When All This is Over, Please Remember Us

While the world goes into lockdown and people start throwing tantrums at being forced to change their routines, cancel their plans and give up fun activities, the sick, poor and disabled have watched on with considerable bemusement.

You see, for us, we’ve often been forced to self-isolate, often been prevented from participating in “fun events”, often been denied things we either want or need. When we have expressed our own frustrations about this, the world, quite frankly, has not given a damn. The sick, elderly and disabled of our society have long been viewed as a burden or as an invisible mass that barely registers in our collective consciousness. Over the decades, as a group, we have been denied by government and society alike such accommodations as tele-health services, the flexibility to work from home, support for mental health due to our often forced isolation and basic access to a livable wage or stipend.

Now these things are being made available for the healthy, able-bodied workforce. Suddenly, the government CAN afford to roll out these measures that we were told there was no money for in the budget. Small and medium businesses are being promised financial support, as are other workers and students (though there are many who are, at time of writing, still being left out of the most recent stimulus package). The current Australian Government, our conservative Liberal-National Party, is rolling out measures that would previously have been decried as “socialist”, because they realise that if they don’t, society will cease to function.  Of course, they haven’t really had a change of heart. All these packages are part of a desperate attempt to buoy our capitalist system so that it doesn’t implode. They want things to return to normal after this. It is telling that, out of all the increases and additional support measures, financial support has NOT been extended to disability support and carers' payments.  Once again, even though we are the most vulnerable to poverty and death in this crisis, we are still being coldly denied.

The word “galling” doesn’t even come close to covering it for us. We’re being told that these frantic attempts to stop the virus spreading are to protect those who might die from it. (In reality, many people can die from this virus, not just the immuno-compromised and elderly. This is for everyone’s benefit, not specifically us). Even if that were the case, it is not being reflected in the way society is reacting. Along with outright ignoring social distancing rules, people have been panic buying food and basic supplies as well as medicines and hand sanitizers. Do you know who regularly need hand-sanitizers, masks and medicines? The chronically ill. Do you know what it’s like to have a bowel or colon disorder such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome and have no access to toiler paper? Do you know what it’s like to watch medications you need to function or live, being bought up by people who never gave them a thought before this crisis?  As I said: the word galling doesn’t even come close.

And don’t get me started on how online food deliveries have been suspended because of panic buyers. When you’re too sick to even leave your house, what do you do when Coles no longer delivers?

Then there’s the isolation. Studies have shown that sick, elderly and disabled people are far more likely to be lonely and to live on their own. We’re more likely to be in abject poverty and to be abused. We’re more likely to be unemployed. Many of us have been denied a disability pension because the criteria for it have become so ludicrously strict that huge percentages of us cannot get the scant support on offer that we sorely we need. The NDIS is riddled with failures and shortcomings. I have three disabling chronic illnesses, but the Government has decided they’re not disabling enough so I don’t deserve a pension; conversely, the disability work agency I attended deemed me too disabled to put into work. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing and “head” of state honestly doesn’t care.

We've long been denied access to events, shops, entertainment venues, parks and much more because they have not been made accessible to us. Many train stations and public buildings don’t even have lifts or ramps. Psychology services have increased in cost, and, without that magic pension card, many of us can no longer afford their rates because the Medicare rebate hasn’t been changed in years (it’s a pittance). We have been left in our homes, sick, sore and alone with little to no support, for decades. Now everyone is talking about “how to combat cabin fever” and “make sure you reach out to your mate for a phone chat or Skype!”  What about us?  Where were the community initiatives for us all these years?

This entire fiasco has also shown up Australia's deep class divisions. Most of the country's poorest individuals live in regional communities which have been treated abhorrently by the public this month. They have just gone through catastrophic bushfires and lost their homes and jobs, yet there have been numerous media reports of city slickers travelling all the way to regional stores and clearing out the food and supplies of our society's most impoverished. You know, the regional workers who grow, package and deliver that same food to the stores in Sydney and Melbourne. The selfishness is utterly breathtaking.

As this crisis unfolds, it shines a scalding light on the weaknesses of our systems. It has illuminated areas where we desperately need both more funding and flexibility. Now that everyone’s health and livelihoods are at stake, these things are abruptly being prioritized. In all the chaos, the chronically and mentally ill, the poor and disabled, are once again being sidelined and forgotten, even though we have been the ones advocating for these changes all along.

So what can an able-bodied, comparatively well-off person do to help? The list is long, but here are a few key suggestions.

