Search Results

By Irisa R. and Mariam H. “So what we learned was masculinity is the ‘one size fits all’ that seems to fit no one.” In the past few weeks we interviewed some of our male readers, both friends and strangers. The patriarchy is framed as a system that oppresses women, and protects men. It creates a simple narrative of good versus bad, where men are always benefiting and women are always suffering. It depicts a story where our experiences are separated, or in direct opposition to one another, where their struggles are theirs and ours are ours. But this story doesn’t exist; the reality is far more intertwined. Most of our interviewees highlighted that at some point in their adolescence they had either aspired to or been rejected by the traditional confines of being a man. Only upon failing to fit the mould did they start to unpack their own relationship with masculinity. I’ll make a man out of you We asked all the men “what does masculinity mean to you?”Such an enormous question and at that point, three minutes into meeting most of them, it was a big ask. Most listed characteristics that they thought were more generally accepted; strong, dominant, authoritative and rational. But this answer shifted when we asked, what does being a man mean to you? They all changed their responses. Most identified a greater purpose, being able to serve society and the responsibility they feel towards their family. Some shared their thoughts on gender fluidity and how the term masculinity has lost meaning. Most of the men didn’t identify with one or more of these characteristics and at first, they saw that as a fault within themselves. They described how after high school they learned to accept that maybe they just weren’t “manly men” because they weren’t the loudest in a room or the most authoritative. One interviewee said that in his past relationship his partner would be disappointed in him for not being assertive enough. He said, “I don’t mind making decisions but if I had to do it all the time it would become mentally draining.” He identified a really interesting dynamic - where being assertive was seen as masculine, while being soft - spoken or sharing decisions was seen as being less so. One interviewee concluded that by defining masculinity you are defining what it is not, and ended with this, “[to me masculinity] is a system that reinforces heteronormativity, patriarchy, all these conservative ideas about what being a man is and in doing so reinforces what it means to be a woman, or queer or straight.” Two of the men that we interviewed spoke on how their understanding of masculinity is informed by their religion. One of the interviewees is a devout Catholic and explained that when he looked to Saintly figures, most of the male Saints had what we would consider to be feminine traits, and that these traits were respected and admired. Similarly, one of our interviewees who described himself as a practicing Muslim explained that he would often turn to the Hadith where he learned that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) would be vulnerable with those around him and that it was seen as sign of a strong heart. Yet, they both felt that many of the ideals they were taught in their religion were in contradiction to what they internalised from growing up in a secular society. Most men explained that masculinity existed when it was performed for an audience, so it needed to be seen. It was in the breadth of shoulders, in how tall they were or in the timbre of their voice. One interviewee described it as the amount of space a man could take up in a room to make an impact. Contrary to the body standards present for women, which is tied to ideals of attractiveness or beauty, men’s body image is tied more closely to whether it shows strength and dominance. Most of the men identified that they had to perform their manhood, not just in how they were perceived but in what they did - so the career they chose. How do we value men? Bell Hooks wrote that “[the value of males] is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth.” It reminds us of how growing up, we would always see all the men in our community sacrifice so much to make sure that they could care for their families. Usually, at the expense of their mental or physical health, which meant that they would raise daughters and sons seeing the role of the provider taken to an extreme. Where instead of having present fathers, who were emotionally available or able to give time, we would have fathers who gave all their time to earning and providing, which created family dynamics that were hard to change. It meant that the women had to give immensely when it came to emotional support and the men had to give immensely as providers. There are countless stories of how men in our communities after losing their jobs would stop socialising because they felt their worth had been diminished. Which begs the question - why aren’t we valuing men for their emotional maturity, for their ability to compromise, to be kind, to actively serve others and their communities, to be confident in how they show affection, to dress how they please, and to be able to speak how they want to, without feeling like it would affect how others perceive them? Man Up! One of our interviewees said that, “your masculinity does not have to be defined by how you withhold your emotions.” This isn’t surprising but most men are taught to feel less of a “man” if they cry, or if they communicate hurt or tenderness. One of our interviewees explained that growing up, anger was always an acceptable emotion, he was always given the space to be angry. However, he wasn’t allowed or encouraged at any point to cry or to share how he felt. On the contrary, another interviewee expressed that by learning from his father, and how available and open he was with his emotions, he learned to cry comfortably and often. This was a very singular response, because most men said they didn’t feel like there was space for this with either their family or friends. One interviewee explained that, “[my friends and I] now have really emotionally intimate conversations about how much we love each other, and I could never do anything like that with my previous friends.” This would usually lead to other mental health struggles. It was interesting because most of the men shared at some point that they felt the pressure to fulfil certain responsibilities without complaining about them. One person shared that he felt he was allowed to be angry as long as he still did what was expected of him. Colonialism back at it again! One of the interviewees spoke at length about how the traditional traits we associate with masculinity like strength and rationality are a colonial legacy. The research concluded that European colonialists would further their agenda by degrading and feminising the Indigenous values of the land they colonised. Thus, anything suggestive of an indigenous identity, for example displaying soft-spoken gentility, spirituality, sophisticated traditional dress, or a cooperative attitude, was seen as representing a lack of virility, irrationality, backwardness, fragility and other characteristics associated with inferiority (Gouda 2007). For example, in Indonesia it was common for men to share household obligations with women, and the Dutch demoted this behaviour in both their propaganda, and their teachings as a form of weakness, so that Indonesian men would learn to take on more aggressive characteristics (or at least aspire to them). Similarly, in pre-colonial modern day India, Bangladesh and Pakistan it was common for men to wear traditional attire in the workplace, however, the British introduced the idea that educated men should wear suits because traditional wear was ‘delicate’ and ‘womanly.’ These are just two minor examples of how colonisation positioned the non-white man as inferior or lacking and how these ideas have persisted. Two of the interviewees also expressed that as Queer men they had to actively reject many of the ideals that came with heteronormative masculinity. Similarly one said that he didn’t find a lot of comfort in the LGBTQ space because he saw it as inherently white supremacist. He explained that because Western societies are one of the most heteronormative societies that have ever existed that it gives us a model of masculinity which intertwines gender and sex, many Eastern and Indigenous perspectives on gender are far less binary. He argued that his sexuality shouldn’t be an identifier because historically in the region he is from, a person’s sexuality is seen as a social practice and not as a way to define oneself. Some said they didn’t feel athletic enough, others felt they weren’t loud enough and the rest felt that they were in spaces where they were expected to make decisions they were not equipped for. One of our interviewees laughed while he explained that he was told that as the man in the family he was expected to protect his sister at all costs, and that he would have a say in who she marries. He laughed and exclaimed, “she was five years older than me I could never tell her who to marry!” Another interviewee amusingly said, “I can’t serve and protect. If there was a war I would be discharged. Of course I wouldn’t participate in imperialism, but because of my moral objections I would be seen as effeminate.” Final Thoughts: So what we learned was masculinity is the ‘one size fits all’ that seems to fit no one. The experiences of the men we spoke to highlighted that when choosing to define their own manhood the interpretations were far more fluid and individualised, straying from the rigid ideals of Western masculinity to include attributes such as soft-spokenness, patience and tolerance. Earlier this year we wrote about the need women feel to take care of the emotional needs of those around them, the caretaker complex, even if it was detrimental to their own wellbeing it was something they often persisted in. In writing this piece a strange parallel emerged: all of the men spoke of an expectation to provide. Some actively rejected it, others saw it as a duty, and others still felt burdened by a future of it. Yet for most of the interviewees it had shaped some of the bigger decisions they made in their lives and this meant that they were so busy fulfilling one role they couldn’t even begin to entertain or have the space to think about the others. We hope that we can collectively move toward a culture where the burden of these ideals are not shouldered as silently as they have been. __ Reference List: Hasan, M.K., Aggleton, P. and Persson, A., 2018. The makings of a man: Social generational masculinities in Bangladesh. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(3), pp.347-361. Kyler-Yano, J.Z. and Mankowski, E.S., 2020. What does it mean to be a real man? Asian American college men’s masculinity ideology. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), p.643. O. de Visser, R., Mushtaq, M. and Naz, F., 2020. Masculinity beliefs and willingness to seek help among young men in the United Kingdom and Pakistan. Psychology, Health & Medicine, pp.1-11. Prianti, D.D., 2019. The Identity Politics of Masculinity as a Colonial Legacy. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 40(6), pp.700-719. To Note: We interviewed men that were culturally and linguistically diverse from a variety of professions, religious backgrounds and sexual orientations. We tried our best to include people from a diverse range of communities but due to certain time constraints we couldn't interview as many people as we wanted but hey there is always the possibility of part two!

