An open letter to Bess Price

Dear MLA Price,

I read with much interest the direct report from the NT Hansard of your speech to the Legislative Assembly as published in the Alice Springs News on the 17/5/13. I was alternatively moved, saddened, angered and perturbed by what you said to the point of where I have felt the need to write this post on my blog. I could, of course, send this to you directly and privately, but by posting it publicly I hope to achieve more than just exchanged notes between two people. I hope, like you would have through making the speech in the first place and then agreeing to the publishing of the Hansard record in a news publication, to raise awareness. I therefore hope that you will recognise that my reasoning for choosing public, rather than private, means of exchange is one that is made with the purest of intentions and with a true dedication to progress.

I am writing to you as an Arrernte woman, as a black feminist, and as a dyed in the wool member of the left. I am also writing to you as someone who lives in Melbourne (although half my life has been spent on the Stuart Highway) and whilst I am definitely not "middle class", I am clearly urban and am an educated professional. I am a committed trade unionist. I identify as being a "critical thinker" rather than a "cultural relativist" (a fact that has led to some conflict with family over the years), and the right to self-determination is of the highest importance to me, in all possible ways. Politically, I am not affiliated to any party at this point in time and whilst I have held memberships to a couple of parties over the years, I find it difficult to adhere to a party line because generally speaking, Indigenous and Feminist politics are what are at my core and my personal beliefs do not always align with a Political party's vision. On the spectrum, I have described myself as "socialist" and "anarchist" but generally speaking, I am radical left. I wanted to put this all upfront because in your speech you have levelled your criticism at the left, and whilst I have first-hand experience of the left not always getting issues related to gender or race correct, I feel that your criticism of the left is somewhat misplaced and erroneous and I hope that I can show you why I feel this is the case. At the end of the day I believe in striving for an egalitarian society and I don't believe the ability to buy into what are essentially corrupt practices of a coloniser society, whether this is "celebrating" Aboriginal women's beauty, or whether this is the ability to exploit people and land to achieve material wealth, is the way forward.

Additionally, in the interest of openness I will state that we have made acquaintance before, although not actually met. We were both on that fateful episode of Insight. I saw you looking at me prior to the show and felt that you may have recognised me through my family, although I could be wrong. My family is known to you regardless, as you are a resident of Alice Springs. You know many members of my family and of course are aware that there are streets, natural features and hostels named after members of my family in the centre. In that forum, I accused you of "social Darwinism" as I felt, very strongly, that your opinions stated within that forum reflected those principles. Additionally, as you do reside in the Alice and are therefore profiteering off the displacement of the Arrernte through murder, removal policies leading to the Stolen Generation, and numerous other practices, I felt that your opinions showed a neglect of the significance of those facts and how they may shape the identity of those around you. That comment barely made it to screen; I was almost inaudible and really only our reactions to it were clear. I don't take that comment back, incidentally, for I still feel it was true. You made it clear in that forum that your claim to Aboriginality is stronger than those of us who are of mixed decent because you are "full blood" and you know language, culture and song, yet you are living on lands of acknowledged "frontier battles" and could not acknowledge that some may not have had that same access to culture because these things occurred on their lands. Culture is not a static entity. It has never been pre-or-post-colonisation, and I believe that shared historical experience is as valid a cultural element as anything else.

Speaking of culture, as stated, I identify as a critical thinker rather than a "cultural relativist". This very fact has made for some rather "interesting" conversations over the years. To give a small example, I have had arguments with people when I have felt those people have idealised gender roles in traditional society. I don't necessarily believe that gender equivalence equals gender equality and whilst indeed we are a culture that celebrates strong women who have authority, there are enough well-known cultural markers (for example, marriage rites) to indicate that "equality" may not be a completely accurate description in most tribal circumstances. Hell, we are the most studied people in the world, or close to, and even those with little knowledge are able to crack open a book and read passages that have been written, including ones from Marcia Langton, detailing patriarchal practices within desert cultures. Also, having set roles in a society based on gender has rarely been consistent with "equality" anywhere in the world. This is one of the many reasons of why I am so for the concept of "self-determination"; we must have the ability to critically examine ALL culture and assert our identity, both as Aboriginal people and as women, in order to move society forward as a strong and healthy unit. I argue that through having to continually defend ourselves in the face of colonisation and gender inequality, individually and structurally, we are currently denied that right of self-determination and can are therefore diminished in our ability to re-imagine society, social structures, legal systems etc in ways that are inclusive and owned by us. Long story short: I question and will always do so. I don't believe everything I was told and I certainly will not forgive what are transgressions of basic human rights when arguments of cultural practice are used. It is completely possible to practice culture and respect culture whilst questioning elements of it and pushing for change, in my opinion.

