Carlton’s piece is interesting for the fact the retro wives mentioned who run blogs – some of whom, it could be argued, draw a limited or decent revenue or opportunities via that pursuit and thus aren’t strictly women who don’t work or are already very comfortable financially – and that the contemporary feminists interviewed are by chance without children. Though I am sure it is not a conscious choice, it does subconsciously set up a vaudeville battle between “the” feminists and “the” retro wives – no kids, kids; feminists, non-feminists without allowing for the fact that there can be and is considerable overlay.

Some have written how feminism has to learn to deal with the choices women make – once again, this is something a few of us in Australia have written before. That ‘housewives’ and ‘feminists’ are presented as natural adversaries is tiresome, unfortunately occasionally true and both sides wear the blame.

If feminism and stay at home women are continually presented as combatants, it implies neither are affiliated or have anything to learn from either side. If articles continue to present feminists and stay at home women as different or in opposition, it presents the truly bizarre notion that women can only be one or the other, incapable of nuance or being a whole or complex person capable of multiple choices, talents and desires.

That’s where the supposedly warring tribes of feminism and stay at home parents could truly come together. The whole ‘retro wives’ fake trend is being sold as women choosing their home and family over career or (apparently) feminism. Yet even a cursory glance at the statistics, quotes and history show it is the lack of choice actually forcing women out of the workplace and not a desire to become one with pastel bakeware or Instagram filters. Often these arguments present the home as either a lifestyle sanctuary or intellectual wasteland when, once again, the home is statistically one of the most dangerous places for a woman to be. 

When you consider that the home is dangerous for women and the workplace is still shutting women out, why is it that feminists and stay at home women are presented as enemies with nothing in common?

Tied into this umbrage is reader responsibility and response. Some have bristled at the slurs against baking, blaming feminists or stay at home parents and, more appropriately, writers who keep poking the horse.

Readers have a responsibility in all of this. The culture of offence is now so inflamed, so swollen and bilious that people are now offended if their lifestyle choices aren’t represented and validated in an article. I’ve seen updates from people who feel mocked for the references to baking or people astounded others would choose to stay at home with children.

Want to bake? Don’t want to bake? Want to work? Want to stay at home? Have children? Not want children? Want to do all of the above? Good for you, you’ve made a choice. You’re ahead of most of the world’s population. This shouldn’t necessarily mean you then deserve editorial validating and celebrating your lifestyle choice above all others or to stifle any quote from researched (or not) experts that may contradict your opinion.

Articles
ABC > The Drum > Removing the gloss from the ‘retro wife’
ABC > The Drum > Everyone wants equality for women, but…
Fairfax > Daily Life > Raising Girls as victims
Fairfax > Daily Life > Girls Gone Wild, a eulogy
Fairfax > Essential Baby > Puke, pregnancy stereotypes, parenting fears and more: Monica Dux’s ‘Things I Didn’t Expect’
Fairfax > Essential Baby > Turning Children Into Readers
Fairfax > Essential Baby > Here’s a tip – how to avoid unwanted advice
Fairfax > Essential Baby > How to be an amazing Uncle or Aunt
Fairfax > Essential Baby > Locking up pregnant women
Fairfax > Essential Baby > Female-Friendly policies not enough
Fairfax > Sunday Life > Social Media Detox
King’s Tribune > Miranda Devine and the cloven hooves of feminism

Radio
I’m doing radio again! An absolute joy! Weekly segment to discuss feminism with Angus on Radio Adelaide’s morning show. I share resident feminist duties with Stephanie Honor Convery from Overland Journal every Tuesday morning around 7:45am.

Festival
I’m thrilled to be part of the Emerging Writer’s Festival this year and will be talking at some masterclasses and also a judge for the Innovation prize.

Interesting post over at Popehat about Reddit’s opposition to doxxing (where someone is publicly identified). Ken postulates on some reasons why the contradiction exists and spends some time deconstructing arguments surrounding  why ViolentAcrez’s unmasking was decried but the Applebee’s religious nut and tip-note-leaver was celebrated.

Why the disparity? It could be because we don’t normally want to exert ourselves to protect the rights of someone unlikeable. Whatever your view of ViolentAcrez (known for some truly horrible commentary and sub-reddits), he did/does have a large number of admirers and supporters who are still angry with Gawker Media for outing him. Contrast that anger with the same community apparently at ease with the customer being outed and there lies a very big contradiction.

It’s hard work defending the rights of those you dislike. Debating issues or engaging in activism is hard work as it is and, often times, it can be easier to defend your own rights and any perceived transgressions.

I wrote on a similar topic a few months ago when an accused rapist and murderer’s right to sub-judice was decried as “archaic” by someone involved in fighting against data retention.

I think the point still stands.