written by Palwasha A. and Lamisa H. Content warning: This article discusses themes surrounding sexual assault and rape extensively. When sexual assault occurs, it’s always viewed as an isolated incident- the work of one or more disgusting individuals who are “sick in the head”. This, of course, is a best case scenario; some of the worst responses (public or private) turn the conversation against the victim, and move along the lines of, “well, you were…” and “maybe it wouldn’t have happened if you’d…” These responses are a symptom of what we call rape culture. But what isn’t understood at all is that rape culture isn’t just the ignorance of an inhumane response. Rape culture is the greater social context that allows indecent assault to be viewed in a vaccuum, as opposed to something many of us perpetuate without even knowing. What Is Rape Culture? If you’ve been paying attention to the news recently, both Australian and more broad, you’ll have noticed that the hashtag #NotAllMen has begun trending on social media platforms (again). This is in response to the death of 33-year-old Sarah Everard, a woman from the UK who was simply walking home when she went missing. What happened to Sarah caused an international outpouring of grief and rage from women, who began sharing the truly shocking ways that they were taught to defend themselves growing up, and the measures they have to take every day of their lives to avoid being assaulted or murdered. Marshall University defines rape culture as: “an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalised and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorisation of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety.” For a moment when I saw the reaction, I felt surprised. I read the details and it was a story that had been told so many times. This reaction in itself is a symptom of rape culture. To have surprise at the fact that so many people felt so strongly about the murder of a young woman, still, after so many decades of this happening to young women. Do All Men Benefit From Rape Culture? All men benefit from rape culture. For the average man, to hear that he in any way benefits from anything associated with sexual assault, is abhorrent. Though the topic is extremely uncomfortable, it needs to be discussed, openly, if there is any change to be made. The reason men feel so comfortable dismissing rape culture is due to their privilege as men: it is not an imminent threat to them. To be clear, this happens to varying degrees when taking in factors of sexuality, ethnicity, etc. Rape culture keeps women fearful, subdued and ensures that they take less risks, that there are severe limits on their experience of life and the world. The imminent general threat of sexual violence means that women make compromises in their understanding of themselves and their dignity, in ways that cause stress and rage. If a woman is catcalled, she will often look away rather than put the person in their place, because she is aware of the threat of even greater retaliation from the harasser. If a woman speaks up about what’s happened to her, she has to consider that she likely won’t be heard. If a woman goes for a promotion too steadfastly at work, she may become a target within the workplace. If a woman is asked out by a man, even a well-meaning man, she fears his reaction to her saying no, or persisting until it gets uncomfortable. When half the population is held back and subdued, by default it benefits the half that is not. In all cases of oppression, every member of the dominant group reaps the benefits, whether or not they personally agree with the treatment of the oppressed group. You can be a man disgusted by rape culture and still benefit from the position of power it puts you in over women. How Our Media Perpetuates Rape Culture Our pop culture and media set up our expectations for what is normal and what is abnormal when it comes to violence of a sexual nature. We are subconsciously conditioned to expect sexual violence to happen against women, whereas we expect physical violence to happen to men. A very interesting case study is the second season of ‘13 Reasons Why’. Viewers were shocked and enraged at a scene in which a male student is brutally raped by another male student. The conversation surrounding this scene was rightfully disgusted but the shock element had many interesting layers to it. Because the same show was known for its graphic depictions of two other sexual assaults, the outrage over this particular one was revelatory of a deeper unspoken cultural understanding. People were not used to seeing sexual violence like that against a man, even in a scene of high tension, whereas the exact opposite is true in scenes featuring women. In an excellent article dissecting the scene by writer Ariana Romero, she states, “We expect to see men get hurt, but only in ways that put their faces, bones and torsos in danger”. The media we consume constantly sets up female figures to be put into positions where we are always expecting sexual, rather than physical violence against them, and time and time again have our expectations rewarded. Think of any horror movie: We expect all parties to be brutalised but, in our heads, we already know that the men are only ever in physical danger. How many times are you watching a movie with a scene featuring a female character, and the tension begins to heighten. There isn’t any explicit threat of sexual assault made, but you know to expect it, and so you change the channel for a minute. What Role Does Toxic Masculinity Have to Play in Perpetuating Rape Culture Recently, a criminal allegation was made against David Dobrik and his predominantly male and powerful group of friends, known as The Vlog Squad, who have become famous through his videos. The allegation was made by a girl known as “Hannah”, that in 2017 Dom Zieglietis, a member of David’s group, had raped her while she was blackout drunk, and the assault had been spun into a fun threesome “bit” for David’s vlog. What made this case so particularly horrible was how easily it could have been prevented. Dom had previously been accused of sexual assault and had admitted to it. These allegations were widely known and the accuser, Ally Hardesty, endured an extreme amount of hate in response to outing her abuser. David publicly supported Dom, and then incorporated the assault allegations into his “character” in the vlog, wherein all the members of David’s group consistently made jokes about how Dom was a “predator”, a “pedophile” and a “rapist”. One man here raped someone. The other gave him a platform, normalised his behaviour and projected it to an impressionable audience of millions. The rest co-signed by supporting it, treating the culture of the vlogs as normal and ideal and supporting the environment that allowed such an assault to occur. People who were fans of his vlog, myself included, supported by watching, sharing and following, and turning a blind eye to the obvious red flags. This case was emblematic of how completely rape culture is normalised, that an assault could be viewed and not questioned by so many. How Do We Address The Root Cause The David Dobrik situation was the first time that a conversation about rape culture was focused on a powerful group of male, mostly white friends whose privilege blinded them to the fact that the environment they had created was toxic to a criminal degree. They had normalised and perpetuated misogyny and toxic masculinity subtly, and projected it as the ideal lifestyle, resulting in rape culture being perpetuated on a huge scale. The public also saw, for the first time we can remember, punishment not just for the person committing the crime, but the one who had created the environment in which it occurred, and refused to take accountability for it. We saw a girl brave enough to come forward with her story and out the people who had given her lifelong trauma. The only way that David could be held accountable was through the growing understanding of rape culture in the public eye, that projected the conversation into the news cycle, and told survivors that their stories would be listened to, and were impactful. David lost all his major sponsorships, his app and the monetisation of his Youtube channel, as well as his image as the loveable, naive, golden boy of Youtube. We saw a man suffer the consequences of his actions enough that it forced him to finally confront the reality of his own involvement, and eventually sincerely apologise for it, and send a message to his fans not to support him in this instance, but to examine their own biases, and how they could be perpetuating a toxic culture. The responsibility has always fallen on women to change the status quo, as though they are the perpetrators, but the problem remains ingrained in our society and in the behaviour of men. It is not a cure to arm ourselves, learn self-defense, become CEOs. it has been proven time and time again that these things are not a deterrent to rape or sexual violence. It is not the job of the oppressed group to work within their oppression. As the ones who directly benefit from rape culture, any man who is disgusted to learn of his own complicitness needs to actively fight rape culture. This is in confronting their friends, in the slightly off comments they make, by standing up for the women in their family, even something as seemingly small as questioning enforced dress codes for women. It is for men to reject toxic masculinity and have difficult conversations that will create real change. It is no longer acceptable for anyone to sit on the sidelines. By recognising that we are complicit, we have already taken the first step.

Tahmina R. and Irisa R. The British Monarchy, not treating brown and black women well? How could they? (gasp!) Real scandal! Keep reading to find out how a usually kind and open-minded family is being not so kind and open-minded. "The Royals are a family business" The last week’s media circus around Meghan and Harry proves that we are so comfortable with romanticising the Royal Family because we collectively believe the false narrative that they do not hold any real power. But they are not relics from a bygone era and the specific form of imperialism they promote is as alive today as it was fifty years ago just by virtue of their existence and the existence of the Commonwealth. Meghan asking Oprah, “it’s a family business right?” is laugh worthy but also very dangerous. It skilfully cleanses the British Monarchy of its colonial past (that it celebrates and perpetuates) by normalising the empire in the only way we could accept in our capitalist age - as a business. It also sought to introduce a new type of language where the Royals are a ‘firm,’ a ‘family,’ an ‘institution’ unto themselves and decidedly separate to the power they wield. And then beyond that, they sought to distinguish between the institution (bad) and the family (good), explaining: "there's the family, and then there's the people that are running the institution, those are two separate things and it's important to be able to compartmentalise that because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me." The Queen is not just someone’s grandmother. She has signed off on every war (conquest) of her long reign but it’s so important that we see her as an old lady in a pink suit. When she is in fact the matriarch of a trillion dollar imperial project. The marketing of the Royal family as some kind old fuddy duddy British folk, as a lovely reminder of some past glory needs to end. This is the monarchy, they married their first cousins for five generations so that they didn’t accidentally lose a thread of control over most of the world. "The Royals are now enlightened" There was a senior member of the Royal family who expressed concerns about “how dark” Meghan and Harry’s child would be and this - for some reason - was splashed across newspapers like it was some great revelation. If he was born, and they were like “he’s not dark enough,” then we would be surprised. However, the fact that the first person of colour in the Royal family is untitled and denied security is anything but surprising. White supremacy was one of the biggest exports of the colonial project and it is anything but surprising that the British Royal Family are racist. The British Monarchy and their subjects continue to reap the rewards of free and forced labour of their colonial past. The British actively created the transatlantic slave trade, and when that was no longer socially acceptable, they moved onto a system of indentured labour that operated in a similar way to slavery in everything but the name. Their institutionalised racism should be common knowledge, it is not newsworthy. "The Royals are now inclusive" Millions of people tuned in to hear Meghan say: “sixty to seventy percent of the Commonwealth is people of colour... growing up as a person of colour… seeing yourself in a position of power… if you can see it you can be it.” They drew a connection between being black and existing in the Royal Family, as a form of progress. This supports the worldview that if people of colour, like ourselves, pander or (in this case) curtsy to the vestiges of white power, then we will automatically be taken into their fold and be granted immense wealth, prestige and authority. It is also harmful to proudly trumpet the fact that sixty to seventy percent of the Commonwealth are “people of colour,” as if they successfully met the diversity quota for their “family business.” The media we consume continues to obsessively use images of their philanthropic trips as inviting people from all corners of the world to the new and enlightened Monarchy. However, the Royal Family justified their crimes with the ideology that Black and Brown people are inherently inferior and in need of being “saved and civilised.” It isn’t some strange coincidence that most of the Commonwealth are people of colour - it is a direct result of their belief in their own white supremacy. There is no power in representation when this is their history and it is offensive to suggest that there ever could be. In Conclusion The interview ends with Oprah saying, “Thank you for sharing your love story.” The divorcee who saves the prince from his castle is a cute pseudo-feminist play on old fairytales but it is also a very harmful romanticisation and sanitisation of the Royal family and British white supremacy. Harry mentioned in the interview that there were clear “colonial undertones to headlines [that disparaged Meghan]” and that he was upset that no members of his family came to her defence. But there are clear colonial undertones to the very existence of the British Royal family. For them to openly call out colonial rhetoric as wrong or regressive would be extremely ironic since they are in fact, colonisers. The media coverage on this “tell all interview” along with its constant fascination with the Royal Family needs to change for the simple reason that nothing they ever say will detract from the crimes they have committed. Note: We did watch the interview and these are all direct quotes.