Here's where I get to the nitty-gritty of this open letter: despite my clear left-wing views, I do not stand for the abuse and murder of our women as you assert that the left does. The cases you mention are shocking, and the fact that there may never be justice AND that people stood by and watched it happen sickens me to the core. It reminds me of cases a few years back that reached the mainstream media across the country involving rapes and bashings of girls being hidden or legally glossed under the cultural guise of "promised marriage". This should NEVER have been allowed to happen and the fact that so many stood back, for years in one of the cases, and allowed it to just is incomprehensible. I know that these cases are so outrageous, due to the age of the victims, the brutality of the crimes, and the amount of people who turned a blind eye to it all, that this is why they make the mainstream media on the East Coast. I also know from my broader knowledge of women's rights that for every one case that does make the media there are countless others that do not; because the crimes go unreported; because the victim is not quite so young; because they were not quite so brutalised by the perpetrator; because the community was not so blatantly aware. Unfortunately the situation does not always seem to get a whole lot better for those Aboriginal women who live in the cities and have a number of support mechanisms at their disposal that they try to call on, as the case of Andrea Pickett shows us. The system, the media, the communities and the ignorance of the greater Australian community continually fail our women. That is why this has never, and will never be a simple left-right divide for me. This is sexism, compounded by racism, and the suffering it causes is unacceptable.

You state in your address that "Dr Jarrett is saying there are elements to our traditional culture that we must change if we are to stop the violence that is destroying us" and that you agree with this summation. I remain a huge proponent of self-determination and I believe that a core part of that is the ability to proudly engage in, and celebrate culture in ways that reinforce one's identity and sense of pride. This includes acknowledging systematic oppression and how this contributes to situations and issues in our communities because it is, most certainly, a factor. I don't believe that this ever means glossing over culture and failing to cast a critical eye upon those practices that need to be examined from a basic human rights perspective. Indeed, I think that to fail to examine all culture would run contrary to the goals of self-determination. What I do find difficult to stomach though are the additional arguments supplied by Jarrett whereby an apparent answer lies in the ability to have a greater ability to share in mainstream Australia and assimilate, to an extent. I state this as one who lives in mainstream Australia and who experiences it every day as an Arrernte woman. Mainstream Australia is not free from sexism and it most certainly is not free from racism, therefore it really cannot guarantee a better life for those that access it.

Whilst you're fighting to stop violence against women on communities, the trade union I work for is currently trying to get domestic violence clauses into collective agreements in universities in acknowledgement of the approximately 1/3 of the women who work in the sector and will experience domestic violence. These clauses will, of course, cover the approximately 700 Aboriginal women (including some who live in remote communities) that work in the sector and who are, it is estimated, twice as likely as their non-Aboriginal colleagues to experience violence. It will also cover the approximately 450 Aboriginal men in the sector who are also significantly more likely to experience violence than their non-Aboriginal colleagues. Domestic violence is considered a workplace issue now because, far from being something that simply happens in the privacy of a home, or publicly in an isolated community, it effects a victim's ability to participate in everyday life, and that includes holding down a job. It makes sense that women who have their own income and who are empowered by being in a supportive environment are more likely to be able to take action and leave a situation of domestic violence than those that are not independent and are not being supported. The left may be going about it in ways that are different to ways you would pursue the issue but they are certainly not ignoring it.