I thought it might be interesting to note month by month what has been outraging us via social and online media. I will list what the most likely offensive contenders within Australia and, to some extent around the world. There will be little to no analysis and scant professionalism, with this page subject to change based on whim, style, changing definitions or someone pointing out any (doubtlessly many) mistakes I make.  Consider them a draft, the wobbly first steps  of an (potentially) ongoing series making its shambolic debut. If you have any suggestions, please contact me via the comments or peskyfeminist(at)gmail and they may be included.

This is also completely different to the Conversation’s Australian Twitter News Index because it seems to be run by a smart and methodical person. It’s crayon chaos here in comparison.

But first, a definition:

Media outrage 
Manufactured or spontaneous outrage over news item or event covered by digital or print mastheads. It can be a public response or deliberate form of communication (e.g. Fox News) to create a public response. Outrage is a reaction or deliberate communication model (e.g. Fox News) and not just shocking news.

Australian Life 

• John Hirst busted some haterade on single mothers
• But not before their single parent allowances were shifted over to NewStart.
• Which Macklin thought she could live on
• Coles price war brings every one (I’m so sorry) down, down
• Noted restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne underpaying staff.
• David Koch didn’t want women overtly breastfeeding in public
• One bar in Preston has strict under-18s policy to dismay of some parents.
• Heatwave prompts Australian Bureau of Meterology to develop new temperature colour and grabbed the world’s attention.

Australian Politics

• Julia Gillard exercises captain’s pick and enlists Nova Peris, giving Crossin her marching orders and leaving others to question and protest the political process.
• Julia Gillard got glasses and, on an unrelated note, called for an election September 14. But let’s not lose focus: glasses.
• Julia Gillard called an election on a major Jewish holiday.
• Julia Gillard didn’t consult with caucus over election date.
• Julia Gillard announces longest federal election campaign ever.  NSW & Vic make Willy Wonka face with their respective 28/3/2015 and 29/11/2014 elections.
• Tim Matheison makes stupid goddamn joke about small Asian lady doctors
• Bob Katter’s party removed two candidates for homophobic and racist  statements. Katter also did some phone slamming.
• Coalition MP  Andrew Laming continues to use Twitter, as per the Coalition’s selective social media strategy.
• Margo Kingston has been leading the charge to build a grassroots movement that questions who is paying James Ashby’s legal costs and who was involved in the conspiracy of silence

Business

• Jonathon Moylan released a hoax press release which caused a slump in Whitehaven Coal shares and Greens Leader Christine Milne’s response to the hoax was not popular

Media Ethics 

• The New York Post published a photo of a man about to be hit by an oncoming subway train, inciting condemnation and examination of photographer & publishing ethics.
• Mike Tyson cast in TV rape drama, describes it as “dream job” in tweet, possibly because this one won’t end in charges as it did in 1992 when he was convicted of raping Desiree Washington.
• Julie Burchill’s invective about trans people led some to ponder why it was ever published.

World News

• NRA’s bold move to release a shooting range app after claiming violent games (and not guns) contributed to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre stunned many
• The NRA have continued its love affair with the public as its members heckled a bereaved father testifying in favour of stricter gun control in Connecticut
• Muhammad Daming Sanusi, an Indonesian supreme court candidate, suggested women may enjoy being raped when considering whether a death penalty was suitable punishment for rape. He later apologised after widespread condemnation.
• The online community were shocked when Aaron Swartz, revered data activist and developer, committed suicide while ” threatened with more than 30 years in jail and up to $4m in fines for downloading 4.8m academic articles from the JSTOR (Journal Storage) database.” Reaction has been harsh and heartfelt in its grief and outrage.
• Lance Armstrong was interviewed by Oprah and the public response was resoundingly negative.
• Already reeling from the sickened horror of the attack and culture it came to symbolise, people were further stunned when Delhi lawyer for one of the accused stated “that that the victims are responsible for the assault because as an unmarried couple they should not have been on the streets at night. In an interview he said, “Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect.”"
  BTW – MASSIVE TRIGGER WARNING ALERT: reading any of this is deeply, deeply depressing, horrific and upsetting and extreme caution should be advised before visiting the Wikipedia entry on this tragic, horrific matter.

Please note that the bushfires and flooding have not been listed above as they didn’t meet the criteria of an outraged response – if you think I have missed something there, please share your thoughts and a link via peskyfeminist(at)gmail or  mention them in the comments below.