Lamisa H. Ineffective people live day after day with unused potential. They experience synergy only in small, peripheral ways in their lives. But creative experiences can be produced regularly, consistently and almost daily in people's lives. It requires enormous personal security and openness. and spirit of adventure. Stephen Covey Most likely, we all grew up thinking that creativity is some innate personality trait, that you either have or you don’t. Usually it's at an early age when we decide that we don’t have it, so we just end up chucking the whole possibility of “creativity” away-- reducing it to something trivial and not worth our time. I always get so alarmed (and sad) when people tell me they just are “not creative” or “don’t know how to be”. Chances are, you were never shown the tools to be creative as a student, because let’s be real, your teachers didn’t have the slightest clue either. So, why do we reject creativity? Simple. There’s no certainty in it. It's hard. And it's subjective. Creativity is a complex skill to learn, because it requires vulnerability, patience and flexibility-- personal security and openness. In our capitalist world, creativity and innovation has morphed into more a "buzzword" than a means of expression. Employees now feel an elusive pressure to be creative, in order to be desirable candidates. We compare ourselves to creative geniuses, who build million dollar franchises from their heads, or our friends who are artists in their fields. White, able-bodied men from Western countries such as Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and Zuckerburg serve as the star example of where “creativity” can get you, and are rewarded for thinking outside the box. This unique behaviour and innovation is labeled as “creative” at the cost of reducing it to something that only provides monetary output. On the other side of the spectrum, businesses do not value ‘creatives’ enough, underpaying them and claiming that their work is self-fulfilling and good exposure. But let’s reclaim creativity for a moment here. What if you belong in the category of a “marginalised group”? If you didn’t have access to greater resources or powerful social networks? People with disabilities, or altered sensory abilities, experience and act in the world completely differently than the norm. Under different circumstances, that would be valued as creative, but instead they are classified as disorders. The term “diffabilities” might connote that difference in ability shouldn’t function as a barrier, but a valid experience that offers a creative perspective. A simple change in our perspective can allow for our communities to be much more inclusive, fostering communal respect we can all benefit from. I see this play out in my workplace all the time. Students who require special attention are being disregarded in the classroom because they cannot complete activities and engage within the ordinary standards and expectations. Their environment doesn’t have the time, patience or resources for wide and open-ended possibilities. There is no true creativity. Now my intent for this piece is not to convince you that you have a mystical magic ability waiting to be discovered from within. But the science does prove that we all have the capabilities and building blocks to achieve a lifestyle where creativity is intrinsic. I know personally, that with a little practice and patience, engaging in conscious, creative activities brings me a lot of fulfilment. Creativity was not intended to generate billion dollar companies- it is and always will be, an investment into our own wellbeing. What the hell is creativity? Let’s replace the phrase “creative person” with “a person learning creative abilities”. This will mean that you don’t have to assign yourself a whole personality in one go. We’re not trying to produce whole works of novels, compositions or paintings here-- just things to fuel our imagination and inspiration. Despite what you think, creativity is not about having a momentary flash of insight. Having a lot of ideas doesn’t necessarily mean you are a “creative person”. If you’re going to wait for that single moment to hit you, you’re inevitably going to fall into a creative block (of confusion) and quickly give up. Creativity comes in small sparks, all the time-- they are constant. The research can tell you how to have these small sparks better and how you can string small ideas together so they result in something that actually is a big idea. In other words, a lot of the time, creativity entails some form of consistency, and some form of end-result. The (simple) key to creativity There is an extremely simple way to conceptualise ‘creativity’ as something tangible, and achievable. It works with young adults, middle aged adults and adult adults. A leading scientific expert on creativity, Keith Sawyer, tells us that there are 8 facets of creativity, and if you apply these small actions, you are quote on quote “being creative”. As Sawyer tells us, once these steps become second nature, the process of creativity doesn’t seem so daunting or alien as it used to. Here are the 8 steps: Ask: The discipline of always looking for a good problem, or seeking new inspiration. Learn: seeking out knowledge from mentors, peers, websites, books etc. Could be a good idea to make note of them! Look: not just seeing what you expect to see, you are constantly and quietly aware. You see what others take for granted, and what they incorrectly assume Play: you allow yourself time to play and experiment, freeing your mind to imagination and fantasy Think: lots of ideas means lots of possibilities. Clamp down on them. Fuse: continuously bouncing ideas together, as successful creativity never comes from one single idea Choose: this is brainstorming done right. We need a balance between wide-open idea generation and critical examination and editing. Read that again. Make: creativity is not about merely “having” ideas, it's about continuously externalising your thoughts and making it a reality. The beauty of this theory is that this is not a linear process, even though as a beginner you can mostly certainly follow them as steps. However as you get to know them a little better, Sawyer tells us that we can ‘zig zag’ between them, because we constantly bounce from one to another. And there you have it: ~creativity~ in a nutshell. Here is a creative prompt for your morning commute to work. If Sawyer’s 8 steps still feel elusive then it might look a little clearer as you work on something ‘creative’. Have a go at this! There are obviously heaps of avenues to practice creativity, but start with grabbing inspiration and thinking about it (learn, ask, look, play). Here is an easy activity for some instant inspiration, and it starts with you and your experiences. Note down: (Try and be as specific as you can) Your most memorable childhood place Your favourite smell Your favourite thing to wear Your favourite food Your favourite kind of shade Your favourite kind of light Your favourite sound Your favourite texture Two antonyms to describe yourself A simple activity, but it gets you to ask and look. the sugar cane trees surrounding a forgotten home sharp tang of spices, garlic and onion that waft through the windows the oversized jean jacket that never fails to gift comfort the sweetness in the savoury chutney welcomed shade under a tree on a sweltering day the constant humming of my cat when I hold him close warm candle wick that flickers in the dark the feeling of fresh, crisp bedsheets dormant, static bundle of energy Now simply add “I am” to the beginning of every line, and you’ve got yourself your very own personal poem. The awesome thing about this, is that no poem is ever the same. It might look something (or nothing) like this. I am the sugar cane trees surrounding a forgotten home I am sharp tang of spices, garlic and onion that waft through the windows I am the oversized jean jacket that never fails to gift comfort I am the sweetness in the savoury chutney I am welcomed shade under a tree on a sweltering day I am the constant humming of my cat when I hold him close I am warm candle wick that flickers in the dark I am the feeling of fresh, crisp bedsheets I am dormant, static bundle of energy Don’t feel the pressure of trying to sound “poetic”, just write them as they are. This is now where you can choose, play and fuse. Cut things, move them around and add whatever you feel. Don’t worry about if you think other people might not understand it, as long as it's personal to you-- you are never doing something wrong. Pro tip: If you’re comfortable, get someone you trust to read it to you. That will allow you to think about where you’ve placed words, and where it might need some tweaking. My final product! I am the sugar cane trees surrounding a forgotten home I am the sharp tang of spices, garlic and onion that waft out our windows I am the oversized jean jacket that never fails to gift comfort I am the sweetness in my mother’s savoury chutney I am welcomed shade under a old tree on a sweltering day I am a warm candle wick that throws specks in the dark I am a dormant, static bundle of energy Wondering if life has just begun, or ending ‘Creativity’ is a muscle that I can strengthen Creativity has been hijacked to monetise, but real creativity wants to build alternatives that explore human nuance without necessarily having economic gain at the forefront. When we consciously engage with these 8 steps, we're building skills of empathy, vulnerability, patience and flexibility, personal security and confidence. The more we conceptualise skills such as creativity, the easier it is to try it and pass it on. Rest assured, you already have what it takes to be creative-- it's just a muscle that needs to be exercised. This activity has been borrowed from and inspired by Story Factory, a non-profit organisation that strives to improve literacy and build confidence in young adults and children through storytelling. Head over to the website storyfactory.org.au to find out more and donate. Editor: Jessica L Sawyer, K., 2013. Zig Zag. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Mould, O., 2018. Against Creativity.

By Mariam H. & Jessica L “Facebook has banned news content in Australia” was the main headline that grabbed everyone’s attention on Thursday morning. National News platforms such as ABC and satire websites like The Betoota Advocate, as well as the invaluable facebook page ‘North shore mums’, turned into blank slates devoid of any content. The ban spread into non-news platforms leaving sites providing health or emergency resources without any information to give. Many of us started stewing in outrage at this unbelievable act, thinking it is a breach of the boundaries of “free speech”. We started taking to our Instagram stories to spread our uproar and to prophesize the impending Orwellian restructuring of our society. However, looking beyond this frenzied rage a bigger picture begins to emerge, one that has been reported and talked about in the news but received very little regard from the public. Leaving to wonder how did this suddenly surprise us when there were already warning signs from the very beginning? The warning signs - the beef begins and Google be begging So Facebook’s actions were not completely out of the blue. The tensions between the Australian Government and the tech giants, Facebook and Google, have been bubbling away for a hot minute. Let’s throw it back to the very different pre-covid world of late 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) complete their public inquiry into the impact of digital platforms on competition in media and advertising services markets, specifically news and journalistic content. They find that Facebook and Google have an unfair advantage, and recommend a “specific code of practice for digital platforms’ data collection to better inform consumers and improve their bargaining power.” The ACCC goes on to release a draft code on the 31st of July 2020. The code states that news media businesses would be able to individually or collectively bargain with Google and Facebook for overpayment for the inclusion of news on their services. It’s around this time that all of this begins to trickle down to us, the general public. Google has a bit of a freakout and threatens to withdraw their search bar from Australia, which I’ll be honest kind of sends a shiver down my spine (eugh can you imagine having to use Bing!). They also start a weird guerrilla campaign to get Australians on their side by publishing an “open letter” on their homepage, adding on-site pop-ups, and that video with Mel Silva, Google Australia’s managing director. You know the one where she’s talking about a friend and coffee shops and paying for recommendations (it’s a very long analogy). So while Google is busy doing their thing, we don’t really hear much from Facebook publicly. Behind the scenes, Facebook is trying to come to an agreement with the Australian government, specifically Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Communication’s minister Paul Fletcher. Obviously, that agreement was not reached. Which brings us to… The Code: The Code refers to the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, a new legislation the Australian Federal Government is trying to get passed through the senate. The basic gist of the Code is that Facebook and Google will have to pay news media for the content that is displayed on their platform. The legislation wouldn’t apply to all news media businesses, however. To be eligible they need to be: Producing ‘core news’ and publishing it online. This is basically all things concerning community or local events. Adhere to professional editorial standards e.g. by the press council or independent media council Have editorial independence from subjects of their news Need to operate primarily in Australia for Australian audiences Their annual revenue must exceed $150 000 For some extra spice, the code also stipulates that Google and Facebook have to adhere to a set of minimum standards. They would have to provide advance notice of any changes to the algorithmic rankings and the presentation of news. All original news content needs to be recognised as such. And here the real kicker, Google, and Facebook need to provide information on how and when they make user data collected through users’ interaction with the news content available to others. This code would be the first of its kind worldwide. The key players: There are two main sides to this whole thing and then kind of a third quieter side. All of them kind of have a point and all of them kind of scare me. The Australian government and Australian media On side one, we’ve got a team-up of the Australian Government and Australian media. The Australian government’s main objective is to level the playing field for news media and journalistic content. Basically, in the past decade, the tech giants’ influence and market power have been steadily growing, in contrast, traditional news media’s revenue has been decreasing. See, the changing landscape of the news media has shifted consumption patterns, which has made traditional forms of revenue, namely commercial advertising, no longer viable. Advertisers are more likely to pay tech giants to feature their ads alongside searches and newsfeeds full of content created by news media than they are to pay the news media business themselves. The ACCC inquiry found that for every $100 spent on online advertising, $53 went to Google, $28 to Facebook, and $19 to other media companies. Apparently, the Zuckerberg himself tried to entreat Treasurer Frydenberg and Communication Minister Fletcher directly just last week, but the Government was unbudging. I could have saved Zuckers the hassle, we all know after all how close the Australian government and media have always been. I mean Scomo and Frydenberg were at News Corp Co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch Christmas Party in 2019, so…. (kidding kidding) The Tech Giants The other side of this whole thing is, of course, Google and Facebook. They argue that the traditional media’s revenue decline is not caused by tech companies but rather the loss of classified advertising which transferred onto market-specific online platforms. That’s like the stuff at the back of newspapers job ads, motor vehicle sales, that guy from the pina colada song and his lucky lady, etc. The tech companies state that they do not make or share ad revenue from news-related content or searches. For Google, this means when you look up any kind of news content there would barely be any ads that pop up on the side of your screen. Try it out yourself on Google, look up news content such as “Australian news” then compare it when you look up something else like “shoes” and see which search produces ads. This is a similar argument that is put forward by Facebook Australia and New Zealand, whose managing director states, “For