I’ve recently seen Over the Hedge and Cars (did I mention my nieces are 11 and 7?). So I have things to report. But not right now. I’m a bit tired.
But you might want to go have a look here to read the Over the Hedge comic (from which the film was developed).
Super Size Me convinced me never to eat McDeath or other scary junk food ever again. OTH did a similar job. While it was a refreshingly child-centred film, the Message was decidedly anti-junk food and anti-television/sloth… not to mention anti-suburban development. It’s not a pixar-type multimodal/polyvocal text. OTH is a children’s film. But it was ideologically heavy in a very hippy-friendly way (well, perhaps without the ‘violence’).
Cars, on the other hand, was uncomfortable viewing for me. Very ‘go-cars!’, ‘drive one – now!’, ‘use fossil fuels – today!’. It didn’t sit well with me, and is my least favourite pixar effort to date. It looked great (but they all do, right?), but I just had this odd discomfort with the whole car/petrol/nostalgia thing. I’m not sure I want to revisit the 50s, where people drove just for the pleasure of driving (rather than getting places). Though I do dig neon.
It might have been my cold talking, but I also found it really really loud.
Author Archives: dogpossum
Raunchy Business: Hot Nuts & Lollypops (various)
Raunchy Business: Hot Nuts & Lollypops

I could perhaps be over the saucy comedic lyric. But not just yet.
Don’t You Feel My Leg: Apollo’s Lady Blues Singers (various)
fate consipres against me. again.
So you guys all know that I’m in the middle of some serious last-round thesis editing, right?
The supes is back in about two weeks, I have a conclusion to (re)write, an introduction to (re)write, etc etc?
Well, this weekend past, we decided to pop down to Tasmania to see my ps and coincide with a visit from my nieces to my parents. That was all cool. Except for the bit where I do as normal and get sick. We did no walking, I sat on the sidelines like a nanna at a dance in Tasmania, I piked on a bunch of social engagements, and the only parts of the beautiful Hobart I saw after Saturday was through the parent’s lounge room windows (which is actually quite a lot, really).
RIght now I’m trying desperately to understand the written word (and to produce it too), and it’s not really working. I’ve been full of goob since Friday, though at least I’ve not napped all day today (as I did yesterday and the day before – hell, I even fell asleep during Angel the day before).
I thought I might do some work.
But I’m finding it really difficult to hold thoughts together. Reading is easy – it’s the comprehension that’s getting me. And I don’t think it’s such a great idea to try to edit/rewrite in this state.
Yeah, so that sucks, seeing as how I have the rest of this week (today, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) plus next week to do these little jobs, but we have this big dance thing on this weekend, which I think I’ll actually skip. I’m not particularly interested in the Evil Empire’s third (or is it fourth?) ‘national competition’ weekend. Particularly not when they can’t seem to run even one social dancing weekend. But we will have a lovely houseguest, which will be nice, possibly two. Then my parents will be down next week.
So yeah, thesis work?
Why is it that on the one fortnight when I really want to work my guts out, before the semester begins and teaching with it, when I really want to get this motherfucking* thesis out of the way, fate consipres against me?
Should I panic? Perhaps. But I can’t really manage to work up the energy. Plus it’s hard to breathe, and it’s not worth panicking if you’re not going to wail while you’re gnashing your teeth. Well, I could manage some wheezing (what with the lovely congested chest/sinus thing**) and a bit of moaning…
Yeah, so, ok, I think I’m going back to bed. Pick up some veggies and milk for our empty fridge on your way home, will you?
*sorry about that cuss.
**packed sinuses and blocked ears on a plane: interesting. Not as painful as I’d thought. But to feel the pressure inside my head shifting and popping and oozing was kind of unsettling.
big brother ‘scandal’: preliminary thoughts
We’ve just seen a short statement by the Big Brother people on channel 10 re the ‘events of the weekend’. Apparently, one man held a woman down while another rubbed his groin in her face. While the woman didn’t want to press charges, the two men were removed from the house because their actions breached the program’s rules.