Meanwhile this January (user submitted): 

• Israel admits Ethiopian Jewish immigrants were given birth control shots
• Sea Shepard reports that January will be free of whales killed, marking the first time ever that no whales have been killed in this peak month of whaling.
• I’d say primary producers losing their crops/stock due to fire/flood emergencies but that doesn’t rate as outrage from our couch based internet worldview. So I’ll suggest Iranian monkey astronaut gone to heaven instead.
• US Fiscal Cliff fiasco
• Mounting Syrian death toll (I can’t find a final figure right now, if you do, please comment with URL)
• Rhianna and Chris Brown back together, Chris Brown punched Frank Ocean, also thinks he is Christlike and be fucked if I am going to link to that shit.
• Netball coverage axed by channel 10 (no link)
• Heatwaves, Bushfires and Floods – when will we accept climate change is real?
• WA Gov’t approving drilling work in acknowledged Aboriginal Heritage areas in preparation for an LNG plant which continues to be widely and vehemently opposed due to Indigenous heritage, social impact and grave environmental concerns.
• How about the state and feds at war over who is responsible for the enormous slash to funding for public health? Shutting beds, putting nurses, doctors and allied health out of jobs, lengthening already crazily long waiting lists, cancelling bariatric surgery, closing beds to palliative patients and removing their access to therapies?

There is no equivocation on breastfeeding: it is a legal right. Yet, in a society where women are told their main value is as a mother and yet are shamed for performing an act of motherhood in public, it seems there is still work to be done to overcome the braying of those made uncomfortable by the act. Anyone suggesting otherwise is an uneducated, unwilling participant in reality.

What is more interesting to me is the response. Questioning why are people still talking about it, citing freedom of speech, giving examples of issues of far greater importance for the feminist cause than breastfeeding, decrying modern online activism and everyone, absolutely everyone, has privilege on their face.

This isn’t a thorough discussion piece or rebuttal but there are some things that might be worth saying.

Where does the law stand on breastfeeding in public?
People are still debating and arguing for the right to breastfeed in public because many are denied that right. In public, in their homes, in the homes of others. The right to feed in Australia is covered under the Sexual Discrimination Act. People are not allowed to refuse service, try to discriminate or treat a woman differently due to the fact she is breastfeeding. That is the law. No addition of the word discreet. There’s no grey area there. Law. 

Freedom of speech 
Australia has implied freedom of speech when it comes to political communication. We have no declaration of rights, we have nothing but a common law case relating to political communication. Even then, if you ask “but what of Koch’s freedom of speech?” he doesn’t have any. Even if, as reasonable adults, we operate on the assumption that every one has freedom of speech, that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offence or freedom from being challenged on what you say.

So they are, within reason (Australia still has sedition law), allowed to say things that I find offensive. Being an offensive jackaninny whose contribution to public discourse is a calcified urine stain isn’t a crime.

I am allowed to disagree with someone, I am allowed to point out where their points are in direct conflict with the law, in fact, I’m allowed to tell them their views on public breastfeeding reveal them as a wowser out of step with reality. I can even liken them to urine. Communication (public or not) sends and receives messages. At its absolute worst, it’s YouTube comments. At its best, it is informative, challenging, validating and entertaining.

But surely there are bigger things to worry about in society.
I identify as feminist and I am a mother. I cannot separate the two: having a child compelled me to become a feminist.  I’ve also mentioned before that feminism isn’t always inclusive of mothers and some of the more derisive comments have come from that sector. This is not wholly the case for all but it has been a recurring experience for me and others in Australia.

Breastfeeding is still an issue. It is an issue because society places overinflated importance to a woman’s role as a mother. In addition to this, society places a huge importance on breast feeding. Consider those two factors and then consider the reality that many women face discrimination doing something that society pretty much demands of them. It may not be important to others but the ability to express the law and breastfeed openly as they feed and soothe their children is important to many women. To deny that is to exclude a large number of people.

When people say there are bigger things to debate in feminism, when people say we are focusing on the wrong issues or even diluting feminism’s effectiveness with weak campaigns, I cannot help but recall the work of Monica Dux and Zora Simic in “the Great Feminist Denial”. One of the compelling reasons women were reticent to identify as feminist was due to perceived elitism within feminism. Elitism arising from impressive academic backgrounds, specialised language and conceptual knowledge. It appeared that modern women could not identify with feminism as a grass roots movement (stunning, given its previous history).

I (and many other people) am all too aware there are other issues directly impacting the world which require attention. Things that affect men, women and children either as individuals or collective groups. Being told there are bigger, worthier issues to combat doesn’t make people fall into line to fight for the cause you deem more credible or urgent – it makes them feel unworthy from another direction, a direction for which they had  felt alliance.

Ideologies are rarely tightly organised, rarely singularly focused. There is always conversation, always disagreement and discord, always a challenge to develop a critical mass of effectiveness. Feminism is another example of this. Expecting universal compliance and activism on a hierarchical list of needs is a failure to understand your brethren and human nature. It’s like expecting all a  political party’s factions to agree and never move against each other.

Personally speaking, I disagree with some things others would classify as feminist issues. I even disagree with some feminist groups or issues presented as being of high importance.  I’m also not a fan of super-positive-everything-is-empowered feminism either. Just let me and others have the discussions and actions where I believe I can contribute something of interest.