Facebook, the business gain from news is minimal. News makes up less than 4 percent of the content people see in their news feed. Journalism is important to a democratic society, which is why we build dedicated, free tools to support news organisations around the world in innovating their content for online audiences.” Facebook also argues that the code means that they would have to continuously renegotiate payment deals with news publishers after each upgrade of the platform. They are also reticent of having to make deals with the hundreds of media businesses, both large and small. It should be noted that the Government has responded to this concern by stating that FB would be able to make default offers to regional and suburban news outlets. So who’s right? Who’s the bad guy? Hard to say really, but here are the main arguments on either side, taking into consideration Facebook’s hissy fit. On the Government’s side, ScoMo has expressed that by taking these extreme measures Facebook was confirming the fears of world leaders that the platform thinks it operates outside of Governments and that laws do not apply to them. The move once again raises concerns over the influence and power of tech companies. It would also be remiss not to mention that Facebook’s initial blacklisting algorithm meant that all health and emergency services pages were also blocked. Facebook tried to make this into a whole thing by basically saying “see how vague your law is, the algorithm even got confused”(not a direct quote). Regardless, the fact is they blocked pages that are crucial for the sharing of information during a pandemic. Australian Medical Association President Omar Khorshid called out Facebook actions as “irresponsible corporate bullying during a global pandemic”. Yikes! Tell us how you really feel Omar. Microsoft president Brad Smith. He states that the code will “reduce the bargaining imbalance that currently favours tech gatekeepers and will help increase opportunities for independent journalism". Smith is also urging other countries to follow Australia’s example and implement similar legislation. On the tech side, a big argument against the code comes from the inventor of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee, and one of the founders of the internet Vint Cerf (also a VP of Google, so definitely not biased at all). Berners-Lee and Cerf argue that the code will disrupt the nature of the free and open web if Tech companies have to pay for links. Berners-Lee states that the international precedent the code would set could make the web “unworkable”. Atlassian Director of Global and Public Policy David Masters corroborates arguing that the code could disrupt the neutrality of the web. A different argument, not so much on the tech side, but rather against the code relates to the impact it will have on the media monopoly. The fear is that the code will further entrench bigger, more established news media leaving behind smaller, independent publications that struggle for readership as it is. Basically, the fear is Nine news and News corp sucking the remaining vestiges of life from Australia’s media landscape. Ex-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put it really well at the senate inquiry last Friday, “The problem that we’ve seen within Facebook’s actions in the last 24 hours is that they give us a graphic example of what a very large new media monopoly can do to abuse its power…The problem with the government’s current response to the challenges of the digital media marketing code is that it seeks to solve one problem ... by enhancing the power of the existing monopoly – that’s Murdoch.” The conclusion… the part where we admit it is all a mess and we’ve understood nothing It’s hard to say what all of this will mean. The internet is still a very new phenomenon, and I guess we are now entering the rebellious teenager face, where it's all very exciting but we are also kind of afraid that they set us all on fire in a fit of anarchical angst. In short, it's a developing space that is constantly being affected by the surrounding socio-political factors. The immediate impact will be felt in the way Australians access news. This will especially impact younger generations a third of whom have already learned to depend on getting news from social media. We have shifted from viewing news content on Facebook out of convenience to a daily necessity. During these COVID times, we have become even more dependent on these platforms for more than one reason. As we write this article Finance Minister Simon Birmingham has confirmed that the government will withdraw their advertising from Facebook. This includes a campaign regarding the coronavirus vaccine. It’s funny that at the beginning of the pandemic, these online platforms were a key avenue of information, yet now we find ourselves unable to get credible information about coronavirus vaccines. Whether the Code becomes law and Facebook persists in its stance or another concession is reached in the end both outcomes will set new precedents for the way government bodies and tech companies exercise control over the internet space. With such extreme changes who knows what will follow next? Bibliography ABC (2021). “Facebook news ban stops Australians from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content”. ABC news. Accessed at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-18/facebook-to-restrict-sharing-or-viewing-news-in-australia/13166208 ABC news. (2021). “Microsoft president calls on other countries to ‘copy’Australian media bargaining code”. ABC. accessed at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-12/microsoft-calls-on-countries-to-copy-media-bargaining-code/13147892 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [ACCC]. (2020). “Draft news media bargaining code”. Aus Gov. accessed at : https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code Cheik-Hussein. (2021). “Explainer - the arguments against the news media bargaining code and what happens next”. ADnews. Accessed at: https://www.adnews.com.au/news/explainer-the-arguments-against-the-news-media-bargaining-code-and-what-happens-next Clayton, R. (2021). “US Government asks Australia to scrap proposed laws to make Facebook, Google pay for news”. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-19/us-asks-australia-to-back-down-on-social-media-code-pay-for-news/13069668 Gramenz, J. (2021). “Facebook news ban ‘backfired dramatically’ say Curtin Uni Monash experts”. News.Com. Accessed at: https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/facebook-news-ban-backfired-dramatically-say-curtin-uni-monash-experts/news-story/b8dd4d34f12b0f4aaeba8a9b8d8cd568 Holden, R. (2021). “Media code is a Stalinist show trial”. Financial Review. Accessed at: https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/media-code-is-a-stalinist-show-trial-20210127-p56x31 Howell, G. (2021). “EXPERT REACTION: Facebook's news site ban”. Scimex.org. Accessed at: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-facebooks-news-site-ban Karvelas, P. (2021). “RN Drive with Patrica Karvelas: Senate votes on media bargaining code”. ABC net. Accessed at: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/senate-votes-on-media-bargaining-code/13180810 Kehoe, J. & Ward, M. (2021). “PM condemns Facebook ‘bullying’”. Financial review. Accessed at: https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/morrison-issues-global-rallying-cry-on-facebook-ban-20210218-p573ox Meese, J. (2021). “Google’s and Facebook’s loud appeal to users over the news media bargaining code shows a lack of political power”. The Conversation. Accessed at: https://theconversation.com/googles-and-facebooks-loud-appeal-to-users-over-the-news-media-bargaining-code-shows-a-lack-of-political-power-154379 Purtill, J. (2021). “Facebook news ban sees anti-vaccine misinformation pages unaffected and posting in 'information vacuum’”. ABC News. accessed at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-02-18/facebook-news-ban-misinformation-spread-covid-vaccine-rollout/13167318 Smith, B. (2021). “Microsoft’s Endorsement of Australia’s Proposal on Technology and the News”. Microsoft. Accessed at: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2021/02/11/endorsement-australias-proposal-technology-news/ Triple J Hack. (2021). What is going on with Facebook’s news ban?”. ABC.net. Accessed at: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/facebook-news-ban-explained/13168152 Visentin, L. (2021). “Media bargaining code will entrench Murdoch empire’s dominance: Rudd”. Sydney Morning Herald. Accessed at: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-code-will-entrench-murdoch-dominance-rudd-20210219-p573xn.html

By Jessica L. Why are we doing this again? Staring at the faceless squares of my classmates on Zoom whilst feeling the collaborative and awkward silences in our breakout rooms, I can’t help but feel like I am being swindled. As though I am being fooled into thinking that this is what learning is about, or that what I’m doing now will dramatically impact the outcome of my future. At the same time there is a looming anxiety that hangs over me, making me wonder, what am I going to do with my life? It doesn’t feel like I’m in an environment surrounded by “scholars and teachers” who will guide me towards my true potential. Most of the time It feels like I’m paying for an over-glorified 4-year-long membership to contemplate my existential crisis and listlessness as a university student. Living in an era where information is plentiful, learning opportunities endless and at a cheaper price, universities’ once alluring promises now feel like an outright scam. Scam 1 - “You’ll Change the World” I started out with the naive belief that I was here in this towering, sandstone, ever-green manicured campus for the pursuit of knowledge when I was 19 years old. I thought I wanted to be an art therapist and believed that I was capable of becoming something more if I studied at university. Halfway through my second semester, the once passionate zeal to pursue knowledge started to falter. It didn’t feel like I was learning anything that would help me make a positive impact on the world. It was actually making me disheartened and de-motivated. I wasn’t succeeding in the way I wanted to, I didn’t get marks that were worth noticing and I hated the feeling of meaninglessness that started to settle in me. When you become a student you start to see the reality that was hidden under the hopeful platitudes. Maybe you could have “changed the world” but you are too worried about surviving university or getting a job or trying to find some semblance of meaning in what you are doing. It’s easier to start thinking the world can wait a little bit longer for someone else to change it. “You can make a difference” on university homepages starts to feel like deflating sentiment when you already believe that it does not apply to you. Universities market themselves as though they are offering this “hope”. The kind of hope that is “inspiring”, “innovative”, “transformative” and more than anything else so impactful in solving the many problems of this world. It promises to tap into the hidden potential in all of us and turn it into something that is exceptional for the growth of our industry and the collective development of knowledge . Yet when you become a student, the institution reveals that only a select few are tasked with changing the world, especially if you want to enter research or work in academia. An undergraduate degree is sometimes not enough to start practising in your desired field, often requiring further education. The opportunity to get into higher levels of education is selective and gatekeeping, with high WAMs or GPAs being the minimum barometer to measure admission. The “YOU” that will be invited to change the world is a very specific type; you have to be technically skilled, professionally successful and prove yourself to be a lucrative investment to the industry. The gate will only be opened if you can prove to the institution that you will deliver those things and more. Values such as the pursuit of deeper knowledge, social justice or desire for learning are not enough to carry you ahead. Scam 2 - “You’ll have a better life” There’s no denying that degrees allow access into certain jobs, lifestyles and communities that are otherwise inaccessible. They have the very influential capacity to change the lives of families at an intergenerational level through one educated family member. The question arises though: are we studying for a better life, or for our revered social status? Are they one and the same? Sometimes our career paths aren’t chosen by us, but driven by society and our families. We all know that a degree in STEM and medicine is the optimal, while humanities and social sciences unfortunately don’t give you the status of having a “real university degree”. When the government increased debt for humanities students to try deterring them from choosing a “lesser degree”, they confirmed that they don’t mind attacking students for choices that are perceived as not serving the economy. No one chose to study humanities, social sciences or journalism based on how much it costs. Yet, instead of deterring students, it’s only increased their ongoing debt. For international students, the situation only gets worse. When ScoMo urged them to return home, many were left completely stranded, their promise of a better life cut off at the knees. Many couldn’t actually return home, as their governments had closed borders. To make matters worse, many international students lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic impacting a majority of hospitality and service industries. Leaving more than 500,000 students unable to support their livelihoods because they have lost their casual or part-time jobs. They cast out the people whose money and labour were being used to uphold the system. It begs the question, what kind of better life are international students pursuing, if their “education” is already costing them so much right now? “... It’s a small price to pay for my future. No matter how unfair it is, it is what it is for any student who decides to pursue an education abroad… We are reminded every day that It was our choice, an exuberant amount of money has been thrown in and we just have to grit our teeth, get it over and done with.” When I asked my friend, “do you think University is a scam?” Without any hesitation she replied “ Definitely.” Scam 3 - “You’ll receive the best education” I remember one foundational class where I was taught how to use 'excel spreadsheets' by lecturers and tutors. In the lecture halls I was unable to shake off the feeling that I was wasting my time and desperately trying to convince myself that this was important. While procrastinating, I ended up finding multiple courses on excel training from LinkedIn Learning that were more comprehensive and detailed compared to my semester long subject. When I see the price of my classes and the content being taught AT me, I feel as though the price doesn’t always translate to the true value of the content. Most of the time it feels more like I am paying for access to the additional materials such as textbooks, workshops and up-skilling platforms more than the “impeccable” educational content. It does make me wonder what is the defining and valuable feature of university education, when other alternatives are shown to be more engaging and affordable. There is enough to sow some doubt as to the efficacy of lectures, tutorials and practicals in the formation of learning technical and professional skills. The transition towards more online learning platforms is the last straw that is making us question the quality of education that we are receiving in comparison to the amount we are indebted to pay. It Is What It Is? Now living in a world where degrees have become more embellishments to our resumes, It makes sense to question these institutions and the authority they have over our lives. The illusion of University is beginning to crack bit by bit, but I still find myself collecting the broken shards with the belief that it isn’t true. I am in this system willingly. I compromise, doublethink and somehow compartmentalise the inklings of perceived value that are promised from this kind of environment. It seems like a contradiction for me to think that University is a scam and yet I am still willingly part of the institution itself. I’m hypocritical in many ways because I support the system as much as I critique it. Even though I know there are other alternatives to university, I still went down this route because my future career aspirations can only be achieved through this pathway. A degree is a box to tick, years to waste for a paper. We are all using university to get ahead in our lives, but let’s never fool ourselves that this is the epitome of what education should be. Edited by Lamisa H.

