrey Clarke
Whyalla