People act and prioritise according to their experience and concerns. We have unique reasons to agree and act upon things, be it based on empathy, experience or reason. Castigating people as to whether they are campaigning or upset over ‘authentic’ or ‘high priority’ feminist issues helps no one, least of all feminism. You’re just thinning the ranks. Give them a reason to join your group, don’t give them a reason to ignore you and understand they may not always agree with your priorities and it doesn’t make them less devoted.

If you believe people should care more about one issue than another, explain why. Don’t just complain people aren’t following the right trail and, as such, they are terrible bushwalkers bringing shame upon the art of walking – educate, encourage, give an incentive. Don’t want to do any of that? Recognise you’re activist who doesn’t want to inspire and encourage change.

Modern online activism 

I remember, well over ten years ago, being interviewed by Wired for a piece about online activism. Bless me, it was Adbusters related and I was young. I had no idea what I was doing, but I knew the web was going to offer greater possibilities for getting a message across. Even earlier, I remember marshalling at a protest and watching a journalist grill the event organiser over the protest’s multiple messages purpose, his mind blown that people of many issues could join to protest in one space.

The way I see it (and many don’t so good for you), activism has changed since the 80s. Consider how quickly airflight took to a space program or telephony took to tiny antisocial portable computers – activism has changed even quicker. The brilliance of web communication means we can educate, mobilise and act with like-minded people quicker than ever before. There is no time delay.

This has positive and negative impacts. It can lend itself to histrionic outrage where people come out in binary rashes that others would have different views to them. It can lend itself to superficial debate where people can’t move across to actual change or can’t understand why, after 24 hours, we’re still discussing breastfeeding (answer: because it hasn’t been solved yet, you jackass and here’s the unfollow button). It’s no surprise either that this technology neatly spoons a 24 hour media cycle.

But just as there has been a life cycle for activism and enabling technologies, there is a life cycle for activists. Activists do not emerge fully formed on the half-shell, cresting upon waves of actualised consciousness.  They become interested, they become enraged, they become educated, experienced and articulate. It’s a process – just like every other form of intellectual and physical pursuit.

For example: Destroy the Joint.

They’re polarising. Personally, I’m not a fan. I disagree with some of their topic choices and often think their behaviour mimics the bullies and idiots they despise, that they often show zero accountability and facile results. It’s an unpopular view and it’s one I’ve thought over often and have other friends who perceive the same.

They’re polarising for a reason, however. While some are won over by their volume and swarm and ability to bring activism to a more mainstream audience, others are not.

I think one of the reasons for this is grounded in elitism (and I’m owning it in myself here). Destroy the Joint features the bright ebullience of an activist in the making. They’re enraged with what they now see and want to show their dissatisfaction. They feel emboldened to embrace their anger, comforted in the solidarity of others, which can overcome the usual defeatist fears that things are out of their control. After all, it only takes a tweet, Facebook post, email or phone call. It’s low stakes involvement with a high return. They are the Colin Creeveys of feminism and, frankly, bless ‘em for it.

Destroy the Joint features activism at the beginning of its lifecycle. It is dazzling, bright and loud. Not always effective, but able to generate attention. As a group, it has achieved a large following in a short time in spectacular fashion and helped open the eyes of many people. This is to be congratulated but also nurtured past its current phase.

For those who attended Uni, they are the people who are filled with fervour of joining a group and handing out pamphlets. Though I don’t really like them or their work, I appreciate the effort in mobilising a large amount of budding activists. As such, I think there is a unique opportunity in showing them other ways to make their views known and how to help agitate for lasting change which would, theoretically, help them develop further. Rather than accuse them of diluting feminism, it’s worthwhile reaching out and informing, keeping the communication happening and offering alternatives.

No one gets to decide what  is authentic feminism.

TL; DR – fuck positivity, negativity, cult-like activist conformity. Get educated, get involved and get perspective.

At an hour far earlier than could be considered polite, Kristian Silva (a journalist with the Age) published “Explicit teacher quits classroom”, which he then promoted via his personal Twitter account.

To summarise Silva’s article, he described the teacher’s photos as “raunchy”, her posts as “sexually explicit” and quoted selected previous tweets, all the while confirming that it was not believed anyone at the school or schooling community bar one anonymous complainant had seen the account.

The article is an interesting exercise in journalism, combining salacious suggestion in conjunction with quotes from those involved (and those not involved).

Silva implies in the headline and article copy that, despite official quotes to the contrary, the teacher had quit over the incident. She hasn’t. The teacher in question had already arranged a year of leave in consultation with the principal months ago so she could focus on her well-being. So, she hadn’t “quit” over this incident.

Given Silva had quoted tweets from November, weeks before she closed her account, he either already knew of her plans and health struggles (and she had mentioned them often) or his source did. This was not referenced in the article.

In fact, on her Twitter account the teacher had mentioned being the subject of a workplace vendetta by an individual. Was this Silva’s source? Was this something he took into account, given there was one complaint the Principal had received?