1.)   You can make an effort to reach out to any sick/disabled friends or family members by phone or email to check in on how they’re doing. Talk to them more often if they desire it and ask if you can help with things like picking up food and supplies.

2.)   Don’t panic buy. Make sure there’s enough stock for everyone, keeping in mind society’s most vulnerable.

3.)   Donate to homelessness shelters and non-profits that help this section of society. People are reticent to spend on anything but toilet paper right now, so please donate if you can as many charities are going to feel the lack of funds acutely, and we rely on them to survive. Charities often fill in where the government has shirked all responsibility.

4.)   Obey social distancing rules and don’t get us sick!  Practice strict hygiene and stay away from the public if you have symptoms or know you’ve been exposed to the virus. Continue to do this after the pandemic and for the love of God, get your flu shot!

5.)   Give us priority in pharmacies, testing centres, GP practices and hospitals. This virus is very literally life or death for many of us and we don’t want to have to fight you to get what we need to live.

6.)   Finally and perhaps most importantly, advocate for many of these measures to remain in place after the virus has passed. Things like working from home and tele-health services are the difference between our participating in society and being forced into a forgotten corner. This crisis has proven we can have a fairer, more inclusive society if we collectively put our mind to it. Don’t allow Government to roll back these accommodations once this is over. Keep at their heels to ensure they continue to invest in healthcare and healthcare infrastructure. Keep badgering them to increase Newstart and the disability pension.  Please, please, don’t allow them to forget about us again.

If you’re confronted by the fact you cannot go out to your favourite locations, that you may have to be stuck indoors for months at a time, that you may no longer be able to access the things you need to be happy or well, please consider that this has always been our reality.  The only way that can change is if we all decide it should. This could be the moment to do that, but we will need your support.

We will need you to remember us.

Avengers Endgame: A Movie of Missed Opportunities

* * Warning: Contains major spoilers * *

I want to preface this review with a warning: while I am a self-confessed nerd who has long enjoyed comic book movies and geeky pop culture, I was quite disappointed in this film and I'm going to be honest in my criticisms as to why. If you are on a high from the film and just want to enjoy it without having somebody rain on your parade, then it is probably best to skip this review. However, if you're curious for this feminist’s perspective on why Endgame fell flat for her, please read on.

When my partner asked me for my first impressions, I said the movie should've been called “Iron Man 4 (and some of the Avengers”). The entire film felt like a swan song for him, a requiem for the character who started it all. It was made clear that he was the film’s emotional centre, the one whose stakes we’re most meant to care about. While I don't mind Ironman as a character, I am aware that he is the favourite of most of the franchise’s fanboys, and it really felt like that was the crowd the movie was aimed at. In contrast, minority groups and women did not fare so well in terms of representation or importance in this film.

The writers had choices on who do they decided to turn to dust at the end of Infinity War. There was ample opportunity to leave behind a more diverse group of heroes to carry out the tasks in Endgame. For example, instead of Antman surviving, we could have had Wasp who, in the comics, is the female avenger, not Black Widow. It would have been such a nice nod to the canon and added an additional female character. Instead, we ended up with an all-white team of mostly men, and the two women involved were treated in a frustrating manner. While Black Widow is essentially leading the Avengers at the beginning of Endgame, she (nobly) throws herself off a cliff halfway through the film, essentially ending her story. This was vexing for a few reasons: they got rid of one of the only women in the team, turning most of the rest of the film into a sausage fest, and her sacrifice was not given the same weight or gravitas that Tony Stark’s was. At the end of the film we see a beautiful funeral for Tony, but there are no moments of remembrance for the other characters who gave their lives (Black Widow, Vision, even Loki). They are only briefly (and quietly) mentioned by Clint and Wanda. Outside of the story, the timing of Natasha’s death is also awkward, given that Marvel is supposed to be making a Black Widow movie in the next few years.

As for the remaining female character, Nebula, she proves to be the “weak link”. While all members of the team had their struggles in trying to obtain the infinity stones, it is Nebula who gets captured and who ends up compromising the entire plan. While I don't have an issue with Natasha and Nebula’s scenes in and of themselves, they do come across as problematic in a film that gives little limelight to its female superheroes in general. Right from the beginning, Captain Marvel is sent off screen for most of the film, a major disappointment for those who were hoping to see her involvement. I suspected this is what they’d do to her in the film and sadly I was right.

As I mentioned before, at the end of Infinity War the writers could have kept some key figures to have made for a more diverse remaining team. However, even with the characters they chose to leave behind, there were missed opportunities. One of the biggest ones for me was Valkyrie.

