Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
One problem with the tax situation is that for many people the tax department is saying on the one hand "you have an income-producing asset, pay tax" but on the other "your asset does not qualify as an investment so no costs are deductable".
The is most blatant in the case of a share house where not all residents are on the lease. In theory rent paid by not-on-the-lease tenants to the leaseholder is taxable income, but the rent paid by the leaseholder is not a deductable cost. Which results in everybody I know saying "pull the other one" and refusing to pay the tax.
So no, I am not a landlord, and I wouldn't be paying tax on any rent paid if I was.
-
here's an interesting post making a point I've made before: for men, one way to shed some privilege is to get on a bicycle. Suddenly it isn't all about you and if you do get hurt it's going to be your fault (even if it isn't). Andrew Geddis made the point even more clear when I suggested he try it by saying "but I can't ride to work, it's too far and I have things to do". Yes, exactly, it isn't all about you. The transport system officially allows you to cycle, but don't get above your station and assume it should be possible let alone easy to live a normal life and ride a bike. Similarly, ... and be a woman.
-
Hard News: Now win the argument, in reply to Stephen R,
I pity the Australians of my acquaintance who are embarrassed because of Tony Abbot. I think they're winning...
or being a kiwi living in Oz with dual citizenship. The one consolation is that I get to vote against both of them. "unsettled" barely begins to describe it, to pick one topical term from the mouth of our Prime Munster.
The sad news is that Labo(u)r on both sides seem determined to avoid the responsibilities of being in power, and most of the bought media is working very hard to make sure it's not their decision to make. I'm not sure whether "Um, Shorten" is better than "Sorry to be Cunliffe" but I am very pleased that the last lot of Australian Labor leaders have taken their toys and gone home. If only their NZ counterparts would follow that example rather than the pre-election Rudd one. Or perhaps Labour should just elect Goff (again) to lead them into glorious defeat?
-
Hard News: Now win the argument, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Fixed, still not well written but ... my bad..
no probs, thanks for the correction.
Gotta go, it's "winter" in Sydney and I can't wait to get into my nice warm bed.
-
I'm not willing to talk about my experiences in detail but suffice to say that I support steven crawford wholeheartedly.
"refuge" has been a source of significant pain to many victims of violence as refuge struggled to come to terms with their own prejudices and preconceptions. The Christchurch group had a fairly mixed reputation in the Chch queer community even in the 1990s due to their difficulty dealing with women who were victims of violence from women, and their savage policies with respect to boys. You really, really, did not want to expose an adolescent boy to women's refuge in those days. I like to think it's better now, but I can't bring myself to find out.
The epitomy of my experience was being told by refuge that the only support I could get was enrollment in a group for male offenders. I am still horrified that anyone would suggest that to someone they knew had been abused by men.
That strongly colours my feelings towards women's refuge, and I accept that that makes me not the right person to decide what should be done about them. But I'd also like a little bit less dismissal of male victims from the chorus. Suggesting that men should just start their own group rather than fighting the revictimisation and abuse they get from advocates for women is missing the point. Those things are wrong, and should stop. Especially they should stop coming from people who claim to advocate for victims.
FWIW I do give money to groups helping men and boys, but I'm very much not suited to getting involved on the ground with those groups. I suggest that for many male victims of male violence, help from men is best not delivered in person. Much as we do for female victims of male violence.
-
Muse: One Of These Things Is Not Like…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Tracy was talking about how and why Refuge developed as a safe space for women suffering violence from men.
I suspect Tracey was mistaken. Womens Refuge in NZ was started as a place for people fleeing violence. Their about page says
1973 Women's Refuge established The first Women’s Refuge was set up in Christchurch after a group of women came together with a common interest in providing a safe haven for victims of violence.
They only very reluctantly accepted that they needed to be explicit that they only support women and children (officially in 1985), and for a long time fought any claim along those lines vigorously. What Women's Refuge do is very necessary and they do excellent work in trying conditions, but what they do is not enough. Even just for the heterosexual ciswomen in fear of male violence that are their primary focus.
-
Hard News: Now win the argument, in reply to Steve Barnes,
It seems there is a gulf between those men that unequivocally call themselves Feminists, a stance that just seems wrong to me, men are just not female in my book and men that actually respect women and the differences and similarities in our nature.
I'd love to see a deeper explanation of that. Specifically the ways you think men who call themselves feminists don't respect women. The notion that only "females" can be feminist is an interesting one in a whole range of ways, starting with the gender essentialism and probably going out past separatist feminism and into some of the more twisty fringes. But mostly, how are male feminists disrespecting women?
I think being embarassed to stand in front of a forum called to deal with some of the consequences of male violence is entirely appropriate. I expect he'd feel the same way if he had to speak at a comission into political corruption. IMO the trick is to move past questions of how he feels and focus on what he's going to do about it. But I'm a very concrete sort of person and I don't have a lot of patience with waffle. Or with the bought meda's determination to drive public discourse down to the level of grunting at each other.
-
Muse: One Of These Things Is Not Like…, in reply to TracyMac,
There has been nothing to stop motivated men from doing the same themselves
I trust you're aware of the fight to get domestic violence and marital rape recognised as issues, then crimes? And the reactions ranging from mirth to things that were not funny? I invite you to think about how those reactions would be affected when it's men who are the so-called "victims" of things that obviously can't possibly happen to men, or if they do it's because the "man" can't follow the "be a man" script?
I've actually been surprised that the queer community hasn't stepped up there, although of course that doesn't help straight men.
They have. But it takes a large city or a very peculiar set of circumstances, not least because often it's men helping men who've suffered at the hands of men. And those services are usually the first to get cut, for the same reason they're hard to establish.
Many women's refuges were slow to recognise the problem of female abusers and it's still a serious problem, as it's not easy to balance treating women who approach the shelter as potential abusers with offering them the help they obviously (seem to) need.
One further complication is that often the organisations providing men's refuges are explicitly religious and often deeply homophobic. Not to mention also practitioners or facilitators of abuse themselves. I think there's a good argument that some or all of that funding should go to groups who are explicitly accepting of their clients. Ideally before they become homeless.
-
Hard News: Media Take: Afghanistan,…, in reply to william blake,
If the gunsights had malfunctioned I would have thought that nobody would have been gunned down, or do they have different settings for military and civilian targets?
I assume that the "malfunction" in this case is that a video recording of the incident escaped. If the system had been functioning correctly the video would never have been seen by anyone outside the US military.
-
Hard News: Good news for self-powered travellers, in reply to BenWilson,
I just pass lock chain through the V in the straps, takes a few seconds.
Or in a crowded park you come back and your helmet is crushed up against someone else's bike, or someone has vomited on it (I've seen the latter and experienced the former). But I have come back to find my helmet soaked in pee. Probably (hopefully?) dog pee, but I didn't investigate further.
I know people who have had helmets stolen off their bikes, but I haven't dug into the details of whether/how the helmet was locked. It's just another level of nuisance. I have pitlocks so locking my bike is significantly easier than for most people, which makes threading my helmet onto the lock a more significant part of the total locking experience than it is for other people. Viz, it more than doubles the time taken.
Who would bother unless you have a really expensive one?
Someone who wants a helmet and doesn't live in Melbourne (where $5 helmets are widely available). Remember that there's a whole section of the cycling population who are driven primarily by cost. They can't afford a car, and often can't afford public transport, so they ride a bike. For someone in that position stealing a $20 helmet from an expensive bike (ie, more than $200) makes perfect sense. Anyone with that much to spend on a bike can probably afford a new helmet. We have a government and main opposition party committed to making sure there are more people in poverty every year, so that problem isn't going away any time soon.