The article repeatedly makes use of salacious quotes from her Twitter account to highlight his suggestion the teacher was unprofessional.  But was she? The Principal of the school received the complaint and, though gave direction to remove the account, did not think it of sufficient concern to discipline her or escalate the complaint.

Though Silva mentions the account has since closed and had more than 1000 followers, he made no mention that it was a locked account for the past month, instead referring to it as “a public Twitter account”. For perspective, the school she worked at has 1900 students and the Age has an online readership of 609,000 on Sundays (Roy Morgan Research, September 2012).

It should be noted at this point that there has been activity on Twitter today by students from the school who have recognised her based on Silva’s article and mentioned her name publicly. So thanks to the article, she has now been identified (or soon will be) to the entire school community.

And, for background and to counteract the deflatingly logical and calm quotes from the school’s Principal, Silva contacted a cyber security expert, Susan McLean and Parents Victoria President, Sharron Healy for some colour. Silva does not note whether these individuals were aware of her twitter presence beforehand or just shown a selection of quotes by the journalist. One wonders whether their selective inclusion was to add more colour and condemnation due to lack of reaction from the Principal and the teacher’s refusal to comment on the matter.

After reading through the Victorian Institute of Teaching’s Code of Conduct, two things should be made clear. The VIT state up front that the Code is not a disciplinary tool. According to the Code, the teacher in question doesn’t appear to contravene anything in sections 1-3, nor does she in any way display serious misconduct, incompetence or lack of fitness to teach which, if breached, would result in the loss of her teaching license.

Did the teacher post photos and selfies? Yes, she did. Were they raunchy? The photos in question would show cleavage and skin but she was always clothed and nothing that could constitute exposure, let alone deserve public censure.  As one tweeter told me “I’ve never seen her post anything online that was any more revealing than a fashion blog or something you would see on a billboard”. The most revealing (and yet still fully clothed) photo of her I had seen was when she shared a fitness/weight loss celebratory shot and even then, it was a shade more ‘demure’ than anything shared over in the weight loss progress pics shared over at Reddit and, as of this moment, I’m unaware if the Age have plans to mine that subreddit for shaming or reporting purposes.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that this was a non-event, a news item without merit, given the teacher in no way breached the rules relating to her profession,  removed the account as requested on the basis of one complaint and her employer deciding to not escalate the matter. And yet here we are with Kristian Silva on a Sunday morning.

Let’s recap:

• Silva implies the teacher has quit over her Twitter and photo activity: false
• Silva implies teacher has shown unprofessional conduct: false according to VIT code of conduct
• Silva calls her account “public”: false
• Silva omits any mention of her health and apparently does not use this factor as mitigating reason to not publish
• Silva may have presented a highly selected list of quotes and images to elicit quotes from a security expert and parent group president with the impact of influencing negative commentary
• What was previously a contained issue is now viewable to approximately 609,000 readers and an entire school community
• Previously unaware students on Twitter have recognised her since the article’s publication, who have stated her name online

This article is particularly curious in light of the following clauses in various codes of professional conduct to which we can assume Silva should or does adhere. I’ll include my selection of potentially applicable clauses below the body of this post. I should state this is a preliminary list and it may in fact not be applicable, but if Silva can quote a protected account, I can quote publicly available material.

Even if the article does not breach these codes, there are still questions that need to be answered. In fact, many people on Twitter have questions for Kristian Silva who, so far, has ignored any question directed to him via Twitter. This is entirely within his rights, but I’d be interested in the answers from either him or The Age.

Questions for Kristian Silva and the Age:

• Where did the teacher breach any rule in the VIT Code of Conduct?
• If Silva used the same source who complained to the school, are he and his employers confident they have not aided someone further bully someone against Worksafe Victoria standards?
• If Silva used no source and researched this without a tip off, are he and his employers comfortable he acted within the assorted codes of conduct (AJA, Press Council, Fairfax, and The Age) required of his job?
• Judging from today’s reaction and information since made public, is Silva going to persist in writing about this incident or try to contact the teacher, school or anyone associated with the school community for further comment?
• If industry experts are contacted for quotes, how credible are their thoughts if based on a selective presentation of material? Or were they previously following her on Twitter? Can their assessments be considered expert or even considered in light of such scant review?
• To paraphrase a question from Ollie (http://twitter.com/Tw1sty), your bio states that opinions and retweets are yours (with the implication they do not reflect your workplace). In light of that declaration and given you have a public profile, please explain how your personal views about rival publications are not work-related but the teacher’s protected Twitter account is ripe for public exposure and discussion on the Age’s web site?
• Please state how this morning’s article meets any standard of newsworthiness or public interest.

In recent weeks, we have seen that unpredictable tragedies can occur based on media activity.  The media has weathered huge scandals that have threatened the trust and authority we previously granted. We criticise them for the trivialities they cover and the great swathes of information they ignore.