By Tahmina R. and Mariam H. Have you ever felt trapped in the needs of others? Growing up, we saw women as the bedrock of a family. They were an institution unto themselves. Carrying tradition, values and memories from generation to generation, they were used to ensuring the wellbeing of everyone above and before themselves. They never faltered. The caretaker complex is a concept that describes the physical, emotional or mental exhaustion resulting from a person neglecting themselves in favour of caring for someone else, or other people. It’s a dynamic where we see caring as a way of loving and our responsibilities to one another as the most sacred of bonds, and therefore worthy of the tireless effort they require to cultivate. The caretaker was a role we had seen the women in our lives play for decades and it became one that we started to take on into adulthood. Aware that this mutual duty, obligation and care is what distinguishes our communities from broader Australian society where we do not see value pursuing personal happiness above everything else - these are some of our reflections to create space to unlearn the caretaker complex without disrespecting the wisdom of the value systems that gave rise to it. Growing Up Tahmina In every way that we can, we are raised to think of our family and our friends as having rights over us and of us having rights over them. In this framework, caretaking is the glue that holds everything together - embedded in the very fabric of the way we relate to one another. From the women who raised me, I saw that preserving and caring for one another could be more fulfilling than caring for yourself and that in all the ways that count, personal happiness is more dependent on how you give than what you take. All unflinchingly selfless. Growing up, these were characteristics I idealised but I didn’t ever question whether there should be a limit to just how much they gave. Most people would agree that their mother is a force of nature. My sister and I joke that it’s tiring to see ours, twice our age and still with more energy than the two of us combined. Every conversation we have where we ask her to slow down or take even just a short breather is met with a quippy joke or her insistence that she doesn’t need a break. Her absolute unwillingness to take rest when she wants and not when she desperately needs to is the result. And honestly, it’s tiring just watching. Mariam From the women in my family I learned that to be a woman is to be a fountain of unflinching, unyielding strength. When I would ask them why they had to be there for everyone, the answer was never tied to a sense of duty or moral obligation. Rather it was always “because we know we can.” There was an unquestioned belief in their own emotional invincibility. The women in my family are the caretakers. They keep everything. Every memory, every heartbreak and every emotion. Over time it seeps into their soul and it weaves itself into their very being. As a child, this Amazonian ideal is what I attempted to live up to. I never quite managed it. The more I tried to be a good daughter, sister, cousin while still trying to laugh, to smile, to be kind, to keep my temper and to be good natured, the harder it became, and it never managed to ease the trauma and pain that lived in those I loved most. Seeking professional help for the first time at the age of nineteen despite having lived with depression and anxiety since childhood, all I remember is feeling selfish. Selfish at taking the time. Selfish at thinking I was “suffering.” And more than anything selfish that I dared to help myself before others that had it much worse than me. Trying to Unlearn Tahmina The caretaker complex is having one set of expectations for others and double that for yourself. My grandmother developed arthritis in her hands two years ago and when I think of what it means to care, I think of her hands. When I took her to her first appointment with the hand therapist, her biggest worry was what they would tell her she could no longer do. Even still, we have long conversations that go around in circles, where I tell her she has to reduce the time she spends doing work that puts pressure on her joints and she denies there’s even a problem. Most weeks I’ll go out into her garden, and there’ll still be cottons hanging on the line that she’s washed and rung out by hand. When I ask her why she didn’t use the machine, her cheeks red from being in the sun all morning, she explains “there were only a few.” Then she’ll go out to the garden for a couple of hours, pruning and trimming until her hand tires. As long as it’s relatively painless, she’ll keep doing what she’s always done. She’s raised three children and four grandchildren with those hands but the thought of giving them a break makes her laugh. And I know that if it was anyone else in her position, there’s no way she would let them carry on like she does. I’m sure that this experience is one that most of you have seen your mother or grandmother or aunt or sister take on. Mariam Personal happiness isn’t something that my mother ever really aspired to. In her youth, it was really just about survival. Survival of her family, survival of her memories, and survival of a future. The future. Everything was working towards a future, where she would find time for herself, time to relax, time to enjoy, a time that would never come. Because my mother could never be happy if those that she loved most were not happy and content. She wouldn’t rest until she had ensured that everything was right for them, and then, only then, could she consider what it would mean for her. Starting to unpack my own intergenerational trauma, and beginning along a path of recovery rooted in Western ideals of individualism and personal happiness, I began to reject the concept of sacrifice and patience I had been raised with. I felt that the only way forward was if I focused on all of my own wants and needs. Having come close to a precipice, I just needed to be okay. I had somehow internalised this idea that seeking professional help was selfish, and so if that had helped, then it stood to reason that the way to continue was to focus only on myself and the happiness I could carve out for myself. That of course did not go as planned; my existence is intricately interconnected with those of my family and community. So the only way I could see outside of this caretaker complex, was to reject what I felt were the traditional trappings of my culture. To quite literally move as far as I could. This made me miserable, but I continued, because I felt it was the only way to grow. Relearning. Tahmina There’s a lot I’ve internalised about selflessness through self-sacrifice, much of which I still don’t fully understand. I struggle to look at the women around me, giving everyone their best and keeping very little for themselves, because it makes me feel like I one day will have to do the same. And I don’t want to. Over the last year or so I’ve been actively trying to feel less responsible for the emotional wellbeing of people around me, reminding myself to only give as much as I can, and trying not to feel guilty. In taking a step back, we can also allow the men in our lives to fulfil this role as carer in a different way than they’ve been required to in the past. The task of caring has become gendered - with women being socialised to believe that they are better or more natural carers just by being women. And I’ve internalised so much of this. I’m aware that I’ve always expected full hearted emotional support from my mother but not the same from my father. But in the instances where I have sought advice from my father, he has jumped at the opportunity to listen to my thoughts and to share advice he believes I could benefit from. How many of you rely on your father and expect the same level of emotional support as you expect from your mother? If you do, I have a lot to learn from you. Mariam I think about who I am today, and my defining life experiences. They are all driven by a need to take care of those around me, by my own caretaker complex. I have built my identity around living in relation to those around me. Attempting to help, even when it wasn’t asked of me and always trying to anticipate the needs of those around me. My career as an occupation therapist, as much as I love it, if I am honest with myself, I chose because I needed to learn how to help the people around me. The caretaker complex is for better or worse a part of who I am. It is the echoes of the women who came before me and fought for the life and privileges I now get to have. I may never quite live up to the legacy of the women that raised me, and the women that raised them, but I am learning that that is okay. I am learning to recognise that there will be times those around me will be unwell and there will be nothing I can do. I think of a conversation I had with my mother one day. I was telling her an analogy for self-care, about needing to put on your own oxygen mask first when a plane crashes, before putting a mask on others. I remember she replied to me perplexed, “No, Of course I would put it on my child first. I would need to make sure they are ok.” I explained that no, this way you can make sure you have enough energy to give the help that the other person needs. My mother remained adamant that she would be able to. A Final Word. In describing the caretaker complex, and the instances we feel we’ve seen it, we hope we’ve created a chance for you to also reflect on the caretakers in your life and ask how you see your roles in other peoples lives. It’s a question we kept asking ourselves again and again. But we don’t really know and honestly, these boundaries haven’t been tested in meaningful ways (like marriage or having children). So for now, we’re just trying to become more aware of how we’ve internalised these habits, what we would like to unlearn and which parts we’ll carry into the future.

By Palwasha A. Recently I’ve noticed a trend in some conversations with friends, where they seem to feel uncomfortable bringing up a controversial topic, or visibly steer clear of a conversation because we know each other’s views on a certain topic and feel they leave no room for discussion. Australia, and much of the world, seems to be becoming more and more divided across political lines. In this atmosphere of dramatic polarisation, it can be difficult to have respectful discussion around topics that are so convoluted and multi-faceted. Cue the infamous family dinner scene, where one cousin’s liberal views clash with another family member’s conservative rhetoric and blows the evening to such heights that respect is but a blimp in the stratosphere. How many of us have approached a difficult conversation with the desire to drum it into the other person’s head that what they believe is incorrect, without being able to handle discussion or debate. Many people are getting to the point where they’re collectively tired of the growing hatred and difference of opinion that seems insurmountable when trying to educate, and spending your emotional energy on a person who seems not to be listening. So let’s change this. The Growing Divide There is a weird new energy in the air where hating on people with limited understanding of a topic seems to have become the norm. This applies to both sides of the aisle and everything in between. This has been seen before but in the age of social media, there is a certain performative and self-righteous element to it. The reality is that we don’t live in a world that puts value on empathy or even on knowledge that serves a purpose outside of furthering a capitalist agenda. So how do we actually respect people who we fundamentally disagree with? And to be clear I am not talking about people who refuse to learn, or stay spewing hatred. I also don’t mean in conversations where your rights, or those of others, are questioned. What I mean is those conversations that make you feel like the world is moving too slow and that what you’re talking about should have been researched by them in 2015. What’s the solution? The Nasty and Very Un-Sexy Political Root Of The Issue We’ve had it spun to us that the spreading virus of global polarisation can be boiled down to identity politics and how much more sensitive everyone has become. But as It turns out, when you dig past the bluster, one of the main reasons this change is happening is due to the rise of polarising, divisive leaders. Right now we seem to be at a bit of a crossroads. Partisan conflict, or allegiance to political ideals, takes a very heavy toll on all of us, regardless of our attitudes to politics. In ‘Democracies Divided’, a work by the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, polarisation often leads to the demonisation of activists and human rights defenders, which is why it can be difficult for people to open their minds to a perspective that is shunned. Even more seriously, divisions of this sort can “contribute to a spike in hate crimes and political violence”. This can be seen in polarised countries like India, Poland and the United States, which have all seen an increase in hate crimes in recent years. Interestingly, though not surprisingly, corruption in a country’s political space also bolsters it’s polarisation. This tends to leave a country’s people disgusted with traditional parties and clears the path for populist figures to take power, people who strive to appeal to the everyday person who feels that their concerns aren’t being listened to, like they haven’t been heard in years. The study also found that these effects pretty much don't change regardless of the country- democratic of course, we aren’t talking about dictatorships here. Also, (and this isn’t relevant to the piece I was just flabbergasted and I wanted you to know too) the 2019 study referenced that when polarisation hits a country hard, one of its effects is that it “shatters informal but crucial norms of tolerance and moderation- like conceding peacefully after electoral defeat- that keep political competition within bounds”. Wow. Sounds um, familiar. Like when an orange tyrant recently refused to let go of power and incited a riot in his own country to bring down any attempt at democracy. If the authors of the study could see them now. The Biggest of The Baddies, The Internet Once a deep divide emerges amongst citizens, polarisation tends to increase in the ensuing years