When Bruce visits the village of New Asgard to find Thor, he first encounters Valkyrie. In the film Thor: Ragnarok, Valkyrie had a drinking problem which she overcame by the end of the story. This time around, it is Thor who is battling alcoholism. She tells them this, and, rather than asking her to come along and help on their mission, they bypass her completely. I was really upset that Valkyrie did not feature in Infinity War and felt doubly irritated that she was sidelined yet again in this instalment, for no good reason. Had they included her, she could have been the one to rescue Thor and use his hammer, instead of Captain America. Given that she is an elite Asgardian warrior, this would have made much more sense and been a great moment for her fans.  She is also one of very few LGBTQ+ characters in the MCU so including her would have given the filmmakers opportunities to better represent this marginalized group than their rather paltry attempt at the film’s beginning.

Then there’s Thor, who, in my opinion, was treated so poorly in the film. Other feminist writers have already explained why the fat jokes and cruelty directed towards Thor’s substance abuse and mental illness were extremely problematic. They turned one of the most damaged characters into mean-spirited comic relief, rather than addressing the serious issues he was contending with. I really felt sorry for Thor the character, but I feel worse for the real life people who were triggered by his horrid treatment.

Given so much needed to happen in this movie, I was also annoyed by how much time was dedicated towards trivial things like Captain America's ass and Thor's beer gut. I’m all for comedic moments in a heavy film, but I also wanted to hear some more speaking lines from characters who appeared toward the end, characters we had not seen for the last 2 1/2 hours. The final battle scene felt bloated and confused as writers tried to squeeze in giving a nod here or a glance there to the rest of the crew that had been missing for most of the movie. At least, however, the greater ensemble was back, fighting together side-by-side. That is until Captain Marvel showed up.

Now, I am a fan of Captain Marvel. I enjoyed her origin story and was excited to see her in this movie, even if it was pretty late in the game (no pun intended). When she made her arrival and took down that ship, it was the first time I cheered during the whole movie. And then it all went pear-shaped. When Captain Marvel was given the gauntlet by Spiderman there were so many creative choices they could have gone with. Anyone who knows the canon would be aware that Captain Marvel is more than capable of handling the power of the infinity gauntlet and could have done what the Hulk and ultimately Tony Stark did. Instead, they came up with this convoluted plan for her to fly into Antman's quantum machine. I mean, the woman can fly at the speed of light so she could have done that in the blink of an eye, but somehow Thanos was able to stop her by flinging a heavy metal object towards it faster. While that alone was infuriating, that's not the scene that most annoyed me. It was the moment when, for no apparent reason, many of the female superheroes crowd around Captain Marvel stating that she had their help to perform this task. I didn't like the scene for two reasons: one, it was unnatural and felt contrived. Many of these characters didn't even know each other and were all preoccupied fighting on an enormous battlefield. There was no reason why they would all suddenly have a 90s girl power moment and gather around one particular figure at that particular moment in what was an incredibly chaotic struggle. And two: even with the backing of all of Marvel’s strong heroines, they could not get the job done. No, that glory was saved solely for one man: Tony Stark. The takeaway seemed to be that, even combined, women can't do the job properly; they need the men to step in and show them how it's done. Maybe this sounds like a stretch or too harsh a criticism, but this was the very visceral reaction I had during the film. Marvel’s filmmakers have a long history of utterly depowering their female characters.

I was also very disappointed by how small a role T’Challa and many of the amazing characters of Wakanda had in this movie. As the leading tech hub in the world, I don’t know why the Avengers weren’t going there to ask for help in creating a time travel machine, or why they couldn’t have made it the new HQ, given Tony Stark had retreated to a log cabin somewhere in the woods. There were so many ways they could have included these fantastic and important characters.

The only glimmer for me at the end of the film was that it established that the old guard were retiring or moving on to other things. We had something of handing of the baton: Captain America gives his shield to Falcon, making him his successor, and Thor finally, officially makes Valkyrie the leader of Asgard (or what's left of it). It is my hope that in future Marvel films, they will focus more on their characters of colour, female characters and LGBTQ+ characters. They have an opportunity now to start a fresh wave that will resonate with so many more people than the classic white fanboy nerd. After all, you don't make $1.2 billion in one weekend just because white millennial guys went to see a film. Many people love superhero films for a variety of reasons. It's time we started serving them, too.

 By: Terrific Bear

First Post! Modern Day Atheism: What the Hell are we doing?

