And to tantalise your comedy-buds, check out this exclusive PROMO VIDEO, starring me and SPECIAL GUEST STARS Jonah, Kaia and Layla Pobjie! It demonstrates just how many hats I wear as a comedian.
Now go and buy some goddamn tickets!
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Monday, March 11, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Let's Have It All
Remember when Freddie Mercury sang "I want it all"? It wasn't very good, was it? Killer Queen was a much better song. Luckily, though, Freddie Mercury wasn't a woman, or else he might have been "tying himself in knots" over the question of having it all, apparently, according to the Daily Telegraph which opened its interview piece with Julie Bishop with the assertion that this is what women do when considering the matter of all, re: having it.
OK, so first of all I am going to question the truth of this knot-tying claim. I know quite a few woman - in fact some of my best sisters are women - and I've never seen them tie themselves in knots. In fact I've never seen them tie anything in knots: is that weird? I wonder if they know how to tie knots. But I digress.
First of all, I want to see some cold hard figures on how much time women spend worrying about whether they can "have it all". In my experience, if there's one area in which women are a lot like men, it's in the area of not spending vast swathes of their lives fretting over what percentage of all they can have, instead choosing to get the fuck on with life. And if there's another area in which women are a lot like men, it's in almost every other area there is, so maybe we, as a species, can ease back the throttle on this wacky battle-of-the-sexes bullshit we've been punching ourselves in the face with for the last ten thousand years.
Secondly, tell me what "it all" means. Some have told me it means having a great career and a nice family and a good place to live and a bunch of nice stuff; in other words, "it all" just means "being happy". In which case, yeah I guess women CAN have it all. I think there are happy women out there.
But no, I don't think that's what it DOES mean, when someone in the so-called media refers to "having it all". Let's not spend too much time interrogating ourselves over the exact meaning of our idiom when we all have a basic shared understanding of what we're talking about.
Essentially, when we talk about women having it all, we're asking whether the mum who's waiting after school every day with a tray of cookies can be Julia Gillard, and whether Julia Gillard can be the cookie-mum. We're asking whether Gail Kelly can run a multi-billion dollar financial behemoth and still never miss her kids' soccer games. We're asking whether Nicole Kidman can win Oscars and be back from the ceremony in time for school drop-off.
We are asking, in essence, can a woman scale professional peaks without giving up their natural, Jesus-assigned roles as primary caregiver and lactating nurture-queen?
Or to put it perhaps more cynically, can a woman avoid our disapproval for abandoning her traditional role, while simultaneously absolving us of any blame for stopping us from living the life she wants to?
Can, in the end, a woman, so to speak, have, when you get right down to it, it all?
No.
Look I don't want to make you pull out your hair and throw yourselves into bonfires, but Julie Bishop is right. Women can't have it all.
Know why?
Because nobody can.
You know men? You've probably met some. They're those women who sweat more than usual, and for some reason never ask whether they can have it all. People often think men don't ask that because they already know they CAN have it all.
No.
Men don't ask whether they can have it all, because they already know they can't. Or at least they should. They probably don't because they're morons, but if they thought for a second they'd know I'm right. So, guys - think, OK?
Nicola Roxon recently announced she was quitting politics, because she didn't want to sacrifice time with her children for the sake of her career. She found it impossible to "have it all", so she had to make a choice: miss out on some of the benefits of parenting, or miss out on some of the benefits of politicking.
She didn't have to make that choice because she's a woman, she had to make that choice because she's a human being. Every man in politics makes that choice too. Yes, indeed - when a man decides to head to Canberra, he's deciding to absent himself from his family for big chunks of time, just as a woman is.
When a man decides to put in 16-hour working days to make his business grow, he's slicing those hours off the time he has to be with his kids, or off the time he has to HAVE kids, or a decent relationship, or any other trappings of domesticity he might want.
When I decide to write article after article and book after book, and go out to tell jokes to strangers, I'm choosing to pursue my career instead of play with my kids. And when I decide to turn down those opportunities because I want to play with my kids, I'm handicapping my career for the sake of my family. And when I decide to work three or more jobs at once, I'm desperately trying to strike the right balance so I can have a little bit of both worlds, instead of throwing in the towel on one front and storming full-bore at the other.
