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 like, you know

oc1.jpg
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.

look, we’re on the internet!

It’s odd to see bits of my world on the internet. If you go here you can see a building that I pass every week as I ride into town to go dancing. And that’s about the time of day I ride past (with allowances for seasonal variation of course).
The bit that’s strange though, is that I don’t often see the building from that angle – mostly as I’m barelling past trying not to die on the roundabout of death.

where’s the good goddamn chocolate? WHERE?

I take time out to focus my eyes.
I’m having trouble staying focussed on these nasty chapter rewrites. I certainly can’t divide the text up into individual words any more – it’s just one blob of known-by-heart text now, and I can no longer (if I ever could) tell what’s crap and what’s not. I am relying entirely on the Supes’ scribbledy comments, praying she knows what she’s doing. The bits where she says ‘rewrite this’ or ‘need to make this clearer’ almost make me cry. Creative work is kind of beyond me right now. I’m not even sure I know what the thesis is about any more, let alone what each chapter is about.
I am definitely No Good at introductions. Each one has been so scribbled over it looks like a nest of black jellyfish squabbling over fountain pen. I just suck at this part. I’m still not entirely sure about what I should actually be doing. Because I’m just following directions now (it seemed the best idea, especially after I was instructed to edit the same section at least 3 times, crossing back and forth over the same lines, editing, reverting, editing and reverting again), I’m not actually learning anything. I do feel a bit like a real dummy.
But it’s not a sad thing – it’s kind of nice to just stop thinking (critically or otherwise) and just be told what to do. I think I want one of those menial jobs where you do repetitive tasks over and over again. Maybe I should work at McDonalds, or do a *deleted* dance class.
I’m not sure if I should be making things shorter and crisper, or longer and artier. I’m pretty sure some parts were to be longer and artier, but some parts which I had made artier are now to be reverted to crisper forms. Sigh.
And why is it that I only seem to know about 20 words, now? Surely there are more words out there in the english language?
Look, I’ll just go back to Doing As I’m Told for now, then when I’ve finished each individual chapter’s overall edit, I’ll go on and actually write (for about the zillionth time) The Introduction again (formerly Chapter One the literature review and The Introduction. And formerly-to-that Capter one: the Introduction). Can you feel my pain?
Frankly, I have no idea, at all, whatsoever, about what I’m doing, what I should do, and what counts as ‘good stuff’ or not.
Double sigh.
Where’s the good goddamn chocolate? WHERE? I’m not normally the sort of barbie who fusses over things like chocolate – you know the type. They have posters or tshirts that say things like ‘i love chocolate’. I like the stuff, but heck, there are other, more important things in my (gastronomic) life.
But right now, I just feel that it would be appropriate.