It is hard to determine how today’s piece balances that scale or does anything to further a discussion about the intricacies of online identity, public service and social media. This is no nuanced lecture from Levenson. It’s an article that points at a woman and, intentional or not, salaciously vilified her in front of others under the deceit of public interest, an interest that has since made her emotionally, professionally and, quite possibly, financially more vulnerable. All in the public interest. After a complaint from one person.

You might be asking yourself if I have done the same to Silva, held him to account and vilification, as he did the teacher. He may not have broken any laws, just like the teacher. Where are his rights in all of this?  Below, I’ve highlighted some selections from the Age, Fairfax, AJA and Press Council’s code of conduct.  Feel free to have a read and draw your own conclusions.

Fairfax Code of Conduct

As part of the Code’s introduction, the following (author’s selections) are asked:

Would I be proud of what I have done?
What would happen if my conduct was reported in a rival publication? (Author’s note: I won’t quote Silva’s public Twitter account here, but he is on record on what he thinks of the journalistic practices of rival publications.)
Do my actions place anyone’s health and safety at risk?

The Age Code of Conduct

12. People’s privacy should be respected and intrusions on privacy should be published only if there is a public interest.

13. Caution should be exercised about reporting and publishing identifying details, such as street names and numbers, that may enable others to intrude on the privacy or safety of people who have become the subject of media coverage. (Author’s note: the use of the photo, identifying the school name and quotes from the account made her instantly recognisable to people who were otherwise ignorant of the situation and made her identifiable)

14. People should be treated with sensitivity during periods of grief and trauma and wherever possible, be approached through an intermediary.

Media Alliance Code of Ethics 

1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.

3.  Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances.

11.  Respect private grief and personal privacy.  Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

Australian Press Council, General Statement of Principle 1: Accurate, fair and balanced reporting

Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission.

Australian Press Council, General Principle 4: Respect for privacy and sensibilities

News and comment should be presented honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy is not to be interpreted as preventing publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest. Rumour and unconfirmed reports should be identified as such.

Australian Press Council, General Principle 6: Transparent and fair presentation

Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the bylined opinions of others, as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed, headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article and readers should be advised of any manipulation of images and potential conflicts of interest.

Australian Press Council, Privacy Principle 1: Collection of personal information.

In gathering news, journalists should seek personal information only in the public interest. In doing so, journalists should not unduly intrude on the privacy of individuals and should show respect for the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered in the course of gathering news.

In accordance with Principle 5 of the Council’s Statement of Principles, news obtained by unfair or dishonest means should not be published unless there is an overriding public interest. Generally, journalists should identify themselves as such. However, journalists and photographers may at times need to operate surreptitiously to expose crime, significantly anti-social conduct, public deception or some other matter in the public interest.

Public figures necessarily sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in the public interest. However, public figures do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must be related to their public duties or activities.

How does the Press Council define Public Interest?
Note 1 “Public interest”

“For the purposes of these principles, “public interest” is defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others.”

Let’s think about that definition in conjunction with the article published by Silva. How were the contents of a private Twitter account, an account which had been already dealt with between a teacher (a private, not public, figure) and her employer, in the public interest?

Want to have your say?
Comments below will be open and unmoderated. I’ll take a leaf out of Silva’s book and not reply.  If you would like to let Fairfax know your thoughts, be they supportive or constructively critical, you can head to their feedback area at the very bottom right hand corner of the Age web site.

Interesting round up by Stephanie Pappas and LiveScience about how we view women. 

TL;DR – women viewed as body parts, men viewed as a whole body by men and women. Suggestion this is not biological as the perception is held by both men and women and may be consequence of media given people can be easily trained out of it. 

Gleaned from Clem Ford’s excellent article ‘On being Cleavagely Correct’ which you should also read. 

Laws relating to egg donation are comprehensive, despite variance across states and territories. Because it is an altruistic donation, donors are only compensated for costs incurred for transportation, time off from work and all medical expenses.There are also considerable restrictions on the location and wording of advertisements to find willing donors and the ownership of the eggs are clearly defined.

Today over at the Conversation, Meredith Nash (Lecturer in Sociology at University of Tasmania) put forward that women should be financially compensated for egg donation. Nash argues that egg donation is a service that should be paid for and that the price involved would encourage women to donate, thus resulting lower waiting lists.

As someone who has donated my eggs, I don’t want any money.  Here’s why:

It’s not a service

Donating eggs is not a service, it is donating biological matter to known or unknown recipients. If I donate my blood, bone marrow or even eventually my organs, it will not be done as a service.

Service implies skill and aptitude and my ability to ovulate is no greater than my ability to ‘make’ blood. It’s a bodily function and not a skill.

The only skill that relates to egg donation is the expertise of the specialist.