What I'm NOT doing is committing myself 100% to my career AND committing myself 100% to my family, because that would involve a denial of basic mathematics, and I would consider that a gesture of unforgivable rudeness towards the numerical community.
I can't have it all. You can't have it all. None of us can have it all. Our lives are about chasing happiness, not some insane regretless Shangri-La of personal fulfilment.
And that's why "can women have it all?" is a dumb question, based on a moronic premise and infused with the half-witted artificial gender divisions that have been making us miserable throughout history. And I object strongly to the question's existence in our public discourse, let alone the myriad attempts, both by those propping up their own vested interest in keeping the question current, and by those gullible enough to be fooled into believing it's in their own interests to keep trying to answer it. And here's why.
Firstly, as I briefly alluded to above, it's a question with an ulterior motive. The question is asked in order to position "having it all" as a desirable goal for a woman, and it positions it thusly to achieve the twin goals of making women feel ashamed if they don't behave the way a nice girl should, and to make society feel better about standing in the way of women with ambition. We're talling you that you SHOULD be trying to have it all, and so if you're a less-than-perfect mother, you've let us all down, lady; and at the same time if you're finding you can't make your way up the greasy pole, it was nothing to with us - we WANTED you to have it all.
So Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop are unnatural for not having kids, and Nicola Roxon just couldn't hack the pressure.
But here's the other side of that: as I said, nobody is asking whether men can have it all. It's assumed that a failure to achieve total contentment in every facet of life is a uniquely female problem. But as I also said, that is patently not true. Yet every time the subject comes up, it's only women who are apparently struggling with this.
And why is that? It's because it's assumed that it's easy for men to have it all, because it's assumed that men don't care about the things they have to give up. It's assumed there's no tension between family and career for a man, because family is something men don't care about. You're working non-stop and your kids are in bed by the time you get home every night? You're always away from home on business and only see your family a few days every month? Your wife is practically a single parent because you just can't afford to stop? As a MAN, that must be exactly what you want!
And so, we are told, men breezily go about having it all to their heart's content, because whatever bit of "all" they don't have won't matter to them. They'll leave the domestic guff to the ladies, because that's what "having it all" is to a man. The ladies, of course, won't be able to have it all, and shame on them.
If this situation is reversed, of course, the woman jetsetting off to a high-flying career while the man keeps the home fires burning, nobody's having it all. The woman was supposed to be able to do both, because of her magic vagina, and the man might as well have a vagina of his own if he's going to go about acting like a woman.
And there you have it. Women can't have it all because they're not good enough: men can have it all because they don't give a shit about their families.
And so know this, social commentators and cultural pundits, armchair philosophers and tabloid sexperts: every time you push the question "Can women have it all" out into the public consciousness, you're being sexist in two directions at once and letting us all, men and women, know that our hunch was right: we should all be hating ourselves as hard as possible all the time.
So for fuck's sake, you guys, stop doing it.
OK, so first of all I am going to question the truth of this knot-tying claim. I know quite a few woman - in fact some of my best sisters are women - and I've never seen them tie themselves in knots. In fact I've never seen them tie anything in knots: is that weird? I wonder if they know how to tie knots. But I digress.
First of all, I want to see some cold hard figures on how much time women spend worrying about whether they can "have it all". In my experience, if there's one area in which women are a lot like men, it's in the area of not spending vast swathes of their lives fretting over what percentage of all they can have, instead choosing to get the fuck on with life. And if there's another area in which women are a lot like men, it's in almost every other area there is, so maybe we, as a species, can ease back the throttle on this wacky battle-of-the-sexes bullshit we've been punching ourselves in the face with for the last ten thousand years.
Secondly, tell me what "it all" means. Some have told me it means having a great career and a nice family and a good place to live and a bunch of nice stuff; in other words, "it all" just means "being happy". In which case, yeah I guess women CAN have it all. I think there are happy women out there.