Whilst you're noting that community members stood around and watched a young mother be brutally murdered in a town camp, on the streets of Melbourne since the 1970s women have marched to change deeply embedded social attitudes dictating that women ask to be attacked if they walk around by themselves late at night, if they dress certain ways or if they act in certain ways. It is not as blatant as people watching it happen before their eyes and doing nothing (or even, on occasion, joining in) but through the reinforcement of certain attitudes, society, rather than re-educating itself and changing the message, allows these acts against of violence against women to continue. We saw this play out in Melbourne most recently in the case of Jill Meagher who, whilst she was afforded a great deal of coverage in the media which the women you mention were utterly denied down here, was being questioned as to why she was out late that night, why was she drinking, why had she walked home alone? The media, and many members of society, rarely seemed to ask question of why would a man ever feel he has the right to deny a woman of her civil liberties. Simply put, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of it all, society does not believe that a woman has a right to participate fully within it and not suffer repercussions for her actions. Actions men take for granted are the very same things that bring women into question. If she is attacked it will be her fault. Whether they're standing around watching it, or they are questioning a victim's actions in the media, society, such as it may be, is approving the perpetuation of violence against women and allowing it to continue. Assimilation will not solve it, only shift how it is publicly reacted to and perhaps lessen the tallies a little. Much more radical solutions are needed in my opinion.

You state that “Convictions usually lead to light sentences. I was told by a senior lawyer that no jury in Alice Springs will convict an Aboriginal person for murder if the victim is also Aboriginal and he or she is only stabbed once”. As I've already highlighted through the case of Andrea Pickett, whilst this may well be the case in Alice, being in a more urban setting won't always protect the victim either. On a broader social sense though, as mentioned, women who are victims of violence rarely pursue it through the avenues available to them. This is because the legal system and society continually fails them. Sentences are often a joke, conviction rates are low and women are rarely believed. If they do decide to pursue, for example, a claim of domestic violence or rape through the justice system they can expect that their lives and how they conduct themselves will be placed under a microscope. If they are unlucky enough to be attacked by a public figure, for example a top football player, they will also receive trial by the media and by the general public. A lot of women therefore will never come forward. It is well documented that Aboriginal women are significantly more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence, of sexual violence and of homicide and this of course requires specific programmes targeting communities and then tailor-made in collaboration with those communities based on their specific requirements. Targeting domestic violence against Aboriginal women in Melbourne from Aboriginal perpetrators of course requires a different approach to targeting it in Mutitjulu. All these need measures that are again specific from mainstream approaches. Measures that examine how culture, poverty, history and substance abuse can be contributing factors to the unique ways that violence can manifest within our communities in all their different forms (urban, rural, remote). Here's the thing though: our Aboriginal women in the cities with access to what you deem is a fairer system are still presenting to Aboriginal Health Organisations with injuries, they are still ending up in refuge hostels trying to escape violence and they still cannot guarantee that if they pursue the matter it will be dealt with fairly in a legal system that is dominated by white males and based upon laws from another country. White women cannot be guaranteed that they will be dealt with fairly so what real chance does a black woman have at this point in time?

This is the crux of it all for me: are we actually looking to just lessen the impacts and numbers of victims here or do we wish these issues to be eradicated? We may lessen impacts by drawing on tactics of the left-right divide to suit our own purposes but if you ask me, we need to transgress this. Culture needs to be examined and parts that state that women are of lesser value and

men have little control over their actions need to be tossed out. Parts that state that Aboriginal people are of lesser worth and that their social problems cannot be examined need to also be tossed out. I do not agree, being of the left, with top down approaches such as the ones you praise when you talk of the braveness of Macklin, because I believe that these just end up replacing one form of abuse with another. You cannot empower a community to positively address these serious issues by further disempowering them and removing their agency. This is amplified by the fact that the very powers imposing these measures have not been successful in eradicating similar issues within the mainstream. I am for collaboration and those that wish to take a stand and improve situations being given the tools and the power to do so. You state that “For the left and for many Aboriginal politicians on the national stage, it seemed the only issues worth talking about were the Stolen Generations and Aboriginal deaths in custody”. I'm here to say that this is not the case. I am Arrernte, I am a feminist and I am most definitely of the left and I want better for our women. I personally can name a number of Aboriginal women and men who are also of the left and who want the same. I can additionally name a number of non-Indigenous members of the left who echo this. There are many of us who would stand up and assist in this goal.