It’s not about supply and demand mechanisms

Nash presents the problem that “demand for egg donors in Australia has increased significantly…and donor eggs are in short supply” and notes Britain’s solution of offering more money for eggs created greater supply and reduced waiting times.

Though Nash argues that paid egg donation is not body commodification, the Daily Mail article she cites for the British example presents the issue less positively, blaming the UK’s economic downturn for increased donation at 750GBP a pop. Though this has reduced waiting times, it also falls straight into the commodification issue Nash confusingly dismisses as unlikely because Australian donors are generally middle class. Her logic doesn’t make sense – women aren’t so poor that they’d need to consider donating their eggs and yet offering money would encourage more women to donate so many eggs it may completely eliminate waiting times (which could classify as over-supply).

Further on the exploitative commodification theme, Nash raises the issue of “reproductive tourism” where women “travel to countries such as India, where egg donors and surrogates are compensated and there are virtually no waiting times for eggs”. Apparently, this is an ok thing and is in no way akin to human servitude or like the breezey consumer-driven cost-cutting medical tourism happening across Asia, South America or Eastern Europe that capitalises on cheap labor for a bargain.

Compensation – why are eggs worth more than the rest of our body?

The confusing logic behind Nash’s piece argues that donors should be respected and compensated for the time, inconvenience and risk they encounter during egg donation.

As mentioned before, this does not take into account the other methods of biological donation that occur with no compensation. Donating blood, plasma, organs, bone marrow and sperm do not receive compensation. Finding a suitable bone marrow or organ donor can be just as time-consuming in the identification and harvesting as well as risky for the donor.

Eggs are not worth more than the equally hard-to-locate bone marrow or fertility-related sperm. The need to provide compensation for egg donation but not these does not make sense.

The reality of donating your eggs

I donated my eggs around 7 years ago after the birth of my daughter. It was important for me to do this because I was told  I was infertile (amply proven by 17 years of unprotected sex with long term partners). That she was a a little miracle surprise intensified my need to “give back”.

My preferred option was to go for known donation (back in 2005, unknown donation was possible in Victoria) and I had the amazing fortune to meet a beautiful couple. We all shared an instant connection in terms of personality and expectations. There are recipients out there who want to take the eggs and run and donors who expect perpetual megalomanical gratitude and the three of us were happy to find those qualities lacking in one another.

The process of donation was, as Nash describes, arduous but there is merit in the meticulous protection offered. There was counselling and testing to ensure we were ok with sharing this step. Syncing and stimulating cycles were grueling assaults on the body and mind and, quite frankly, I feel for any couple who go through IVF technology.  The end of my role was a huge teary relief, in no doubt due to the fact I had so many synthetic hormones running through my body.

Thankfully, the were able to use one of the embryos and successfully give birth to an amazing boy. I feel intensely guilty on our regular meet ups as I can see how alike our respective children are. I can see the dominance of my genes in him and feel a sense of shame, that too much of me transferred over and diluted the altruism of what I wanted to give them.

And then I think about what they gave me as a family. I have wonderful friends with whom I share joy over life’s milestones. My only daughter has a ‘cousin’  she delights in seeing and talking about.

Egg donation took me on a journey that was definitively transforming – my life changed going through this process and took me onto a happier path. The  realisation that if I can share of myself with others to create new life, I could share the same potency with myself. They got an amazing son from egg donation and I got an amazing new life.

That payment is better than anything money could ever give.

Francesca Cumani is one such woman. Smart, educated and experienced, she was part of Channel Seven’s Cup Week coverage. Though I prefer my sports to feature a complete lack of sport, when it comes to horse racing, Cumani has considerable knowledge and shares this expertise with a number of networks around the world.

Naturally, high performers are subject to praise but I’m not sure if it’s ever been as slathering as that provided by Paul Sheehan in today’s Sydney Morning Herald’s piece, Why Seven needs this beauty with the beasts.

In Sheehan’s adoration of Cumani’s performance, her panellists are described as “roughies” while the object (quite literally) of his affections is described as “elegant”, “beautiful”, “intelligent”, “lucid” and “courageous”. It is not surprising to learn Sheehan’s piece triggered gag reflexes far and wide across social media.

In what can only be deemed a creepy uncle panegeryic, Sheehan classifies Cumani as a “thoroughbred” in contrast to her “three roughies” panellists. The clumsy comparison reduces her and her colleagues to dumb animals, livestock for trade and breeding.

That there are sports reporters who are almost-obsessively detailed and prepared is nothing new. Bruce McAvaney was adored for his impeccable research. But he was never the subject of a fawning editorial that cast him as an elite athlete outpacing the shambolic, suburban shufflers masquerading as fellow panellists. No one ever published a 700+ word Penthouse letter that embarrassingly focused on Bruce’s beauty and ability to pronounced Sergey Bupka.