But no, I don't think that's what it DOES mean, when someone in the so-called media refers to "having it all". Let's not spend too much time interrogating ourselves over the exact meaning of our idiom when we all have a basic shared understanding of what we're talking about.
Essentially, when we talk about women having it all, we're asking whether the mum who's waiting after school every day with a tray of cookies can be Julia Gillard, and whether Julia Gillard can be the cookie-mum. We're asking whether Gail Kelly can run a multi-billion dollar financial behemoth and still never miss her kids' soccer games. We're asking whether Nicole Kidman can win Oscars and be back from the ceremony in time for school drop-off.
We are asking, in essence, can a woman scale professional peaks without giving up their natural, Jesus-assigned roles as primary caregiver and lactating nurture-queen?
Or to put it perhaps more cynically, can a woman avoid our disapproval for abandoning her traditional role, while simultaneously absolving us of any blame for stopping us from living the life she wants to?
Can, in the end, a woman, so to speak, have, when you get right down to it, it all?
No.
Look I don't want to make you pull out your hair and throw yourselves into bonfires, but Julie Bishop is right. Women can't have it all.
Know why?
Because nobody can.
You know men? You've probably met some. They're those women who sweat more than usual, and for some reason never ask whether they can have it all. People often think men don't ask that because they already know they CAN have it all.
No.
Men don't ask whether they can have it all, because they already know they can't. Or at least they should. They probably don't because they're morons, but if they thought for a second they'd know I'm right. So, guys - think, OK?
Nicola Roxon recently announced she was quitting politics, because she didn't want to sacrifice time with her children for the sake of her career. She found it impossible to "have it all", so she had to make a choice: miss out on some of the benefits of parenting, or miss out on some of the benefits of politicking.
She didn't have to make that choice because she's a woman, she had to make that choice because she's a human being. Every man in politics makes that choice too. Yes, indeed - when a man decides to head to Canberra, he's deciding to absent himself from his family for big chunks of time, just as a woman is.
When a man decides to put in 16-hour working days to make his business grow, he's slicing those hours off the time he has to be with his kids, or off the time he has to HAVE kids, or a decent relationship, or any other trappings of domesticity he might want.
When I decide to write article after article and book after book, and go out to tell jokes to strangers, I'm choosing to pursue my career instead of play with my kids. And when I decide to turn down those opportunities because I want to play with my kids, I'm handicapping my career for the sake of my family. And when I decide to work three or more jobs at once, I'm desperately trying to strike the right balance so I can have a little bit of both worlds, instead of throwing in the towel on one front and storming full-bore at the other.
What I'm NOT doing is committing myself 100% to my career AND committing myself 100% to my family, because that would involve a denial of basic mathematics, and I would consider that a gesture of unforgivable rudeness towards the numerical community.
I can't have it all. You can't have it all. None of us can have it all. Our lives are about chasing happiness, not some insane regretless Shangri-La of personal fulfilment.
And that's why "can women have it all?" is a dumb question, based on a moronic premise and infused with the half-witted artificial gender divisions that have been making us miserable throughout history. And I object strongly to the question's existence in our public discourse, let alone the myriad attempts, both by those propping up their own vested interest in keeping the question current, and by those gullible enough to be fooled into believing it's in their own interests to keep trying to answer it. And here's why.
Firstly, as I briefly alluded to above, it's a question with an ulterior motive. The question is asked in order to position "having it all" as a desirable goal for a woman, and it positions it thusly to achieve the twin goals of making women feel ashamed if they don't behave the way a nice girl should, and to make society feel better about standing in the way of women with ambition. We're talling you that you SHOULD be trying to have it all, and so if you're a less-than-perfect mother, you've let us all down, lady; and at the same time if you're finding you can't make your way up the greasy pole, it was nothing to with us - we WANTED you to have it all.
So Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop are unnatural for not having kids, and Nicola Roxon just couldn't hack the pressure.
But here's the other side of that: as I said, nobody is asking whether men can have it all. It's assumed that a failure to achieve total contentment in every facet of life is a uniquely female problem. But as I also said, that is patently not true. Yet every time the subject comes up, it's only women who are apparently struggling with this.