But here's the thing: whilst you continue to deny my existence as an Aboriginal woman and the right of myself and my family, as well as many other Aboriginal families to claim our heritage and history, and whilst you continue to deny that my family, and thousands across the country have been subjected to years of government policies and procedures and you assert that we therefore are not “true blackfellas”, we cannot stand side-by-side in your cause. We are rendered unable to share information because you, with your unique experience of remote communities and culture, are blocked to our experiences from elsewhere and how these may be linked. You deny us the ability to speak of violence in these communities in our own ways because you deem us as having no right due to where we live or what other heritage we may have. I don't want this to be the case but feel that after seeing you reported so many times in the media as well as witnessing it first-hand in a TV studio that you are not particularly interested in what I, and what others like me, may have to say on the topic. If this is not the case then I would be very interested in opening a dialogue with you and seeing how a bit of side-by-side activism could contribute to the combating of these issues and making a better world for our women. I believe that you possess a passion for change and a great deal of knowledge that can definitely assist in the goal of eradicating these issues of violence. I look forward to your response should you deem a response appropriate.

With warm regards,

Celeste Liddle

Saying farewell to a mentor - A post on Geoffrey Milne

For the second time this year, I am interrupting this black feminist broadcast to write a memorial post on a Jeff/Geoff that changed my life for the better. I have just returned from the memorial service of Geoffrey Milne at the alternative theatre spiritual homelands of La Mama in Carlton, and I don't think I have been to a better send off ever. I had the pleasure of hearing many speak about what Geoff meant to them; from the theatre scene, from the higher education sector, from his personal life. And whilst I wrote a little when I heard of his passing, I have been inspired after hearing these stories to share my own memories and illustrate why Geoffrey Milne meant so much to me.

It's a well-known fact (and cause for much gaffawing) that when I first hit La Trobe University as an undergrad student in the late 90s I was actually a science student. Stranger still: I was a Geology major. I had headed towards science because I had done well in it in at one point whilst in high school, although a quick glance over my (somewhat embarrassing) year 12 marks highlights that I was always destined to end up in the arts. Despite taking a truckload of science subjects for my VCE, my highest marks ended up being in Drama and English. However, at the time this escaped me, and so I enrolled in a BSc.

At some point during semester 1, second year, I worked out that I didn't actually like science. There was no passion in it, everything was concrete and "fact-based" and working out molecular volume via titration every prac was failing to spin my wheels. I had also been involved in two plays at College by that point and was finding that it was this side of Uni that I was actually enjoying. I called into the Aboriginal Liaison Office and had a whinge, and through expressing an interest in drama, the then Aboriginal Liaison Officer hooked me up a meeting with the head of the Drama School to talk about taking some subjects. 

So a couple of days later I made the long long walk over to the Drama dept (then located in the demountable buildings of an old school away from the main campus) to meet this fellow called Geoffrey Milne. This short scruffy man in corduroy slacks and wearing a vest came out to greet me. On noticing that I had a packet of cigarettes in my hand, he invited me to come out to his "other office"; the alcove of a doorway with a couple of stairs to prop on, complete with an ashtray and a thoroughly uninspiring courtyard. It was there that he hit me with a few questions on my background, my family and my interests, talked me through the drama major sequence, and then just chatted away. We would meet probably several hundred times in that exact same "other office" over the next few years; talking through a lighting sequence I had come up with for a couple of the shows I directed, going through my thesis and why I needed to use the correct "to", thrashing out ideas. His real office was, of course, a fantastic space; usually with paperwork everywhere and had an extensive collection of texts so I felt at home in it too. More often than not though, the best ideas were thrashed out in the other office.

A lot of people tonight talked about Geoff's passion and his support for Australian theatre, and he was definitely a huge advocate for recognising the countless amazing works that have come out of this country. It was, however, his incredible support for Aboriginal theatre that hooked me. It was through Geoff that I was introduced to "The Cake Man" by Merritt, "Murras" by Johnson and all the amazing works of Jack Davis. Additionally, both Geoffrey and another of the wonderful lecturers I had when at LTU Drama, Peta Tait, said to me that the best works of the late 80s-90s were Aboriginal women's monodramas and made sure they introduced me to these works accordingly. Aboriginal works were celebrated on their own merits in these courses for the amazing scene-changing pieces they were, and not in that patronising "Indigenous studies 101" way which I had experienced so many times in my journey through the education system. Geoff was also incredibly anecdotal in his lectures, and I remember him talking about the time he saw Davis' "First Born Trilogy" performed over three nights. His recall for the set (tiered seating on opposing sides of a long rectangular area), the lighting, the performances, and the amazing "No Sugar" protest song was so remarkable that I thought I was there. I think Geoff had a particular connection to the works of Davis because he had come from a small country town in WA where he went to a very small school with a lot of mob. In recollections of these childhood times, he once spoke about the time none of the Nyoongah kids turned up to school because it had gotten around that the Kwetartye (feather foot) had been at the school near the water tank. The families and places Davis spoke of were people in Geoff's lived experiences in that country town, and this always came through in droves for me.