at an alarming rate. Interestingly, governments tend not to do anything about this, despite terrible consequences, because the politicians who have incited it find that it favours them to have it grow. They are not the ones who bear the true cost. Minorities, women, the most vulnerable communities bear the brunt of polarisation, as can be seen in John Howard’s marketing fear of refugees as “being Australian”, and the devastating effects of that that we still see today. With the rise of fake news and the content we see being more and more geared to what we already believe, we become even more firmly entrenched in the views we already hold, which drives us further into the ground. In Australia’s case, much of the time, strongly inhumane policies are tied to a country’s “national identity” so as to make them more palatable and uplift supporters as patriots rather than people aligning themselves with inhumanity. What works for our media much of the time is appealing to people’s natural instinct of fearing the other, even if they weren’t inclined to do so originally. In Australia, our divide seems to be rooted primarily along lines of ideology and ethnicity. Our immense dependence on and interaction with the internet contributes hugely to such immense polarisation in an age where we have more access to educational resources than ever before. Something I personally didn’t know much about is the fact that the internet only gears towards you the content you want to see, which can give the illusion of a more full understanding of a concept or situation than you actually have. Many of us have seen the absolute takedown of Mark Zuckerberg by AOC regarding the way Facebook gives steam to fascist, and particularly white supremacist, groups and ideologies by gearing their content to people the platform judges to have interacted with content like that already. The most widely-used social media platform in the world does this, ladies and gentlemen. The Demonisation of Not Knowing A rising trend we’ve all seen in the past few years has been the absolute demolishing of people for not knowing about everything happening in the world. If you’re a part of the “woke” movement then you must know who is suffering why and when at all times. The important thing to realise when speaking to a person “on the other side” is how pervasive and accepted the systemic ruptures in our society are. This can also often be the reason behind conversations with women (for example) who say they don’t see the need for feminism. Someone’s ignorance on a topic you believe everyone should be passionate about isn’t necessarily a moral failing on their part, but simply their being a product of the world in which they have grown. These processes can be invisible even to the people who are most vulnerable to having their lives shaped by them. Let’s consider the example of racism. It is so systemically ingrained within our culture, in a country founded on genocide, that we are still in the stage of refusing to even change the date of our national holiday that celebrates said genocide. In this society, we all grow up as racists. Every individual must come to their own reckoning with this fact about themselves, and this may not come without a substantial moment of impact, that then must be followed by exposure to new ideas, and consistent unlearning and relearning for the rest of their lives. This “awakening” and learning process is very much discouraged by the rebranding of educated empathy for others as “liberalism”, exacerbated by the media. It’s not surprising that so many people never get the necessary exposure they need to to start unlearning. I myself am still so ignorant of certain issues that I should know more about. Though I am passionate about justice, that sense of justice is also skewed towards the things I’ve witnessed and experienced during my life. Though we can have empathy for every struggle, how many of us can be an effective ally for every struggle? While this is not a point to stay at, I think many of us are in this same position. Because the reality is that our society, the way we have to function in order to stay above the poverty line, is not rooted in empathy, but in upholding the structures that keep us where we are. Very few people have the pleasure of being able to make it their full-time job to learn, to grow in understanding of the structures that oppress us and to do something substantial about it. This is something we need to be able to recognise better in our interactions with each other. The expectation that everyone can and should be at the same level in their understanding of our world is what leads very quickly to empathy burnout, or even worse, to a standstill of performative activism that distracts from the point. So How Can We Move Forward? The solution, on an individual level, is to understand that you are not divided from this person because of a failing on their part. You are divided because forces bigger than you, and stronger than you, have worked to make and keep this divide. To make it so that pursuing education costs you as much as the down payment on a house. To make it so that when Black Lives Matter gained momentum, arguing that statement at all was deemed acceptable. To make it so that when women come forward to report, they’re not likely to get a conviction. These systems have worked to keep us in a state of denial about our own oppression so much so that it can no longer be blamed on the individual alone for not having gone completely against the grain to do the research to find out how, especially when what you find is so dismaying. Giving people the nuance and context they deserve is how we move past our divide and recognise the real enemy of systems that don't value kinship or empathy. We need to be able to have conversations openly about our ideas and thoughts, within respectful bounds, especially regarding the leadership of our countries and the systems that we operate within, in order to progress and combat this deep polarisation within our communities and Australia as a whole. Edited By Mariam H.

Palwasha A. and Lamisa H. “What if it’s not really what the audience wants-?” “Well...who gives a f*ck what they want?” -Gayle Kennedy Lamisa: I had never been to the theatre until recently. A kind colleague gifted me two tickets to go see the play Sunshine Super Girl, but when I walked in, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I saw the crowd- all white, all senior- and my heart sank. I thought damn it, this isn’t the play for me. I quickly researched before the play was starting and to my relief and surprise, it was about the first Indigenous woman to win Wimbledon in the 1970s. Thank God, I thought, I'm not wasting my weekend. After the play ended, I couldn’t believe how much I’d enjoyed it. How had I missed out on this experience my whole life? Palwasha: A couple of weeks ago we looked around the room at a Sydney Writers Festival event (tickets also gifted) and realised that we were two of the only non-white people in the room. The audience looked like the audience at every single mainstream arts event we’d ever been to, and it was time to ask why. It certainly didn’t reflect our culturally and linguistically diverse population- 39%. That means 39% of our arts scenes should be people of colour. But without much surprise, it isn’t. The point of this piece is not to scold white spaces for not including us, it’s to expose how much there is a need for us in the art spaces of this world, so much of a demand that audiences are clamouring for it. The Force That Is Gayle Kennedy When we say the word ‘accessibility’, we are talking about the necessity for intersectional inclusion. During the Sydney Writers Festival event, our notebook lay open with barely a word written on it through the first few speeches. Until a woman came out onto the stage and was introduced as Gayle Kennedy, a writer from the Wongaiibon clan of South West NSW. As Gayle looked out at the audience in front of her from her wheelchair, she decided to take no prisoners. “What a shame,” she said, “that I still have the same white audience looking back at me in 2021.” We picked up our pens, frantically taking notes for the first time in the event. We had just been speaking about this. A writer who refused to pander? Now this was something you paid for. Gayle asked the room the question of why she’d been published since 2004 but had not been invited to arts events for most of her career, and had watched her white counterparts get paid to attend event after event. She demanded that she be paid for her time, not just offered the chance of exposure. “Exposure doesn’t pay the rent”, she said. She called out Australia as a whole, describing herself and other creators with disabilities as having had their “noses pressed against the glass” all these years, their requests for accessibility denied, told that they would cost too much, that it would be too inconvenient. Then 2020 happened and every accommodation that creators with disabilities had ever asked for was put into effect in a matter of days because now it was technology that able-bodied people needed. Gayle represents an important and ignored intersection of identity- she is a woman, an Aboriginal woman, a person with a disability. She said to the audience at large, “as audiences we need to start letting the people know we want to see other people in the audience. We don’t want to see an almost all-white audience, we want to see a vibrant arts sector that includes everyone.” So Why Isn’t it Improving? The arts scene is viewed by the mainstream (and its participants) as progressive and inclusive- but the reality is far from it. We asked our readers whether they felt that Australia’s arts scene was accessible to them, and the responses we got from people working and studying in the industry were rich in lived experience. “I think nepotism plays a huge role in maintaining the non-diverse demographic of the arts scene [in Sydney], and it’s usually a ‘trickle up’ process,” says Hebah, a creative and storyteller from Western Sydney. “I’ve seen this quite a bit at university as my degree, a communications/media arts degree, is primarily white. Lots of us work on sets and aim to work in film/tv when we finish, but even at a university level, there is no value placed on having a diverse set. I often find myself being the only ‘diversity’ on set. In the theatre scene, I had pitched a POC Revue to a very white comedy/revue society at uni, in a bid to make it a more inviting space for POC. My pitch lost to queer revue, which had a show earlier in that same year with an almost all-white cast. This particular society has the same nepotistic tendencies in that they recycle a lot of their cast from previous shows, invite their friends to participate (Inner West white kids usually), and kind of maintain the whiteness of their space by default. Because of the cliquey constituency, when it comes to voting on show slots, it’s not a surprise that people vote for their friends’ shows. It was a really rough experience which pushed me away from the arts scene a bit.” This experience is rooted in what is known as systemic discrimination, which can be incredibly difficult to identify: “the key sign that defines systemic discrimination is if a programmer’s choice of works is based on an unexamined assumption that work aligns better with the culture of the organisation.” -’Shifting the Balance’. This is the implicit bias that upholds whiteness in the arts. The introduction of ‘blind auditions’ in the orchestra, for instance, increased representation of female musicians from 5% in 1970 to 30% today. In the collaborative study by Western Sydney University and Diversity Arts Australia, ‘Shifting the Balance’ outlines the appalling lack of POC leadership across multiple arts sectors- the highest being a mere 14% in the literary and publishing industry. Though there is much push for greater diversity in the arts scene by individuals and organisations, without the proper representation of Black, Indigenous, People of Colour in these leadership positions, it is inevitable that they will fall prey to the implicit bias that is a symptom of systemic discrimination . At the moment, Australia does not have a national arts policy at all. This is opposed to, for example, the UK who have policies in place to axe funding if certain diversity quotas are not met. Luckily for us though, Australia’s culture is young, and our social fabric is always in motion. We have the power to shape it- it’s not too late to carve the arts space with diversity at its core. The Growing Demand for Spaces That Are ‘For POC by POC’ “In regards to art and accessibility for POC,” says Suzy, a fourth-year law and journalism student from Sydney. “Can we acknowledge the fact that when we are part of the art world we are made out to be watched or witnessed. We’re still forced to mold ourselves to the white gaze. We are treated like exhibitions. Our participation in art is monitored and altered. The only art I’ve truly enjoyed is community art hosted in community art centres; for POC by POC. There are still white people that come observe but you can tell the exhibition isn’t for them. And this extends past art in the form of visual art. The arts industry; music, theatre, writing. All of it. We are always a performance to be watched, never a people to be understood.” There are organisations that are already doing the work in Australia. Let’s pull all hands on deck to support them, contribute to them and just show up: Diversity Arts Australia, Sweatshop, We are the Mainstream, Pari Ari, Blacktown Arts Centre, Bankstown Poetry Slam, South Asian Today, just to name a few of the amazing arts initiatives spearheaded by POC. “Also on that note; why are we always portrayed in art as so linked to our politics but white people aren’t. I’ve never seen a play or [piece of] art about a white person struggling with their accountability and acknowledgment of white privilege. Yet there is so much art about our oppression as a result of these concepts. POC characters can never be disconnected from their politics. But white people always are.” Consuming Art is Just As Important As Making It The justification for all this nonsense lack of inclusion is the claim that immigrants do not appreciate the arts, so investing in them would be a waste of time. But what’s really happening is that they are not actively being invited into these