And why is that? It's because it's assumed that it's easy for men to have it all, because it's assumed that men don't care about the things they have to give up. It's assumed there's no tension between family and career for a man, because family is something men don't care about. You're working non-stop and your kids are in bed by the time you get home every night? You're always away from home on business and only see your family a few days every month? Your wife is practically a single parent because you just can't afford to stop? As a MAN, that must be exactly what you want!
And so, we are told, men breezily go about having it all to their heart's content, because whatever bit of "all" they don't have won't matter to them. They'll leave the domestic guff to the ladies, because that's what "having it all" is to a man. The ladies, of course, won't be able to have it all, and shame on them.
If this situation is reversed, of course, the woman jetsetting off to a high-flying career while the man keeps the home fires burning, nobody's having it all. The woman was supposed to be able to do both, because of her magic vagina, and the man might as well have a vagina of his own if he's going to go about acting like a woman.
And there you have it. Women can't have it all because they're not good enough: men can have it all because they don't give a shit about their families.
And so know this, social commentators and cultural pundits, armchair philosophers and tabloid sexperts: every time you push the question "Can women have it all" out into the public consciousness, you're being sexist in two directions at once and letting us all, men and women, know that our hunch was right: we should all be hating ourselves as hard as possible all the time.
So for fuck's sake, you guys, stop doing it.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
To My Daughters
My Darling Daughters,
I am writing this on International Women's Day, 2012. You don't know what that means yet, but one day, you'll grow up - as much as I wish you wouldn't - and you'll understand what IWD is and what it means. It would be wonderful if by that time, there was no need for it, but sadly the world is rarely as wonderful as it should be - you'll find that out too; although maybe you already know, from how we make you go to bed every night.
And maybe when you grow up you'll read this - but even if you don't, writing this down will help your dad remember what he wants you to know.
The world is difficult. For everyone. And it's going to be difficult for you. In particular, you're almost certain to meet people who are going to try to make you feel bad, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think your opinions are less important, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can speak rudely to you, because you're girls.
There will be people who will talk to you as if you're stupid, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can hurt you, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you that you shouldn't try to be funny, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you there are things you shouldn't even try to achieve, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can judge your value as a person based on how you look, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you to never be loud, or troublesome, or angry, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you to lighten up, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you to just accept things the way they are, because you're girls.
There will be people who will try to stop you from ever thinking you can be as good as the boys, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can do or say anything they like to you, and you shouldn't complain if you don't like it, because you're girls.
And when you meet any of those people, you will not take a backward step. You will get in their faces, you will stick your finger in their chests, and you will tell them to get the hell out of your way. Because there is no way you're going to let anyone make you feel inferior, or worthless, or stupid, or ugly, because you're girls. When you meet those people, you are going to stop them dead in their tracks, and roll over them like a steamroller.
And when you do , my darlings, I'll know that I must have been a pretty OK dad.
I am writing this on International Women's Day, 2012. You don't know what that means yet, but one day, you'll grow up - as much as I wish you wouldn't - and you'll understand what IWD is and what it means. It would be wonderful if by that time, there was no need for it, but sadly the world is rarely as wonderful as it should be - you'll find that out too; although maybe you already know, from how we make you go to bed every night.
And maybe when you grow up you'll read this - but even if you don't, writing this down will help your dad remember what he wants you to know.
The world is difficult. For everyone. And it's going to be difficult for you. In particular, you're almost certain to meet people who are going to try to make you feel bad, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think your opinions are less important, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can speak rudely to you, because you're girls.
There will be people who will talk to you as if you're stupid, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can hurt you, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you that you shouldn't try to be funny, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you there are things you shouldn't even try to achieve, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can judge your value as a person based on how you look, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you to never be loud, or troublesome, or angry, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you to lighten up, because you're girls.
There will be people who will tell you to just accept things the way they are, because you're girls.
There will be people who will try to stop you from ever thinking you can be as good as the boys, because you're girls.
There will be people who will think they can do or say anything they like to you, and you shouldn't complain if you don't like it, because you're girls.
