FBI Reality Barbie

I was watching The Amazing Race the other night, in all probability because my brain was enduring some type of psychosis that meant it couldn't unearth the remote to flick the channel to something more appealing, like 'mute' or 'off'.

One of the teams in the latest series of this fast-paced global backpacking reality game show are a pair of female FBI agents, that look and sound a lot like FBI barbie would if she were involved in law enforcement and crime prevention and could bend her fingers to clasp a glock.

While this pair behave like they have the IQ of a plastic doll - harsh, but true - I figure they must have some manner of skill or attribute working in their favour or the Bureau wouldn't have hired them. Of course, there is always affirmative action, the technique some women rely on to get to where they want to be in life. Winning on merit is, like, so passe.

In this particular episode, all teams were required to erect a fairly complicated and problematic tent structure thing, replete with approximately 80,000 tent poles and throw cushions (seriously), under the direction of a slew of completely incomprehensible instructions. It is my understanding that the more complex a task, the simpler the instruction booklet should read.  However, that's called common sense, which really has no place in the world of instruction manuals.

The all-female FBI pair floundered in their task, not because they couldn't work as a team, but because they "didn't have a male on their team who knows about tents". The words of a couple of FBI agents, not mine.  Which begs the question: when Australia allows women on the frontline - presumably when they have passed the exact same standard of tests as men to earn their place - are they just going to whinge and complain when they don't have a man around to cock their gun for them, because, you know, men know about these things?

Of course there are women in the defence forces who are capable of taking on the same amount of physical strain as the men, but they are few and far between, and they are the ones who just get on with the job without needing to qualify their effort with a gender disclaimer.

What I don't have time for is the garbage I hear from feminists; demanding equality on the one hand, yet special dispensation on the other.  I really can't stand it.  And they constantly bleat about how unfair it is that women are not allowed to do certain jobs, yet they use their gender as an excuse when they fail in the task.  I'm sorry, but I call it as I see it, and this sort of crap just pisses me off.

Personal Responsibility. Take some

So, I hear it's National Cyber Security Awareness Week, where the Federal Government pretends to have a clue about cybersecurity risk and who the hell they are trying to target as predators.  I'm sure the eCriminals are shaking in their boots. 

The Government are offering terrific tips too, like stop sending your banking passwords or personal information to strangers.  Seriously, those people probably deserve to have their identity stolen and sold for a cheap pack of cigarettes in Eastern Europe. 

Speaking of upseting the iApplecart, the new iPhone technology sure is crim friendly.  Gone are the days when burglars or stalkers had to go to extremes to seek out their target; rifling through their garbage, peeping through their curtains in the middle of the night, and following them around a Coles supermarket before creating a chance meeting with their prey in the frozen food aisle and coincidently having identical items in their basket.  Oh-my-god, we are soul mates!  

I imagine this is how the pre-iPhone stalker worked.  One has to admire the devotion that stalkers put into their art back in the day, assuming a commitment and dedication to their subject that lifecoaches and personal trainers could only dream of. 

I think I'm far too apathetic about life in general to get that interested in anything.  Last year it took me a couple of months to get excited about planning an overseas holiday, like it was some sort of university essay I just didn't want to begin.

I've started to notice on my Facebook news feed that people are advising me where they are and who they're with, generally from they time the awake until ... well, it doesn't stop really.  This relatively new stalker-burglar friendly application is courtesy of Apple technologies.  Thanks a bunch, Apple.

When it comes to technology, I think I reside somewhere in the 1990s.  I still use a Video Cassette Recorder on occasions, and will continue to do so until it decides to stop working.  So with this track record, I will probably purchase an iPhone or its equivalent sometime in August 2020.  But I sure as shit won't be telling anyone where I am and what time I'm there.        

It all seems fairly harmless I suppose, but where does it sit legally when the technology is inevitably abused?  As it already has been.  You can probably put my reluctance to engage with these types of applications down to paranoia, but how many of your Facebook friends meet the following description?  Attractive, above average IQ, generally well liked, performed well in school, bullied as a child, fairly shy, often socially awkward, had their heart broken, signs of depression? 

Yeah, well that pretty much sums up Ted Bundy too; a sadistic sociopath, as it turns out, who murdered more than 30 young women in the United States in the 1970s.  Now it's highly unlikely there is a serial killer on your friends list, given they are extremely rare and there are only about 100 active ones working in the United States at the moment.  Wait a minute; 100 is quite a lot, right?  So my question is this - why do people make it so easy for people who wish to do them harm?