spaces. The genuine experience and accessibility of the arts by and for all of us is what would make Australia live up to its promise of a successful diversity story.. By gatekeeping the 'mainstream' arts scene, we reinforce that immigrant families, people with disabilities, people who don’t conform to a white, able-bodied cis ideal are second-rate citizens. “My family have always accessed the arts scenes, ballets, musicals, concerts and museums,” says Julia, a recent graduate and consumer of the arts since she was young. Julia comes from a Korean background. “For us it's not that they were inaccessible to our family but more that we were made to feel like we didn’t belong there. The hoards of older white people who were clearly staring at us only talked to us to make us feel less than, and sometimes would even say that we were the ‘few’ of ‘our people’ to appreciate the arts, etc. Which is not just super condescending, pretentious and ridiculous, but they make it known that this is their space that we have just walked into. Places that they have enjoyed for years because they are more privileged. Places we’ve only been able to explore and enjoy recently because we are immigrants and did not have the time or the money to invest in the arts.” Despite almost 50% of Australians having one parent born overseas, ‘mainstream’ and ‘ethnic’ have become two separate arts spaces. One is seen as high culture whereas the other is niche. The binary is shocking. The division in our own city is emblematic of this strange class divide that can be witnessed within the arts. Though POC-only spaces are pivotal, we need to bring them into the mainstream, to merge and destroy the gap between what is currently deemed as ‘mainstream’ and what is deemed as ‘other’. Fight for Radical Inclusivity At the end of Gayle’s speech, as she looked out at the audience, she asked them: “Why don’t we all start talking about being inclusive? I was told many years ago with a straight face that it’s not really what the audience wants. Okay well, who gives a f*ck what they want?” Put them on stage. They’ll be fine, they’ll get over it. Let’s start. Let’s start being inclusive. Let’s not break the hearts of the Indigenous kids, the African kids, the other people going to places like NIDA, who basically don't stand a chance of getting into the mainstream. Getting chosen. Going to an audition knowing that they have half a chance of being chosen to go on stage. Show people with disabilities in your shows, put us on stage, put us on television, take us seriously as artists. Pay us. I’ve lost count of the number of times that people have asked me if I will do something for nothing, and no, I won’t. That’s my form of activism. If you pay everyone else, then you pay me. Whether it's paying in kind, but you pay me. I am worthy of being paid for my participation in your event. And Ii've found from speaking with other people with disabilities at conferences, that it's getting through to them now. You are worthy of being paid. And when they say well it's good exposure, I tell them I don't need exposure. I need the rent. We need artists to include everybody and I don't mean it as a token, I don't mean that you tick the boxes- I mean valued. On stage, in your libraries, valued on television screens." We want a vibrant arts sector, why not this year? Listen to Gayle speak here: Further Reading Idriss, S., 2020. The Sorry Part Is Easy – Why True Racial Diversity In The Arts Will Take More Than Words. [online] The Conversation. Available at: Arvanitakis, J., 2019. Australia's Art Institutions Don't Reflect Our Diversity: It's Time To Change That. [online] The Conversation. Available at:

Mariam H. The Afghan report was made publicly available on the 19th of November 2020, after a 4 year inquiry. The report provided evidence of war crimes perpetrated by the Australian Defence Force against unarmed Afghan civilians. I remember sitting as a third year student in my weekly 'Sociology of Terror' tutorial as we discussed the horrors of war. Specifically, talking about the wars and conflicts in the post 9/11 period. As I sat there listening to the tutor and classmates speak around me about the glorification of the soldier, the respect and honour they deserve for sacrificing/forfeiting their lives for their state or society, I started to feel sick. A churning kind of sickness, as though I was being tossed around. As a girl growing up in an Afghan household, war has always been an underlying aspect of much of our lives, despite never having experienced it myself. It is the unspoken guest at my grandmother’s gatherings, it is the silence where there should be my oldest uncles. It is in the sadness that never leaves my mother's eyes, and in the grooves of my grandmother's face. It is the weary tiredness of my uncles. It is in the fierce, almost cloying protectiveness of their children. It is in the terror my mother feels if I miss too many of her phone calls. It is the recognition, dawning awareness in peoples' eyes when I tell them I am Afghan. In my household we were never allowed to have any toy guns or weapons. If someone was to bring a nerf gun or water pistol as a gift my usually thrifty and borderline-hoarding father would immediately throw it out. My parents never had much to say about what we wore, but camouflage anything was something we could never wear. Any commemoration, glorification or normalisation of the soldier was strongly disapproved. I remember Comedian Trevor Noah spoke about this in a segment, where the United States acts on the assumption that they are the Rebel Alliance, the underdogs fighting for freedom, democracy and world order. But for much of the world they are the Galactic empires and the army, the storm troopers coming in and causing destruction. That always stuck in my head, because I feel that's how the United States, British, and Australian Army are viewed. I know that's an extremely simplistic metaphor, but it captures feelings better than any other I have found. The Report The Afghan report, or the Inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan Inquiry report as it is officially called, is a 465 page document completed over four and a half years that investigated the conduct of Australian soldiers during the War in Afghanistan. The report found credible evidence for the murder of thirty-nine unarmed Afghan civilians. Among the perpetrators is Australia’s most elite force, the Special Air Services Regiment. Soldiers were found to have killed Afghans, both farmers and prisoners, then planted weapons on their corpses in order to claim that they had been armed combatants. If this in itself wasn’t despicable enough it was found that new patrol members were coerced into murdering prisoners to achieve their “first kill," in a brutal hazing practice that they called “blooding.” The disregard and animosity peddled by politicians and the media for supposed “enemy” populations in the post-9/11 era culminated in contemptible individual actions. The Major General of the Army Brereton stated, "the cases in which it has been found that there is credible information of a war crime are ones where it was, or should have been, plain that the person killed was a non-combatant." There was no question of “defence” or “protecting their country” - Australian soldiers murdered civilians. The culture of the military meant that during the inquiry, many held their silence or were just outright deceitful, placing the loyalty to their units above decency and justice. It was as though wearing that uniform gave them the right to play God, placing themselves outside of the laws that govern everyone else. The General of the army himself acknowledged there was a, “misplaced focus on prestige, status and power.” The translation of this is that the over-peddled narrative of “serving your country” is basically a cover to live out a twisted Jack Ryan fantasy. The report also found that there was a “liberal” interpretation of people they considered being “directly involved in hostilities.” Essentially they could use their own judgement, however skewed, to determine who they could target. The Afghan report is only the tip of the iceberg of the abuses perpetrated in Afghanistan. Citizens Not Soldiers Stories of the conflict in Afghanistan, both in the news and popular culture, more often than not focus on the military coming into the country be that the young soldier, the intrepid journalist or the worn and cynical veteran, to save the people. They rarely tell the story of the generations of individuals whose life, psyche and existence has been shaped by it. Yes sure, there are the exceptions that share the story of the Afghan women and children who are brutalised and oppressed. But even those are more often than not a story of suffering for the consumption of those completely removed from the conflict. For every story of pain, resilience and courage we get, we have ten where the Afghan people are no more than props in their own story. Think of the BBC drama ‘Sherlock’ here the Afghan conflict is nothing more than an ornament to flesh out the character of Watson. This is far from the only, or worst example.The news media is no better, here the Afghan people are nothing more than numbers, if they are mentioned at all. Afghans again and again become footnotes to the stories of the supposed valour and heroism by soldiers, and the country itself is stripped to nothing but a hardened and inhospitable battleground. Following in this pattern, is it any surprise then, that so much of the discussion surrounding the findings of the Afghan report seems to be fixated on the ramifications of the disciplinary actions for the soldiers. One recommendation made by the report that has caused anger, is the decision to strip the Special Operations Task Group rotations that served in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2013 of the Meritorious Unit Citation awarded to them. This means that even those soldiers who were not mentioned in the report will be affected. While the General Campbell of the ADF has stood by this decision, both the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister are among those who are uncomfortable with it. For my own part, I feel nothing but growing disgust that a citation is anything in the face of hundreds of families ripped apart. That the loss of a hunk of metal is anything compared to the loss of a child experienced by a parent. That is not to say that I do not feel for the pain of the families of soldiers, or the individual soldiers themselves who experienced extensive trauma, to now to be stripped of something that gave their senseless violence a meaning because I do, I really do. But this report is not about them, it is about people who were seen as collateral to some concocted grand narrative. This is without even going into the fact that the Government’s initial response to the investigative report (ABC’s ‘Afghan Files’) was to suppress it. With the Australian Federal Police investigating journalist Daniel Oaks and conducting a raid on ABC headquarters last year, where they confiscated most of the Afghan files. The Consequences The report is just one piece of the puzzle that proves that Australia's conduct as a part of the broader American effort in Afghanistan is an example of neo-imperialist US foreign policy. Any support for this war, or any attempt to diminish its impact to a sum of only 36 unlawful killings is extremely harmful because it condones conduct that is illegal under International Law and also against the political ideals that the war was justified because of peace and democracy. The findings in the report prove what many Afghans have known for years, that Western interventionist armies under the guise of freedom and the war on terror have perpetuated despicable and senseless acts of violence against civilians. The report highlights 36 unlawful killings, but the number of civilian deaths in the first nine months of 2020 have 5939 according to figures by the UN. The NGO Save the Children estimates that a third of civilians have been children.The conflict in Afghanistan has been a relentless decade long tug of war of power between entities that all have a cold disregard for the Afghan people that they are terrorising. The fact is that while 36 killings may have been identified as “war crimes,” they are far from the only atrocities committed by the Australian and American armies, since their initial deployment post-9/11. Al Jazeera shares reports of prisoners murdered in helicopters to save space, and killings of a six-year-old child in a house raid. Then you have the military approved programs pumped up by their own self-important action hero fantasies that are nothing more than cold-hearted butchery, such as the “Kill/Capture” program. This program allowed Special Force troops to capture or assassinate Afghans they believed to be insurgent leaders. A 2011 Four Corners report found cases where Special Force Troops accidentally murdered the local Afghan police chief. Or another case where three unarmed civilians were killed, though they had only acted in self-defence. In each of these cases the ADF investigators did not bother interviewing any local witnesses because they considered travelling there to be too dangerous. Both the conflict, the narrative surrounding it, and the ongoing peace talks have neglected to consider the Afghan men, women and children whose life have been irreversibly affected by it. Human rights chief of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Fiona Frazer, states: "our interviews with victims and their families reveal the near complete failure of parties to the conflict to acknowledge the harm caused, nor even to make contact with them following an incident." What is needed is concrete action towards safeguarding the lives of civilians, and the bare minimum is that parties should acknowledge the immense pain caused and move towards reconciliation. What’s the point of all of this? The point is that I am angry, disgusted and sad, for a people, my family's people, that will forever be seen through a veil of the violence that they have suffered, that a report that highlights the sheer malignancy of a venerated institution has not survived more than a week in the news cycle and that once again we value those who willingly participate and inflict violence, more than the people who have to endure it. In summary, I am heartbroken. Editor: Tahmina R.