And when you meet any of those people, you will not take a backward step. You will get in their faces, you will stick your finger in their chests, and you will tell them to get the hell out of your way. Because there is no way you're going to let anyone make you feel inferior, or worthless, or stupid, or ugly, because you're girls. When you meet those people, you are going to stop them dead in their tracks, and roll over them like a steamroller.
And when you do , my darlings, I'll know that I must have been a pretty OK dad.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Who Likes Beauty?
Perhaps you have become aware in recent times of a bit of a "to-do" about the issue of child beauty pageants, sparked by such cultural phenomena as hit TV show Toddlers and Tiaras, as well as a recent such pageant held in Australia, and of course moralising do-gooders who for some reason want all our children to be ugly. I mean who would not LOVE a child like US pageant star Eden Wood?
Mmmm...cute.
Anyway I wrote on the subject for New Matilda:
It's Time To Let Kids Be Adults
As did visiting British journalist, libertarian and two-legged mouth Brendan O'Neill, in even more strident and convincing mien:
Well done pageant-haters
That O'Neill piece is filled with gorgeous lines and gentle wisdom, but probably my favourite bit is this:
Yes indeed. How the HELL does this child psychotherapist claim to have any IDEA what's good for children? What on EARTH would a child psychotherapist know about children's welfare? Why in GOD'S NAME would you ever go to a child psychotherapist for advice about children? I mean, what sort of QUALIFICATIONS does a child psychotherapist have in this area? Shouldn't a child psychotherapist stick to her area of EXPERTISE, rather than shooting her MOUTH off about things she is NOT TRAINED to express an opinion on, such as children?
Child psychotherapists - the true enemy.
Mmmm...cute.
Anyway I wrote on the subject for New Matilda:
It's Time To Let Kids Be Adults
As did visiting British journalist, libertarian and two-legged mouth Brendan O'Neill, in even more strident and convincing mien:
Well done pageant-haters
That O'Neill piece is filled with gorgeous lines and gentle wisdom, but probably my favourite bit is this:
"These children are absolutely being put in harm's way", declared child psychotherapist Collet Smart, who somehow, by osmosis maybe, seems to know better than parents themselves what is good for their children.
Yes indeed. How the HELL does this child psychotherapist claim to have any IDEA what's good for children? What on EARTH would a child psychotherapist know about children's welfare? Why in GOD'S NAME would you ever go to a child psychotherapist for advice about children? I mean, what sort of QUALIFICATIONS does a child psychotherapist have in this area? Shouldn't a child psychotherapist stick to her area of EXPERTISE, rather than shooting her MOUTH off about things she is NOT TRAINED to express an opinion on, such as children?
Child psychotherapists - the true enemy.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Cold Cockles
There is a type of story that tabloid newspapers sometimes like to run called a "heartwarming story".
Very often, these stories are not "heartwarming", they are actually "infuriating" and make rational people want to "throw" things through "windows".
This is one such story.
The FRONT-PAGE STORY in today's Herald Sun is about mother of two "Michelle", who has been "overwhelmed" with public offers of help after going public with her desperate plight, as she and her children have been forced to sleep in the car.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "forced"? What I actually meant was "chose to sleep in the car because she is an idiot".
READ this story.
She was too embarrassed to go to friends, co-workers, or her ex-partner about her situation. Oh, the shame, she cried. Nobody must know! And so she kept her secret, not telling anyone, even giving the children's father a fake address, so embarrassed was she, until finally she decided to...
TELL THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD BY GOING TO A NEWSPAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, how embarrassing it would have been to admit to your friends or your ex-partner that you are homeless. Far better to act with discretion and quiet dignity by begging for help in the Herald Goddamn Sun.
"Michelle" says her ex is a good father. Her ex says he would have been perfectly happy to give the children a home. But he didn't know, did he? Oh no, because it would have been just so humiliating to ask him for help. Far better to make your children SLEEP IN A FUCKING CAR than lower yourself by having them stay with their father.
She's also very grateful to Herald Sun readers for their offers of accommodation. The generosity has just blown her away. Not that she's taken any of the offers up, mind. No, she knows you never take the first offer. First rule of homelessness: play it cool. Play the field. Shop around. You don't want to seem desperate.
