I don't really set enough time aside to write these days. It's a shame because I am having so many interesting conversations and have so many ideas bouncing around that I should be taking the time to think through them in a more structured manner. I've got two and a bit weeks left until uni is over for the year, and then when I get back from Sydney I want to take the time to just sit down and write and think and read.

I've not even got time to start talking about all the interesting conversations about theories of mind and the language/concept chicken and egg or the thoughts I've had about how scientific change occurs or how the visuo-spatial concept that restrains our visual perception does not constrain the visual imagery. Or that according to many theories of learning, apparently I don't exist. Apparently imagery is required for learning, apparently all scientific breakthroughs required visualisations (load of crap if you ask me, what about mendle's peas just for one) and you can't do math with out visualisations. The concept that people use visualization to learn was so hard won that now that it is the dominent paradigm within the education community any threat to it can not be condoned. These are the people who say, everybody learns differently and that we must accommodate all of them – therefore we must make everything available in a visual way as well as propositional so that experiential knowledge can be laid down and yet when faced with some one that does not fit their theory that everyone can visaulise to some extent, they balk and disbelieve because it doesn't fit their theory. It would require them to re-work their theory. It frustrates me that a theory designed, originally, to be inclusive can be so closed off to the unexpected.

It would seem I've always time for a short rant however...

"… a person is disabled by the disabling barriers of society, and not the particular circumstances of their impairment. These barriers can arise from disabling attitudes, prejudice and exclusion." (Lacton, C . 2008)

Society views any person who differs, for any reason, from the perceived norm as 'other' and somehow less than the accepted.
People that differ in their physical or mental capabilities are viewed as disabled; that it is as if being disabled is to be the other of the 'abled' and is only applicable in comparison to the 'standard'.

Disability is a social construct. Here’s an example: consider having very poor eyesight and requiring contact lenses or glasses in order to function 'normally'? Now, if those technologies had not been invented yet a person with very poor eyesight would suddenly 'become' disabled. The level of disability in people’s physical lives has to do more with the level of technology offered, rather than the level of 'wrongness' in the physical body. (Sceriha, 1996)

Assumptions are made about people with disabilities that have no bearing on reality, or their humanity. This means that they are an often forgotten demographic. This is seen clearly when it comes to problems of domestic violence and reproductive rights. The invisibility when it comes to domestic violence is seen clearly in the ABS 41020_Women's experience of partner violence_2007 study in that it does not mention women with disabilities at all, although it deals individually with a number of other subcategories, despite women with disability "being among the most disadvantaged (group) in our society and… more easily targeted for violence". (Sceriha, 1996)
This is partly because among the many misconceptions about disabled people, there is a myth that women with physical disabilities are non-sexual beings, that they are not with sexual partners and therefore are not in danger of domestic violence. (Conversely women with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities are often seen as promiscuous, with the implication that if they are victims of domestic violence that they 'deserve' what they get). These myths "…target women with disability and exacerbate their experience of abuse by getting in the way of services providing for women with disability and in the way of women with disability knowing about their rights to such provision. Worse still, when women with disability internalise these beliefs, they are not likely to have the necessary knowledge to identify the seriousness of the violence against them. All too often they believe they are to blame and may accept unquestioningly being discounted by those to whom an appeal is made for help." (Sceriha, 1996)

The general perception that a person is unhappy or deserves pity based purely on their disability is an ungrounded assumption. The idea that disabled people don't have sex is simply incorrect. This non-sexual assumption is compounded with the discrimination regarding the capabilities of disabled people as parents so that not only does this fallacy affects women with violent partners it also affects those who wish to have children.