Jessica L. & Lamisa H. When we see the words “identity politics” pop up in comment sections or news articles, many of us begin to sink into a weird place where our identity confusion morphs into something more defensive. For me, I start thinking of the ways in which I am a Woman, Asian, able-bodied, educated, middle-class, POC and WOC. Eventually it becomes a neverending list of classifications that I’ve adopted over my years of being a human. I have learned to use these identities as a form of navigation, like a compass pointing me in the direction of spaces where I am accepted, legitimised or simply allowed to exist. However my various identifiers were not things that I passionately cared about on a day-to-day basis. Only when I felt my experiences devalued and invalidated did these identities take on a certain undeniable authority and power. The moments when I do use my identities to speak about my experiences, I can be easily dismissed as a snowflake, trying to make everything and anything about “Identity politics” as if I were having a childish tantrum. The concept as a result turns into a “gotcha” catchphrase that is meant to leave me silently dumbfounded and abruptly halts any further discussion. In the case of “Identity Politics'' the term itself is often loosely thrown around. Right- wing proponents use it against left-leaning parties to aggressively suggest that they are focusing on “feelings” rather than facts. On the other hand, the way it is spoken of and pushed for by the left can also be very frustrating in it’s oversimplification of the term, robbing it of its usefulness. The concept itself has evolved with the changing times, making its original intention so diluted that it is actually hindering us from utilising it properly across political and social discourse. The History Of Identity Politics Where did the term actually come from? Identity politics is a black feminist term. It originated in 1977, from a collective of Black lesbian feminists, named ‘Combahee River’. These women formed their collective as a way of addressing their needs as Black women, that were not being met in either the feminist movement or the civil rights movement of the times. They’re also responsible for introducing the little concept of interlocking systems of oppression, a key component of intersectional activism. They saw identity politics as an analysis that introduced the opportunity for Black women to be actively involved in politics, while simultaneously acting as a tool to authenticate Black women's personal experiences. This makes so much sense now. Knowing this history, it’s alarming to see how much our understanding of the term has been actively polluted and distracted from. Almost everyone thinks of identity politics as the politics of division-- a politics that clouds intersectional discourse. When you search definitions on Google, you are met with ones such as Merriam Webster’s. You’re not ready for this one. Definition of identity politics from Merriam Webster: "politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group." This definition erases the very intended function of identity politics, and suggests that it does not coincide with solidarity. It suggests unnecessary division. Identity politics has obviously been weaponised and ridiculed by right-leaning interests, but it has also completely been stripped of useful meaning and context by major left-leaning political parties, like the US’s Democratic party, and has come to mean nothing more than a distraction tactic. But like intersectionality (also a Black feminist concept), identity politics is an analytic framework that helps us make political decisions that keep in mind that the needs of all are not the same, helping us to assess how power operates and how we should respond to its operations. The Kamala Harris Conundrum By now, you would have seen the articles circulating that celebrate and criticise the significance of Kamala Harris becoming the first madam vice-president of the USA. Reading through, you'll find in-depth, well-researched arguments that address Harris’ political record, especially during her time as Attorney General of California, a period of her career where she supported the incarceration of many African-American men on minor charges and Israel’s occupation of Palestine amongst other damaging positions. Her track record is of actively voting against and disenfranchising minority communities, including the ones that she belongs to, to gain power. Simultaneously you will find pieces that take on a completely contrasting tone of praise, to counterbalance the criticism. On the flipside of this coin she is heralded as “The First” of many things. The First Woman vice president, The First WOC or The First Asian-American, a portrayal that makes her fitting to be a modern generation’s role model. But it is a victory in nothing more than visual representation. While we are happy that she is not another white man in a position of power, we have to wonder if the bar is set that low when it comes to wanting “representation”. It is also a concern of what happens to our political environment when we look for visual representation in the politician’s identity without examining the impact of their actions. It’s not right to dismiss the ways this politician has benefitted from the systematic oppression of African-Amercian people and yet knows that voters were willing to blindly compromise for the sake of getting ethnic identities into more positions of power. Her election to one of the most powerful seats in the country holds little promise of progress for black women’s collective betterment, and this is exactly the opposite of the outcome identity politics is meant to achieve. The sanitisation of the concept is both lauded and the reason it is so hated. Does #Auspol really need identity politics? How embarrassing is it, that in modern-day Australia, almost every senior political role is held by a middle-aged white man, people who have proven time and time again that they are completely unattuned to the needs of multicultural Australia, and not fit or willing to move towards inclusivity in their decision-making. What’s interesting is that though identity politics is lauded as a minority issue, white identity has always been represented and catered to across the political space- it’s just called politics. The problem with Australian Politics is that the government is not reflective of all of its constituents. Even though we do have prominent WOC Senators such as Mehreen Faruqi or Penny Wong, they alone are not enough to shift the predominantly “white” presence of our political environment. Currently there is the suggestion that “diversity quotas” should be introduced in parliament to address this problem. This aims to promote a more diverse government body by setting a percentage of people from “diverse” backgrounds to be included in Australia’s government parties. This method of setting quotas has been used in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to ensure there will be an equal ratio of male and female politicians. While on the one hand it has shown results in regards to evening out the (binary) gender disparity, the question of whether the effect will translate on the basis of race remains to be seen. One can’t help but wonder: will such quotas end up leading to more avenues for tokenism and stifling real change or are they genuinely capable of facilitating authentic and holistic representation of diverse identities. It is only the most minor of wins for future politicians to enter government spaces on the basis of the identity they present as, rather than their activism and efforts towards the betterment of their communities. Just recently, Lidia Thorpe, a Gunnai-Kurnai and Gunditjmara woman, was sworn in as a Senator for Victoria, working up her political standing through grassroots activism to secure her position as the First Indigenous Woman to become Senator for Victoria. She shook up the majority white-representing senate as she raised her fist in the air, in solidarity with her Aboriginal community and with the families who have lost loved ones under police custody. Lidia uses her identity and background to blatantly address the shortcomings of the Australian politics that have detrimentally affected her own community. What we see from Senator Thorpe is how her identity as a First-Nations Woman is used in an authentic manner reflective of the original intentions of identity politics. An identity that is not treated as a box to be ticked off upon entry but truly impactful across the political and social space. What should we do? What is the takeaway? Identity politics needs to be brought back to its original meaning, one created by a group of Black feminists who saw that their needs were not being met by either of the major movements of the time that purported to have their backs. It is not about distraction tactics, or putting too much focus on “feelings”, but a genuine and necessary tool in navigating our political discourse and moving it towards true inclusivity. To truly understand identity politics, we need to understand fully that all politics involves some unavoidable element of identity, and that the need to ensure that not only one identity is constantly overrepresented in our political environment has never been stronger. So instead of dismissing it, we must seek to understand it. Identity politics cannot be a standalone tool in understanding any one issue, but it also cannot be disregarded or removed from our discourse. Doing any of these will always result in incomplete answers. Edited by Palwasha A. Further Reading Illing, S., 2019. White Identity Politics Is About More Than Racism. [online] Vox. Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2020].

Mariam H. and Irisa R. Do you remember that time when the two top female rappers, Nicki Minaj and Cardi B, got into a physical fight in the middle of a party, and it was reported that they were feuding over who was the ‘Queen of Rap’? The Sparknotes version is that there was an airborne shoe and lots of chaos. When you first heard the story, did you laugh? Because the entertainment world is filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of mediocre male rappers, yet when the only two well-known female rappers got ahead, they were eventually and inevitably violently pitted against each other for this one mythical spot atop a throne. The women themselves, we were all told, seemed to be driven by the idea that for one of them to succeed, the other needed to fail. We recall speaking to some friends when it happened, who admitted that without realising, they would always compete with the other women in their classes. Although the ‘beef’ between Cardi B v Nicki Minaj cannot be used to analyse the dynamics that exist between women in professional spaces, it does point to a real issue - we are taught to believe that there is only one spot and we have to fight each other for it. WHY IS EVERYTHING THE HUNGER GAMES? In her essay, ‘Cinderella's Stepsisters’, award-winning author Toni Morrison coined the term “emotional and professional violence”. It refers to members of historically marginalised communities actively or passively ignoring the needs of people that look like them, in order to realise their own ambitions and aspirations, even if it comes at the expense of their own peers. In the workplace it can look like a member of a marginalised community being kinder to certain colleagues depending on whether they see them as a threat because of their proximity to them, or making sure they’re the most liked out of all the people that look like them. It can even be subconsciously fighting to be the only one. It can look like New Girl stars Damon Wayans Jr and Lamorne Morris being asked which one would have to leave the show, because it would be unheard of to have two Black characters on one popular sitcom. Like most social phenomena, this isn’t just a random occurrence. The best way to understand this pattern of behaviour is through the lens of the model minority myth. At its core, the theory pits minority groups, specifically those of East or South Asian descent, against members of their own community and other minority groups. The myth’s negative consequences come from its dominating narrative that to succeed, you must be better than the people who look like you and that you must be the best in any room. This translates in classrooms too. A research study conducted by the Department of Psychology at Seattle Pacific University found that Asian students are less likely to ask for help from their peers, friends or families. This aversion to ask for help, can mean that later on in the workplace, they are more likely to compete with their colleagues rather than collaborate with them. A ‘TOKEN’ CHARACTER ISN’T GOING TO CUT IT The catch is that once you reach this mythical peak, where there is endless opportunity and nothing in your way, well, then comes the responsibility of being the only very (un)lucky Asian, Brown or Black person in the room. So with diversity becoming a commodity, the ‘token’ has truly become the staple. The token exists in TV shows, where we have all seen the throwaway side - kick Asian, Black or Brown characters that are just palatable enough for the everyday viewer. This concept also extends to both political and professional spaces, where when one person from a minority group is given a platform, they are then forced into the position of being the mouthpiece for their entire community. For example, after Julia Gillard was effectively usurped (how Shakespearean) the articles written about her were riddled with comments about how her time as Prime Minister proved that women could never be leaders. Or when Barack Obama became President, it was touted that racism in America was dead and that Black people were on top, and the frustration that during his presidency there was little improvement for Black communities was felt tenfold. Recently, when Kamala Harris was elected as Vice President of the US, it was (and still is) stressed by every outlet that she is the first VP of both Indian and African American descent- but Kamala, throughout her long career, has partaken in pushing and upholding many policies that directly hurt those same communities. One person cannot represent the interests of so many minority groups; for that to occur there would need to be hundreds of people who represent the diverse, and varied interests of all members of a community. Just like our own Mehreen Faruqi cannot be the start and end of representing the interests of all Muslims in Australia. Unlike any and all of their white counterparts, every one of the people listed above were burdened with the responsibility of speaking for their entire community, and when they failed in this massive task, it was then painted as a shortfall of the entire group that they were representing. WHAT ARE THE TAKEAWAYS ? There is an issue with the term ‘minorities’ that operates on the understanding that we are ‘the other’ and that whiteness is the norm. In situating ourselves apart from everyone else, it can start to look like we are the special edition and that we are only acceptable in small quantities. It's like playing a game of musical chairs and fighting over the few remaining seats, while not noticing or recognising that there is a stadium filled with chairs. We need to start with self awareness- who do we see as competition in both private and public spaces, and why them? Do we tend to compete with the people that look most like us? Do we believe that there can only be one space for people that look like us, and in order to have it, that we need to fight others for it? If any of these questions seems completely left of field to you, then just enjoy your day, because you’ve successfully unlearned and swerved the internalised competitiveness that comes with the model minority myth. If they’re hitting a little too close to home however, like they inevitably would for many of us, it’s time to do that unlearning. Zendaya, a young African American actress in Hollywood, addressed this issue when she said, “instead of going to the casting call that asks for Black women, I go to the casting calls that ask for White women.” So let’s take a page from her book and start showing up for ourselves in places and for positions that aren't asking for us, but need us.