(Note: the views expressed in this blog stem from personal experience largely gained in one particular country.)

The recent passing of Christopher Hitchens has invoked the lamentations of many atheists I know.  He has been described as great, an atheist heavyweight and an intellectual.  The loss of such a prominent figure in the New Atheism movement has saddened many ardent non-believers and even some Christians (albeit for different reasons). 

Quite frankly, this is baffling to me.  I cannot understand all the fuss over this one man who jumped on the literary bandwagon of the so-called New Atheist Movement and made a career of tearing into religion like a vulture. I use the term vulture, because that is what he was; the carcass of religion has been picked apart for 2 centuries by other freethinkers and has only recently been put in the spotlight of the general public by such books as Sam Harris’s The End of Faith (2004) and Dawkins’s The God Delusion (2006).  With all due respect to those writers, they don’t deserve the Pope-like worship they enjoy from contemporary atheists – especially Hitchens.

Now, before I get into this rant topic, I shall provide a bit of background concerning my own standing with religion.

I am not an atheist but an agnostic; I do however, have a lot in common with their agendas, such as support for secularism, human rights, freedom from religion etc. This was one reason why I joined my city’s (very welcoming) atheist group.  The other reason was that last year, for the first time in my life, I was the victim of nasty religious prejudice and it caused me a great deal of emotional distress.  I joined the group in an angry, hurt state, looking for allies and an outlet.  I was passionate about changing the current status quo, which is that if a non-believer attacks a person of faith for that faith, that’s bad, but if a religious person calls you immoral for not being part of their church, you can say nothing thanks to the barrier of ‘respect’ we are all told to have for others’ beliefs (no matter how dangerous or insane).

My newly ex-Catholic partner also joined the group and we made a point of attending every atheist and humanist meet-up, debate, talk and convention on offer.  We got a crash course in atheist ideas and perspectives; we read a lot, researched a lot and grew increasingly furious at the injustices people, world-wide, suffer at the hands of religious imperialism and fundamentalism.  The stark impression we both got was this: Religion is enjoying a powerful resurgence in the Middle East and America, and it is threatening the rights of everyone.  People, regardless of whether they have faith or not, should band together to stop the encroachment of religion into politics, schools and legal systems in order to protect each and every one of us from discrimination.  Given the alarming actions of the Christian right in America (such as taking away a woman’s right to birth control, or allowing bullying in schools if it’s religiously motivated) and the tyranny of corrupt Muslim leaders in the Middle East, we have every reason to be scared.  We don’t need more stuffy debates from old white men in their ivory towers about how religion is all nonsense and pish-posh; we need activism.

And this is what I found frustrating about the atheist movement (or lack thereof).  At least on a local level, not much at all is being done to stem the religious tide.  There’s a lot of discussion in pubs about the higher concepts (is the belief in God a mental illness? Can atheism co-exist with spiritualism?) but not much at all on what atheists can do in terms of protecting our rights to even BE atheists.  In fact, half of the atheists I’ve spoken to are too afraid to confess their non-belief to family and friends; it’s still a dirty word.  This isn’t right and of course books like the ones written by the self-titled Four Horsemen of the so-called New Atheist movement (Harris, Daniel C. Dennet, Dawkins and Hitchens) have helped in giving closet nonbelievers a book of their own to bash against those bibles.  But this isn’t what Atheism needs.  Atheism needs a new PR campaign - one that is portrays nonbelievers not as a hedonistic, nihilistic bunch who prefer to drink rather than pray, but as a rational group of free-thinkers open to having a constructive dialogue with those of faith. 

This isn’t what Hitchens does with such books as God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (heavy-handed much?).  In fact the majority of the best-selling atheist paperbacks seem to concern themselves with aggressively attacking all aspects of faith, which is very satisfying for atheists and some agnostics to read, but doesn’t exactly win much attention or interest from the very people who should be learning about the destructive nature of religion – the religious themselves.  As an atheist, would you read a book written by an evangelical preacher going on about how atheists are evil, immoral and all going to hell?  I don’t think so.

I have far more respect for people like Maryam Namazie who has gone around the world educating people of the dangers of Sharia law and petitioning governments to change the laws that allows these courts to operate in such countries as the UK.  I also admire people like Ian Bryce, who recently attended a convention held by the Uniting Church (who too deserve credit for holding such debates in their college) with a talk titled ‘Building Bridges to the Churches’.  That’s what we need: dialogue with the religious.  If all that the poster children for atheism do is attack the religions of the world with the books they’ve written then it simply becomes a literary Bible/Qu’ran/Torah bashing.