We all have to take a bit of bloody responsibility for our own safety and welfare, but some people think that's just too much trouble on their part.  Take the dubiously named Slutwalk in Toronto, Canada, which took place this weekend.  As far as I can tell, the march involves women dressing up in slutty clothes to march in protest against a statement that was given by a Toronto Police representative in January this year, saying “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. 

Sounds like a timely message from the authorities to me.  So why are these women trying to make a big statement to the rest of society that they should be able to wear anything they want and still stay safe on the streets? 

Well, this is just one of those issues that feminists like to hijack, by labelling any call for them to engage in a bit of common sense as victimisation.  The protesters seem to be angry at the police and the court system and society in general, but we really shouldn't be the target market for their protest - they are preaching to the converted. 

Yes, we all agree, women should be able to walk down the street in a bikini without being harassed, but that's not friggin' realistic, is it?  Rapists don't care for human rights or sexual harassment claims or feminism or your feelings.  I imagine they wouldn't be raping women if they did. 

Rape is a problem in society, but it's not society's fault, in that it's not caused by class or marginalisation.  Despite their issues or background, all rapists have a choice about their own behaviour and they choose to rape.  And if you're wearing a short skirt, they will likely choose you over someone who is not in a short skirt.  Yes it's wrong that they target you, but it's REALITY.  Good luck trying to make them more sensitive to your rights as a woman.

The argument that we all should take some responsiblity for our actions, and use a bit of common sense, is not saying we're asking for it if we neglect to take personal responsiblity.  Far from it.  But considering what law enforcement agencies, the legal system and forensic psychiatrists know about rapists, the Slutwalk approach seems nonsensical, irresponsible and downright dangerous. 

The whole idea pushed by feminists that police are appealing to women for any reason other than their welfare is so ridiculous, but I would expect nothing less from feminists, who seem to care more about progressing the feminist movement than womens safety.

Taking a bit of responsibility by not wearing a slutty short skirt down a dark alley in a dodgy area of town is a smart, necessary message, and should not be used as an avenue for feminists to get on their soapbox and bang-on about women's right. 

Rapists don't care about women's rights, so giving young girls the message that they should be able to dress like this and shirk all personal responsibility defies logic.  Common sense is the key; dressing up as a hooker to make a point is counterproductive and just bizarre.

Media should name names

The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) says that it is 'more than just a university'.  Oh, ain't that the truth.  That's ADFA as in the Defence military kindergarten, not the Australian Dried Fruits Association.  But I'm sure they'd understand if you got the two confused.

The Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are really good at defending us; which is useful, because my only expectation of them is to ensure we don’t turn into a country that is anyway different to how it is now. I want them to fight wars in foreign lands, rather than wait until the enemy rocks up here. I want them to stop the bad people among the legitimate refugees from traipsing illegally onto our shores from god knows where, and I want them to kick the arse of any terrorist who plans to obliterate us from the inside. And as far as defending all things Australian, I think they are doing a tops job.

I am very comfortable and confident that the ADF know how to handle any shituation that involves war, intelligence, national security, machine guns, bad people and other defence type matters. That said, I have no confidence whatsoever that they can handle incidents involving women.

The latest Defence scandal involves an 18-year-old student at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA).  The girl, known as Kate, went to the media after the Defence head honchos allegedly ignored her complaint that she had unknowlingly been filmed with a webcam while having sex with another student, while another six male students watched in another room.  Yes, Kate broke the rules by fraternising with the opposite sex, which is banned at the academy.  But that's not the key issue.

How naïve of the Defence heads to believe that dismissing this complaint would be the end of the matter.  What the hell is wrong with these men?  They need to stick to playing with their guns and tanks and not involve themselves in negotiations with any members of the opposite sex, ever.  Because it always seems to turn out badly.  And now a former naval officer has come out, claiming she was raped in her sleep by a fellow officer, and I hope many more people come forward, as difficult as that may be for them.  The ADF has had this coming for a very long time. 

And then we have the media.  Whenever something controversial is going on, particularly when it involves a government department, you can bet your bottom dollar that a journalist will be censored by their news organisation if they upset the applecart. In this case, the requirement is to not upset the highest echelons of the Defence Department, in fear of losing key contacts, and thus the journalist will end up covering trade fairs and dog shows, rather than getting any big scoops from key sources inside the government.

So the while the media whinge endlessly about their impartiality, and how it’s their sole purpose to expose the truth and keep the public informed, in reality, it’s a lot muddier than that. The media and government exist in a complex symbiotic relationship. It’s a two-way mechanism – needing each other, but also needing to keep the other at arm's length. You think it’s just as simple as writing a story and exposing the truth? Get real. We only get a sanitised version of the truth; a version that generally won’t result in any of the top brass going out to pasture on a controversial note.