The opinion in online news is that this was a case of sexual harassment.
Here’s what the Big Brother site had to say:
For legal reasons we were not able to provide you with coverage of the events following John and Ash’s removal from the House on the weekend as they happened. For the sake of clarity here is a summary of the events that followed their departure.
On Saturday night, John and Ashley were removed from the House following an incident that breached one of Big Brother’s most fundamental rules. John and Ashley left via the Diary Room unbeknownst to the other HMs who thought they had been called to the Diary Room for a standard visit.
While the surprise performance by the Rogue Traders in the garden initially distracted the HMs from the whereabouts of Ashley and John, eventually some time later they started wondering what had happened to the boys. The HMs were then called to the Diary Room where BB told them: “Last night’s incident was very serious. Camilla did not request nor want any action taken by Big Brother, however Big Brother had no option but to act and remove the two Housemates.”
The HMs were shocked at the news and several of them reacted tearfully. Camilla, who was involved in the incident, sobbed: “I feel so bad, I’m sorry.” But both BB and the HMs assured her that she had nothing to be sorry about.
Following BB’s announcement, discussion of the incident wasn’t broadcast on the live web streams or covered in the BB Diary for legal reasons. However, Camilla did speak to her HMs about the events of the previous night.
“It wasn’t the right thing to do and even though Ash meant it as a joke, it wasn’t good behaviour,” she told the group. But she added that she has no hard feelings towards the boys whatsoever. “There was no malice intended, they were doing it in a playful way and when I said very specifically to John: ‘Don’t. No,’ he didn’t do it.”
On Sunday Camilla was interviewed by the Queensland Police and she told them she didn’t wish to take the issue any further. It is no longer a police matter.
Despite the upsets of the last 48 hours, the HMs are moving on from the incident and vowing to continue enjoying their time in the House.
It’s interesting stuff because the two men, interviewed by Gretel a few minutes ago, obviously felt that they’d simply been involved in a joke that went too far. One of them said “we read [Camilla] wrong”. Camilla has been filmed saying that she felt that it was just a joke.
I missed all the media coverage over the weekend, what with my lying on the couch at the parent’s place in Tasmania, asleep. But there’ve been a few different comments, from an ALP member suggesting that the BB producers should donate their earnings from the weekend’s coverage to charity, to the PM calling for the axing of the show .
I don’t know much about the incident, but from what I’ve seen…
As someone who grew up in a society where that sort of behaviour was not only common but expected of young men, on the one hand I’m delighted to see the BB program calling attention to this sort of behaviour, suggesting that it’s simply not appropriate and will not be tolerated. And more importantly, doing this on a massively popular television program… On the other hand, I’m interested in how each of the three people may really have just considered it a joke that might have been in poor taste – they’re an example of how this sort of behaviour is so normalised in Australian culture.
It’s interesting stuff. Personally, I don’t think it’s appropriate. And I think it’s interesting the way this program, set up as ‘just filming ordinary people doing ordinary things’ has filmed this sort of behaviour and taken a clear stance on it as sexual harassment. On the other hand, I have a feeling that our Fearless Leader has read the behaviour as an example of how BB is ‘peddling pornographic/immature/stupid smut or silliness’. Simply ‘boys will be boys’.
I really want to hear some feminist comments on this – I’d like to think it’s an important opportunity for a public discussion on how patriarchy is complicated – how sexism or chauvinism or perhaps ‘gender’ is so deeply entrenched in our culture that we – men and women – do feel ok about dismissing it as a joke.
As a woman who grew up in city, in a suburb, attending a school where far worse behaviour was an everyday part of life, I can imagine how the experience could have been regarded as nothing extraordinary. As a joke. I can also see how this might have constituted a bit of homosocial ‘slumber party’ titilation – a bit of play between the boys at the woman’s expense (where she became a vehicle for the men’s ‘flirting’ with each other).