Another point of contention for me regarding the Four Horsemen is that they offer only one perspective – a white, paternalistic perspective.  Where are the Atheists of colour?  Where are queer atheists and feminist atheists?  Why do female sceptics/atheists who feel objectified at Atheist conventions have to defend themselves against the attacks of people like Richard Dawkins who think that the only type of female oppression to be combated is the overtly violent (and particularly Islamic) kind? 

In the atheist community of which I have been a part, I frequently heard the names of the Famous Four get dropped, quite lovingly, into conversation.  The enamoured atheists would often reference people like Hitchens with a sort of reverence.  I of course grew curious about these writers and my first purchase was Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape.  I had intended to read Hitchens but was firmly put off when I discovered his misogyny.  In a book titled Man Down, author Dan Abrahams brought my attention to the 2007 Vanity Fair piece that Hitchens wrote, entitled, “Why Women Aren’t Funny”.  If there is one thing I cannot stand, it’s sexism.  After all I have learned through atheism about how deeply misogynistic religion is, I find it absurd to encounter sexism in a greatly admired poster child for atheism.  It’s like hearing of gay republicans; it boggles the mind because it makes no sense.  I suppose you could argue that atheists are just people at the end of the day with their own flaws and prejudices, but Christopher Hitchens is on the Grand Stage of Atheism and is often quoted like some sort of demi-god in debates and discussions.  If one of the key criticisms Atheists face from religious speakers is that they are immoral and hedonistic, how does referring to a chain-smoking, alcoholic womaniser give them any credit? 

I don’t want to be represented by someone who believed women were the ones that should stay home and nurture the newly born children (because, apparently, they’re better equipped to do so) and shouldn’t have to work. “They’re called the gentle sex for a good reason”, Hitchens told one incredulous feminist.  “I’m not having any woman of mine go to work.”  (Nice one, Chris, specially coming from a man who abandoned his first wife for another woman while she was pregnant.)  Hitchens doesn’t even mention the women who supported and loved him in his autobiography Hitch-22.  He was against legal abortion and made other stabs at feminism throughout his career.  I noted in the flood of obituaries that came out that there was a distinct lack of female voices.  I only found one, Katha Pollit, a former colleague of his at The Nation.  You can read why she believes Christopher’s death hasn’t warranted much female attention.

After realising what a sexist snob Hitchens was, I started to look at the views of the remaining three of the self-proclaimed Four Horsemen of the New Atheism movement.  To my dismay, I found more sexism.  Sam Harris once said, in an interview with The New Atheists, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." 

Granted, this is taken out of context and what I understood by that comment is that organised religion is accountable for much of the rape we have encountered in modern times.  However, regarding human (and moral) evolution, he also said:

“...there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there's nothing more natural than rape" (Science Fatwah? Part 2, ABC Radio National, 20/12/06)

Make of that what you will.  Personally, it made me feel a wealth of negative emotions.

Now, before I conclude, I want to make it clear that I am not saying that the work these men have produced should not be considered good/great/excellent in their own right.  They did a lot to highlight atheistic thought and get it out there in the mainstream.  But there are so many other voices out there and for one reason or another they are not being heard.  Additionally, atheism is still suffering from bad press.  If atheists continue to be perceived either as stubborn, stuffy old rationalists, or hedonistic, empty people with no purpose in their lives, then they will never be taken seriously.  When U.S. presidents declare atheists are not real citizens and when religious courts condemn people to death for apostasy, we have a real, looming, terrifying problem.  I’d rather get behind those who are actively trying to change things, rather than elevate themselves by undermining, from an ivory tower, the faith of millions.  

Knowledge is power and there’s a fair amount to be gained by reading the works of Hitchens et al, but knowledge is only power if you actively DO something with it.

Introduction to Terrific Bear

An Introduction to T-Bear:

Terrific Bear is the pseudonym of a writer who, well, wants to hide behind a pseudonym.  Terrific Bear is also the alter ego/avatar of this writer.  Additionally, Terrifc Bear pays homage to the writer’s amazing teddy bear. 

A brief summary of the topics that are likely to be discussed (ranted about) are as follows: Religion, politics, feminism, human rights, animal rights, the screwed up ways in which we live our lives, culture, society, psychology, rats.  What?  I like talking about psychology!

Comments are welcome, but hate-speech is not appreciated.  If you’ve got something interesting, constructive or critical to say, please say it politely and coherently.  That is all!