But doesn’t the public have a right to know who's raping women in the armed forces? Sure we do, but we aren’t going to get the whole truth. The media always claim they protect the identities of bad people because of defamation laws, but I want to know why, even after court proceedings, the media does not, or is not allowed to, name names? Isn’t this hypocritical, given they claim their role is to inform the public?

And I think it would be pretty easy to identify who put it on Skype.  Surely the public is entitled to demand that the media expose the truth.  Expose the jackass who raped (it might be under ACT law) Kate, the others who watched on Skype, and the top brass, and/or government members who decided to cover it up.

Protect the source (Kate), but expose the predators. I don't want the identity of these men protected. I want their faces on the front of all national newspapers, so they can deal with the fallout. Surely the Defence Department would think again about their leniency in cracking down on rapists if there was even the possibility that the faces of these dropkicks would go viral.

Any excuse that is rolled out in defence of protecting their identity is based on an outcome I'd be happy to see - like they won't get work anywhere (cry me a river), or they'll be rejected by women (sounds like a community service to me), or the top brass have had a honourable career (they did, until now).  I don't care what happens to these people, I just want them exposed for who they are.  I really, really would like to see them exposed for who they are.

And let's be clear; the media do not give a stuff about protecting identities of people like Kate; all they care about is ratings and circulation figures, and you only get these through big stories, which you only get by retaining the rapport with the higher echelons in government departments and other business and industry leaders. They sure as shit do not care about protecting society, specifically ADFA women, from men who rape.

These ADFA guys are a small bunch of really rotten eggs among the good eggs in the defence forces. I think we should ship the rotten ones off to the hot spots right now - no training, no guns, no armour, no chance in hell of getting out of there. Perhaps the Defence Department needs a female Pal Sec to act as Defence Women's Relations Liaison, or something to that effect. We could get an outrageously annoying feminist in the role and watch the boys squirm.  Germaine 'name and shame rapists' Greer comes immediately to mind for some reason.  No-one can emasculate quite like Germaine.

Oprah's Aussie Adventure

Who can forget Oprah’s whirlwind Tour of Duty of Australia in early December 2010, to film episodes for her final season on air (until she comes back on air). The media went stir-crazy, and celebs went to great lengths to be seen with the talkshow queen, like abseiling like a lunatic into her show and smashing their head on sound equipment. The Australian Tourism Board members followed her around, wagging their tails, wetting their lips and drooling and slobbering like bloodhounds.

Oprah visited Queensland, when it was dry and sunny, and the Red Centre, when it was hot and yuck; and her ‘Ultimate Viewers’, flown in from all around the U.S., flew to various capital cities, one of which was Tasmania. Are we trying to get tourists to come here or avoid coming here? Her shows were filmed near Sydney Opera House to the adoration of thousands, who clamoured over each other to get tickets in a bid to nab some pearl bling from one of Oprah’s eight million sponsors.

I can’t say I know much about Oprah. I know that she possesses the same amount of ignorance about international political affairs as most left wing celebrities (are there any other kind), which means supporting the status quo, thinking organisations like the United Nations are relevant, adoring Barack Obama, and hating George Bush.

And I know that she deplores racism, but often it seems that she is the only one talking about it, blaming white people for this and that, and being generally divisive, such is the wont of many black celebrities; like Tyra Banks (“white girls don’t understand anything!”), and Rev. Al Sharp (“white people are stupid!”). Racist much?

When they criticise white people it’s okay, but white people are never, ever allowed to criticise them. They’re like feminists. Feminists verbally attack men whenever they feel like it, but men are never, ever allowed to question women, or they’ll be ripped apart by idiots like Naomi Wolf.

Um, moving right along. I think I would very much like to cruise in O's shoes for a while. I watched her first Australian episode the other night and she convinced me that I need to see Australia. In her first hour on Hamilton Island, she patted a koala. And the next few hours were filled with flying in a chopper over the Great Barrier Reef, landing on the delectable sands of Whitehaven Beach for an evening BBQ cooked by Curtis Stone and seafood presented on platters by male models in their underpants, and being serenaded by the ten tenors.

In contrast, my first hour in Oprah's country was spent waiting in an immigration queue, the second hour was spent waiting for the hotel mini-van, and I got into my hotel room a good six hours after landing on U.S. soil, and then collapsed from sleep-deprivation, hunger and sheer exhaustion.