Womens' reproductive rights are already infringed upon, the most obvious form being the illegal nature of having control of their bodies and choices. Women with disabilities face these same issues, yet, often equally intrusive is the notion that they should not have children because of their disability. The idea that a disabled person is not a 'fit' parent is based in the idea that they are not 'fit'. They are assumed to have no autonomy and therefore are not considered capable of raising a child. This view is prejudiced and ignorant. The notion that disabled people should not have children because disability limits a persons abilities to interact with the child in the 'correct' manner is discriminatory. Not everyone wants to have children, and not all people are suited to being parents. However, a person's disability should not be the factor that that 'fitness' is based on, and should not be a barrier in their wish to reproduce.

The restriction of a disabled person's right to reproduce can also be based on the fear that they might pass on their disability. This fear of disability is behind the general practice of encouraging women, in general, to abort a pregnancy if the child is likely to have a disability. Some disabled people say that they do not agree with abortion on the grounds of foetal disability. This position is understandable in that aborting purely on those grounds sends out a clear message that people with disabilities are not wanted in society.

However, in my opinion, the issue is still about having control of one's own body and life, and the choice of continuing or discontinuing a pregnancy, for whatever reason, should remain with the pregnant woman. If a women decides to continue with a pregnancy then that is her reproductive right and she should be able to make that choice free from any negative pressure. Likewise, if she chooses not to have the child her decision should be equally respected.

This issue leads into the pro-choice debate and lends support to the idea that pro-choice is not limited to the choice to have an abortion and is really about full reproductive choice. Reproductive choice is the freedom to have control over the decisions that affect your body and your life. If you wish to have a child you should be able to do so without any pressure to do otherwise and without being exposed to violence. Equally, the rights of a woman to decide not to have a child demands the right for access to contraception and legal and safe abortion options. Pro-choice is the argument that a woman, has the right to control what happens to her body.

Disabled people face discrimination everyday and their lives are often difficult, on a practical level, due to their disability and the lack of technology or support to help them interact within society. "Ignorance, neglect, superstition and fear are social factors that throughout the history of disability have isolated persons with disabilities" (United Nations 1994)
Perhaps, as we fight to remove the binary social constructions that restrict gender and sexuality expression we can help to change the perception away regarding the able/disabled binary as well.

Clara Laxton. http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/04/abortion_and_di

Sceriha, M. 1996. Women with Disabilities and Domestic Violence, A paper presented to the National Domestic Violence Forum, Parliament House, Canberra, September 1996, by Madge Sceriha for Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA). http://www.wwda.org.au/madge.htm

Linacre, S, 41020_Women's experience of partner violence_2007, Australian social trends, 2007. Australian bureau of statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/ADE8C301B6BA85ABCA25732C00207E92?opendocument

(United Nations 1994) quoted by (Sceriha, 1996)

16 days to go....

an innocent interest hijacked
as want turns to need
it's ache rippling through my mind
demanding access
to every joule I possess
systematically
claiming my life for
its own.

shadows lurk beneath my eyelids.
sharp words wait,
impatiently,
to ignite
to lash out undeserved
unexpected
unable to be called back.

absent from myself.
I watch.
as words induced
from the edge of a void
create havoc
in your eyes.

There is a general belief that if you vote for a small party or for an independent that you waste your vote because one of the two major parties will get into power anyway. But it is not just about who is in power – it is about how much of a majority they have in the House of Representatives and the Senate and what other party dynamics are there as well. The government in power is obviously going to have more influence on what is presented to the Senate due to its necessary majority in the House of Reps - in this way it endeavors to implement party polices and electoral promises. Yet despite this, and even though the opposition has a large part in blocking or agreeing which bills are presented the deciding vote can often comes down to the smaller parties and/or independents. Once the bills are decided upon they are presented to the Senate. The Senate controls which bills are passed. The government does not necessarily have a majority of the Senate. In order that bills are fully considered from all angles there needs to be representatives of the diverse population in the House and in order that bills don't pass that directly discriminate against or disadvantage particular minorities, representatives of the diverse population that Australia has need to be in the senate.
Therefore voting for a representative that you think will better represent your interests is not a waste as, if enough people vote the same, then your representative will have a say in what bills are presented to Senate and if in the Senate then they will have a say in what is passed. If your choice does not get enough votes then your vote gets transferred to the next preference and if you dictate your preferences then your next choice, or your next, will be representing you in parliament.