But perhaps, more worryingly, I can imagine how she might have felt: Trying to play it cool, to behave in a way which the ‘viewers’ would value, so as to secure her place on the program/in the house. Trying to pay it cool so as to maintain her status with her fellow housemates. Perhaps trying to play it cool as a woman who has been very doubtful of her own sex-appeal, in the company of two conventionally attractive and popular men.
But a the same time, her own, less intellectual response might have been anything from a little erotic tension to that kind of deep-stomach panic, where you’re held down and can’t get away, by two men who are obviously interested in a little power-play, sexual play, and you simply can’t get free physically, or muster the words to persuade them to let you go.
I mean, what was she to do? What is she to do? Would she be voted off the show if she did take the matter further?
I really want to see what happens from here. I’m excited to think that the program has so clearly made the point that this is NOT appropriate behaviour. A point that is perhaps even more relevant to an audience which is dominated by young women.
And now I want to see how the response is handled. Will there be clearer discussions of sexual harassment in the media generally? On the program?
BB in itself encourages this sort of sexually charged behaviour, to attract viewers and sell advertising dollars. How will it now manage this aspect of its program?
And perhaps, even more interesting, why is it that I have such a problem with this aspect of sexual ‘play’, yet I haven’t previously found the more risque Late Night BB difficult? I think that it is because of the element of violence or coersion, the way this event emphasises the issues of power at work in sexual relationships, or more importantly, in sexualised ‘play’ or other social interaction.
The thought of a woman coerced in this setting upets me. Angers me.
But at the same time, I’m also worried by the way these men might have only been able to engage in homosocial/homosexual play via the coersion of a woman. That they could only secure their masculinity (their masculine/phallic power) in homosexual play by supplying a woman as the object/passive/victim/disempowered vehicle.
And of course, when you add the issue of voyeurism and exhibitionism at work in BB…
The issue of performances of masculinity and feminity is immediately more complex.
I am interested in other people’s comments. And I’ll have a bit more of a think and perhaps post again when I’ve managed to put together a more coherent, thought-out response.
Can I just add: that this woman is asked to comment on the issue, really, really makes me uncomfortable. Like I said, I’d like to read some feminist comment on this issue.
And what makes me REALLY FUCKING ANGRY is that The Age has posted pictures of the incident online (you’ll have to go look – I’m not hotlinking to that). Can they not understand how that might perhaps be even worse than the original event?
—EDIT—
You might also be interested in reading Galaxy’s post on Sarsaparilla.
i ain’t no retro-chic stooge
Telling Dave the story of my ride into town earlier that evening:
“So I was burning down Sydney Rd, and I overtook some stooge on a BMX who wasn’t wearing a helmet.”
“Yeah?”
“Yeah – I totally scorched him. Then a few metres later I’m slowing down past Royal Park to take off my jumper and he burns past me, spinning his tits off on his little one-speeder. Suddenly, ‘BAM!’ he busts a crank or something! And he has to pull over because his bike is busted”
“Cool.”
“Yeah – that’ll teach him to take me on with a little retro-chic on/off BMX.”
“Sure – so you’re telling me you pushed him to the point of destruction?”
“That’s what I’m saying.”
i can’t tame wild women…
In response to scott’s comment here, on the Whedon EqualityNow speech.
I was quite struck by Whedon’s comment about not only writing strong women characters but also writing male characters who thought they were the fushizzle. One the one hand – yay! – but on the other, I was reminded of some thoughts I’d had previously about the way some men/male characters are attracted to strong women/characters. They may love and adore them, but some are also attracted to the idea of controlling or weakening them (which reminds me of a Hot Club of Cowtown lyric: “I can’t tame wild women, but I can make tame women wild”). This seems to apply to people like Spike.
