☆ IT'S MASCULINITY MATE
mark latham thinks we should all be "men" (what ever that is). his lecturing comes about because aparently releasing conga line of suckholes grants him authority to decide what masculinity is for australia (nay the world). it seems, in the latham rhetoric, that mates and good blokes are an endangered species. i say, so what? especially if you take head of the predictions of the gore effect sweeping the globe which warn of over a million species earmarked as "to be extinct" in the next 50 years. i say "blokes" is one species the planet could maybe do without.
ok enough of my hardline propaganderism. i don't really advocate the mass kulling of all hegemonic masculine men, but i hardly think that men as a category ar nothing but "nervous wrecks, metrosexual knobs and toss-bags". why is it that masculinity constantly needs to be cast in such a way. this alleged masculinity crisis 'making all our ol' boys nothing but bleeding poofters' (as someone i know said) is not a crisis at all. can't people see that bloke-like masculinity is only one way of identifying with 'being a man.' why do i need a white, middle-class, (ex-)ruling class wanker telling me how to be a man.
i'm also a little put of by some of the content in the book. for all the claim of mateship, in particular with joel fitzgibbon and julia gillard, latham details lots of talk about parliamentary tussling and power struggles, breaking of taxi-drivers' arms and watching pole dancers when a colleague committed suicide. is this the kind of behaviour latham attributes to being mates?
mind you it should also be noted that apparently latham has thrown mateship out the window; not responding to either pollie in recent times, in particular around this latest political slug-fest. fitzgibbon has "...tried to ring..." and "Gillard hasn't heard from Latham for months." for all his waffling about mateship, is he to be our role model?
ok enough of my hardline propaganderism. i don't really advocate the mass kulling of all hegemonic masculine men, but i hardly think that men as a category ar nothing but "nervous wrecks, metrosexual knobs and toss-bags". why is it that masculinity constantly needs to be cast in such a way. this alleged masculinity crisis 'making all our ol' boys nothing but bleeding poofters' (as someone i know said) is not a crisis at all. can't people see that bloke-like masculinity is only one way of identifying with 'being a man.' why do i need a white, middle-class, (ex-)ruling class wanker telling me how to be a man.
i'm also a little put of by some of the content in the book. for all the claim of mateship, in particular with joel fitzgibbon and julia gillard, latham details lots of talk about parliamentary tussling and power struggles, breaking of taxi-drivers' arms and watching pole dancers when a colleague committed suicide. is this the kind of behaviour latham attributes to being mates?
mind you it should also be noted that apparently latham has thrown mateship out the window; not responding to either pollie in recent times, in particular around this latest political slug-fest. fitzgibbon has "...tried to ring..." and "Gillard hasn't heard from Latham for months." for all his waffling about mateship, is he to be our role model?