The House of Representatives is the section of government that writes and introduces laws (bills). The consent of the Senate is needed to pass Bills so that they may become legislation."
The current government is made of two parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Liberal Party holds 74 seats and the National Party holds 12. Labor is the opposition party and it holds 60 seats. The remaining four seats in the House of Representatives are held by Independents who are not linked to a major political party."
The Senate uses a system of proportional representation, which means that Senators depend on the votes throughout the whole state, rather than on each individual electorate. In the Senate the Liberal coalition currently also have a majority. They are closely followed by Labor. Of the other parties Democrats have four, the Greens have four and the CLP and Family First each have one representative. This majority in the Senate and the lack of any real opposition from labor is what has enabled the current government to push through so much legislation with so little parliamentary debate or public knowledge in recent years.

Now. let me just state that I think it is important to vote for a candidate that you think will represent you and your interests when voting on legislation in the senate and house of reps and to be aware of trying to achieve a balance so that the winning government does not hold too large a majority.
As a queer woman who supports the rights of diversity, equal opportunity, sustainability, peace and international responsibility – I will be voting for the Democrats in the Senate, with my preferences going to the Green candidates if the Democrat candidates don't get enough support. (I will then continue to choose my preferences, having researched the candidates for all independents and parties so that I can make an informed most preferred to least preferred vote). In my local area there is so far no Democrat running and the Green candidate appears to be a good choice so he's got my vote for the House of Reps. I am doing this because the Democrat's and Green's policies are very similar on most issues and although I lean towards the Democrats for the issues they differ on, I know how important it is to have diversity in parliament so that no legislation is pushed through without discussion and I think these two parties are the most likely to provide that.

*If I've got any facts wrong here please correct me, and please direct me to where I can get said facts from a better source.

Want to know what the politicians are promising? Want to know which promises they keep?
Keep a eye onPromise Watch

thoughts collide:
deconstructed concepts
considered then developed.
I speak.
thus formed, my thoughts release - into a unknown void
owned and claimed, they wait,
where random chance and complex connections
dictate
whose eyes will see, and minds consider,
my opinions.

a voice,
randomly chancing upon my words,
ignorant of consideration and tone,
reacts with emotive aggression
then, unwilling to own this opinion,
signs - anon.
these unclaimed, un-thought words,
a reaction to a part and not the whole,
clash against my rational world
of carefully questioned logic.
no ownership of opinion
leaves no opening for discussion
- so all I can reply, is that:
"I am not here to convert or subvert
your thoughts.
This is simply my opinion.
It is a challenge: a question
in search of a thoughtful critique."
There is no reply.

a thought,
reaches through unrelated confusions
to probe and dissect my own.
an understanding that an opinion
is simply a idea in search of analysis,
rouses
a divergent opinion and sparks an inquiry:
a request for deeper exploration,
for further explanation.
the counter opinion is owned,
the conversation opened:
back and forth - explanations
from each participant
are followed by further questions.
a certain level of understanding
once reached –
allows each to part,
now, with a new perspective
with which to search.

thoughts collide:
new considerations are deconstructed,
considered then developed.
I speak.
thus formed, my thoughts release - into a unknown void
owned and claimed, they wait.
where random chance and complex connections
dictate
whose eyes will see, and minds consider,
my opinions.

May the 17th was chosen as the International day against Homophobia because on May 1990 the World health organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

For me, the fact that this only happened in 1990 is almost unbelievable - the fact that in my lifetime my sexuality has been considered a mental illness is staggering.

More horrific still is the fact that over 80 countries in the world still have laws against homosexuals, most of these specifically make sex between men (or specifically anal and/or oral sex) illegal and many either include sex between women as illegal or ignore it as if it does not exist (often where women are legally discriminated against in general) .
Nine of these countries have the death penalty for such 'imoral' or 'unatural' acts.