In the most recent Angel I’ve watched (Guise will be Guise) the fake swami makes a comment about how Angel needed to find a small blonde woman and trash her as a way of dealing with his anger/distress about being trashed by Darla when she found out he had a soul. Angel’s response was non-verbal, but he was obviously thinking ‘hm, he might be right’. That could just have been Angel piling on a little more guilt (he is guilt-meister), but it mightn’t…
Of course, the blonde in question was Buffy – and Angel made an effort to trash her in the last Angel episode where we saw her in L.A. (I Will Remember you). He might remember that visit fondly, as the one chance he had to be human with her, but she left only remembering his totally trashing her. He knows this, he’s packing guilt for it (as per usual), but… don’t mean he didn’t get some passive-aggressive payback pleasure re Darla/Buffy moving on with Reilly-ace-of-spies.
But of course – Angel has issues. That’s his job.
so why do you write these strong women characters…?
If there was any reason why you wouldn’t marry Joss Whedon, his Equalitynow speech will do away with it.
so like, you know

So I’ve watched the OC about 4 or maybe even 5 weeks in a row now.
I think I’m hooked.
It’s so completely ridiculous – the ‘teenagers’ speak like world-weary script writers, everyone’s either really rich or ‘living in a caravan’ and really rich. Even the ‘poorest’ characters wear clothes that are about 10 million times more expensive than mine. They all live by the sea, drive expensive cars and are ridiculously skinny.
I was a bit of a Dawson’s Creek fan, in that I wouldn’t turn it off it was on, but I wouldn’t tape it or seek it out. I was delighted in the last episode of Buffy that I watched (Out of my Mind to see Spike declare that Pacey was being an idiot because ‘she’ didn’t love him.
Poor old Pacey. I was sure he was a special needs character from the ads. But he …wasn’t?
Yeah, so I’m watching the OC. I forget about it as soon as the program finishes, though the ads kind of catch my interest.
It is so ridiculous. I have no idea what’s going on. But I have Opinions about the characters:
Marissa (the teeny sex queen one who’s on all the ads for shampoo and stuff):
Is a skinny dog who really annoys me. She needs to pin her hair back.
I’m not convinced that she’s actually an alcaholic.
Seth (the dark haired young fullah):
is obviously the one I’m supposed to dig because he likes manga and arty stuff and reading.
His minor lispy thing is meant to be hot.
I like him but he kind of annoys me. I can’t bring myself to be really impressed or to actually care.
Look, I’ve lost interest in this silly list.
Why are all the characters so young? Even the mums and dads are young, or trying desperately to look young. Yucky.
The only thing I really care about is that these kids seem to go to Buffy’s high school in Beverly Hills/Sunnydale. The same school that the film Loser was set in.
melbourne is obsessed
The adult population of Brunswick is somewhat subdued today. Last night’s finals match between Australia and Italy offered everyone in this part of Melbourne a team to barack for, whether you’re born in Australia, Italy, Greece or some other part of the soccer-playing universe.
In one of the most Italian cafes in Brunswick the owner wasn’t in, but there was a vigorous play-by-play discussion of the match carried on by the Irish and Scotts staff.
At Nino and Joes, there were only two butchers working, neither of whom was moving very quickly. There was no bantering.
And the mediterannean supermarket was deserted except for a few skips wandering vaguely up and down the isles, fondling all sorts of things but really only coming home with a dozen cans of diced tomatoes.
It’s the second week of the school holidays here, and the parks and streets and front yards in my neighbourhood are full of unsupervised gangs of kids playing complex variations on the regulation soccer match, adapted for concrete pitches and passing cars. It’s only 8 degrees, the wind is bitingly cold, but it seems appropriate.
I haven’t seen any of the soccer, but it’s everywhere. Melbourne is obsessed. And Brunswick is particularly so. Perhaps my favourite story is from the bus ride home the other day. The Italian bus driver (the one who steps down to welcome people onto the bus, or stops the bus to chat with passing friends) was busily engaged in a complicated discussion of the matches to date with a young skip alternakid and a tall and elegant African lady. After the tentative “who did you go for?” and “Australia of course” responses, they assessed the socceroos all the way to my stop.