The father says, "I want to express my extreme distress that my children were so exposed across the media and I am concerned about the repercussions of such exposure."
Oh, you're such a killjoy! Look how happy they look on the front page! See how all our souls have been uplifted by this wonderful story! Isn't it worth it, for your children to be forced by their idiot mother to sleep rough, so the public can enjoy the feelgood story of the year?
No it fucking doesn't, Dr Wise. It puts a human face on the fake hardship assumed by many Victorians who deliberately make things harder for themselves than they really are in order to get attention.
And it shows that people who absolutely REFUSE to do their best get on the front page of major daily newspapers.
Seriously, Dr Wise, on what planet is a woman who intentionally chooses to sleep in her car with her children when she doesn't have to "doing her best"? Shove it, Dr Wise.
And shove it, "Michelle". I hope you get a house, and I hope the roof falls in on your stupid publicity-whoring head.
Very often, these stories are not "heartwarming", they are actually "infuriating" and make rational people want to "throw" things through "windows".
This is one such story.
The FRONT-PAGE STORY in today's Herald Sun is about mother of two "Michelle", who has been "overwhelmed" with public offers of help after going public with her desperate plight, as she and her children have been forced to sleep in the car.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "forced"? What I actually meant was "chose to sleep in the car because she is an idiot".
READ this story.
She was too embarrassed to go to friends, co-workers, or her ex-partner about her situation. Oh, the shame, she cried. Nobody must know! And so she kept her secret, not telling anyone, even giving the children's father a fake address, so embarrassed was she, until finally she decided to...
TELL THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD BY GOING TO A NEWSPAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, how embarrassing it would have been to admit to your friends or your ex-partner that you are homeless. Far better to act with discretion and quiet dignity by begging for help in the Herald Goddamn Sun.
"Michelle" says her ex is a good father. Her ex says he would have been perfectly happy to give the children a home. But he didn't know, did he? Oh no, because it would have been just so humiliating to ask him for help. Far better to make your children SLEEP IN A FUCKING CAR than lower yourself by having them stay with their father.
She's also very grateful to Herald Sun readers for their offers of accommodation. The generosity has just blown her away. Not that she's taken any of the offers up, mind. No, she knows you never take the first offer. First rule of homelessness: play it cool. Play the field. Shop around. You don't want to seem desperate.
The father says, "I want to express my extreme distress that my children were so exposed across the media and I am concerned about the repercussions of such exposure."
Oh, you're such a killjoy! Look how happy they look on the front page! See how all our souls have been uplifted by this wonderful story! Isn't it worth it, for your children to be forced by their idiot mother to sleep rough, so the public can enjoy the feelgood story of the year?
Dr Sarah Wise, of Anglicare Victoria, said Michelle's story had put a human face on hardship experienced by many Victorians.
She said it showed that people trying to do their best could still get nowhere.
No it fucking doesn't, Dr Wise. It puts a human face on the fake hardship assumed by many Victorians who deliberately make things harder for themselves than they really are in order to get attention.
And it shows that people who absolutely REFUSE to do their best get on the front page of major daily newspapers.
Seriously, Dr Wise, on what planet is a woman who intentionally chooses to sleep in her car with her children when she doesn't have to "doing her best"? Shove it, Dr Wise.
And shove it, "Michelle". I hope you get a house, and I hope the roof falls in on your stupid publicity-whoring head.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Children: ruining it for the rest of us
As a father of three who is very concerned about the welfare of my young, vulnerable, children, I would like to tell Senator Stephen Conroy to jam his internet filter right up his mangina.
I'll protect my kids myself, thank you very much, Senator Khomeini.
Fuck internet censorship in the ear. And to put it more eloquently, a completely awesome article by Helen Razer.
And just to piss off anyone who disagrees:
I'll protect my kids myself, thank you very much, Senator Khomeini.
Fuck internet censorship in the ear. And to put it more eloquently, a completely awesome article by Helen Razer.
And just to piss off anyone who disagrees:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)