These countries are not just the 'expected' countries like Suadi and Iran, these countries include many popular holiday destination - such as Singapore, Nepal, Egypt, Morocco, Fiji, PNG, Malaysia, Barbados, Maldives, India and the Cook Islands.
See the full list

If you would reconsider going to a country where you, your partner or a friend could get thrown in jail for sexuality, then imagine the citizens that have to live there - they often have few means and little choice as they will not necessarily be granted asylum in a more equal thinking country and do not have the option to emigrate otherwise.
news link example

For while homosexuality is technically legal in the more 'progressive' countries there is still discrimination both socially and legally.

Discrimination occurs, not just in countries were homosexuality remains illegal, and not just towards homosexuals, but in the countries we consider to be democratic and working towards equality people are discriminated against for the race, age, sexuality, gender, abilities, disabilities... for many of the minorities that people don't understand and are therefore afraid of.

We have Pride days around the world where we celebrate our relative freedoms. Yet spare a thought for those who are not allowed to be proud of who they are - who face abuse, jail and sometimes death for something that is a basic human right.

Stand up and be heard,: fly a rainbow flags, blog, petition, come out, challenge the stereotypes and bigotry .

Links:
IDAHO UK
Indymedia in action
Blog entry

Having said that: Is it necessary to have a formal term of address that is gender specific?

Why is a persons gender important in the introduction? Is it possible to have a gender neutral term that is not attached to a persons qualifications. A term that can be used to show respect for a person but that does conveys no more then that respect.

More often then not a persons gender is obvious in their appearance. And often a persons name will indicate their gender as well.
In written communication such as bank accounts, magazines subscription, job applications, grant applications or debate it is not always necessary to indicate gender so a gender neutral title would be a nice as an option.

There are instances where a person doesn't 'fit' or doesn't feel comfortable in either the male or female gender – surely a gender neutral option would be a preferable to what is currently available?

The term Dr, or Hon. are gender neutral yet these are only available to people who have achieved a particular academic or social qualification: there are no commonly accepted gender neutral term for the rest of society.
People who have not achieved there Doctorate are able to choose form either Mr or the various titles used in place of Ms.

A Mr is a Man. A Ms is a woman.
These terms may be equivalent, but they still convey is the persons gender and peoples perceptions of others are influenced by a persons gender.

I choose to use Ms on my formal correspondence. I am a woman and I don't mind being addressed as such. However if there was a gender neutral option I would certainly choose it in many of my dealings where I don’t think it necessary that my gender be known.

A friend of mine has recently become engaged. She dislikes the idea of changing her name, yet does not want to be Mrs X, because that is her mothers name. I suggested that she use the term Ms instead - but then I had to explain why I refuse to use Miss and would never use Mrs.

The outdated term of Master for a young boy used to change to Mr when he became a man, where as Miss for a young woman only changed when she married a man. This indicates that a woman was only considered an adult once she married.
These terms for women indicate to someone on meeting what her status is, weather she is available or 'taken', yet there is no equivalent term changes for men and therefore no way to tell the same information about one on meeting. Why is it that this information is required for women yet not for men.

Surely a woman is as capable as a man of indicating availability and interest with out the need for a title.

The term Master has fallen out of use, however Miss remains in common usage and Mrs. still means married – it does not mean adult. Despite these understanding of these titles they can be misleading. Many women who use Miss are in long term relationships and are not available, while many women who use Mrs. have been married before but are divorced or widowed and are possibly, if single, 'available'.
So why do we hold on to these outdated titles that are not required and often misleading anyway? Why not use a term, if a term is required (but that is another rant), that is the equivalent of a man's Mr. A term that does not indicate my 'availability' but is simply a formal term of address.

I choose Ms - because my availability is irrelevant to a formal interaction.