But the most telling aspect is in the opening lede where Sheehan opines that Cumani’s presence “reaffirmed my belief that women, at their best, are superior to men at their best”.

It seems relatively simple doesn’t it? He really just wants people to be their best. Oh wait, no. He thinks women are better than men – even if they are at their ‘best’. Who decides what’s best and why a woman’s best is higher than a man’s? Sheehan, obviously.

Lest we wander aimlessly, wondering by which measure women eclipse men, Sheehan elaborates on why “the apex of the pyramid of admirable qualities is occupied by women, not men”.

Because babies. Really. Apparently, vaginas enable me and my little pony-femmes to be better than half the world. Unless we’re infertile because then we’d be bad stock and unsuitable as thoroughbreds and maybe we’d just be “roughies”. And remember: no one has need of an old horse, so really, Sheehan’s equine metaphor really does work on so many levels for the modern woman hoping to share her talent with the world.

Sheehan says this is all part of nature’s scheme and continues to hammer away, with subsequent paragraphs dissolving into a Barbarella-esque dream sequence where he takes on the deranged theorising zeal of Duran Duran. “Women take greater risks for passion” and this means they “live in a more dangerous world than men.” It’s at this point Sheehan reminds us that men are strong and women aren’t so have to compensate with their minds, which we should remember are thoroughbred minds, most likely derived from Barbie’s Palomino, Dallas.

This is one of those juvenile attempts at romanticising the role of women, pretending to celebrate and elevate while quietly manacling them to expectations of docility and servitude. A Trojan Horse of praise, delivered with a fawning patter so toxic it requires a hazmat shower. To Sheehan, even Francesca Cumani’s meticulously-chronicled education, intelligence and apparently intoxicating beauty are still considered subordinate to her ability to give birth and raise children.

So the next time someone asks you how many Paul Sheehan op-eds you’ve read, remember to stomp your hooves on the ground. It shouldn’t take long.

With the recent case of Jill Meagher’s intensely horrible death and subsequent arrest of a person believed responsible, we turn in our grief to look at the accused. The ransacking begins, a frenzied attempt to make sense of how someone could stray so far from society’s rules. We talk aloud on social media about the accused, sharing what we know, but more often just conjecturing on what we don’t.

As dozens of journalists, legal professionals and police have mentioned, any discussion about the accused should not occur because it hampers sub judice. Latin for “Under Judgement”, it generally applies to any case under investigation or prosecution. There are specific rules in place to ensure anyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial and forms part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Why does the accused have the right to a fair trial? Some may argue they don’t deserve it. Some may argue that it is in the public’s interest to know. The accused has a right to a fair trial to make sure the case is presented effectively, that they have a chance to present their case without bias and that, if at all possible, they have an even field to argue.

It is vitally important for any functioning, consistent and reliable society that its citizens exist within the rules and rights established. Rules and rights are for all, no matter how repugnant we find the person who needs them. Society does this because it is imperative it acts with an intelligence and compassion the guilty people have not shown, because these rules are just as imperative for the victims.

When people ignore sub judice, when they refuse to participate in the rules society expects of us, they effectively give a loophole to someone who may not deserve one. Loopholes are not innocence. Giving a loophole by disregarding sub judice, they are tainting the accused’s ability to stand trial and tainting the victim’s chance for justice.

It is interesting to compare this notion against the current furore surrounding data retention, a plan many are incredibly concerned about. With data retention, many stand to protect our individual rights to be online and yet, in contrast, so many are standing in the path of proper sub judice. One person on Twitter, who is against data retention, described sub judice laws as “archaic”, apparently thinking one human right is greater than another. It is possibly because they don’t think they’ll ever need the protection of sub judice, possibly because they judge their right to speak whatever they choose above a person’s right to a fair trial.

Human rights don’t work that way. They exist to give protection no matter the gender, race, class, ability or likeability of an individual. A human right exists due to its importance, not based on the probability of exercising it. By denying the human rights of someone facing trial, you are denying the rights of another human they have allegedly wronged.

It is also interesting to consider the power dynamic at play when people want their data to remain private, but don’t want to be restrained by notions of sub judice. The message is clear: “I have personal freedoms, but I won’t care about yours.” They want all of the rights, but none of the responsibility.

This may read like conflating two issues, but at its heart it is about the acknowledgement and adherence to human rights. In order to enjoy our personal human rights, we have to acknowledge them for others. Why? Because that’s how society works. It may not work perfectly, but to claim (as some social media identities have done) that the laws are archaic is to do a disservice to the rights of every citizen.

The argument may be brewing “why give rights to someone who took away the rights of another?” and the answer is the same: why take away even more rights from the victim by removing or diluting their chance for justice?

Want to honor Jill Meagher? Want to make sure we continue to have faith in the legal system and police force? Shut up. Social Media has shown that your words have power. Now take responsibility for them.