It wasn't just the written Aboriginal texts that Geoff recalled though. He would tell of examples of Aboriginal actors in the 70s utilising tactics from practitioners such as Artaud and Boal and staging scenes out on the streets in order to draw mainstream (though the crowd was not always aware that what they were viewing was a staged piece) attention to political issues being faced by the mob. I remember him talking, for example, of a blackfella and two white men dressed as cops staging a scene on the streets of Sydney in order to draw attention to the Aboriginal Legal Service. His interest in Aboriginal theatre was such that he ensured it was central in his teachings in all its varied forms.

As I mentioned, he was anecdotal, and through all his work on some of the most landmark alternative Australian theatre pieces over the years, he had accumulated some amazing stories which he would relay on. I wonder, for example, if any of my fellow LTU grads remember him telling a story about that drunken football team that had come to see "Stretch of the Imagination" at La Mama and the unfortunate tactics one player resorted to when he realised he couldn't wait until intermission to visit the lav? Or his pointing out of the stickers on Dorothy Hewitt's works stating "not to be sold in WA" and explaining to an extent why that was? There were so many funny anecdotes attached to these plays and even now I randomly remember another of them through the course of a day. It wasn't just that Geoff wanted his students to appreciate Australian theatre, rather he wanted to bring every bit of these plays alive and encourage more people to create new works. It really was a gift to hear him speak of them.

At the memorial, some spoke of his passion for the works of German Marxist playwright Bertholt Brecht. Brecht speaks for himself in my opinion; as does Geoff's fondness for Brecht. But what I want to highlight here is actually the role Geoff played in nurturing my political, as well as my dramatic, passions. Geoff would often refer to me as "Comrade Liddle", or just "comrade" or "Liddle". I was rarely "Celeste"! He cottoned on to my interest in the political fairly early on, possibly because I seemed to be drawn mostly to works that had something to say, and he encouraged that by continuing to put interesting texts in front of me. He also encouraged me to explore these topics through my honours thesis. Geoff wasn't the only one who did this in this department incidentally. Peta Tait drew my interest to feminist works and enhanced my interest in Aboriginal women's performance. Ian Carruthers bought me an Augusto Boal book to thank me for being his assistant director one year and encourage me further in my interest in agitprop. It seemed to be a bit of a theme in that department, really! When talking to other former LTU drama students over the years it has struck me that a good many of us have ended up being proud and active unionists and tonight I stated that not only were political interests nurtured, but they were considered to be essential to the work we were doing, whatever that may be. I also stated that without Geoff's nurturing of that political interest in me and teaching me that having a standpoint was essential rather than peripheral, my life may have turned out quite different to what it has. Well, I could have been an apolitical exploration geologist for starters...

Geoff was my honours supervisor, as mentioned previously. When it came to my want to look at Indigenous youth and women's theatre, as well as identity politics, he seemed the natural choice to approach with this idea. He was there through my research, my surveying and my conceptualising of the idea that became my play "Not One Nation". I wanted to say something that other Aboriginal Women's monodramas had not. I wanted to address urban identity and youth issues. I wanted to bag out Hansonism and Howardism on stage. I also wanted a freakin' exposition of my own life. Geoff helped me craft those ideas. He helped me stage them. I wanted some schmantzy lighting and he was getting up on ladders adjusting those par cans for me so they would hit right. Additionally, he had to proof-read my thesis and make suggestions for improvement prior to submission; no mean feat considering I wrote the majority of it up in about three weeks. He went right out of his way to give that feedback too. One night he even met me in a bar in Northcote to go through some edits before going to see another show. That play and that thesis earned me a First Class honours; an achievement I had not thought I was capable of when I left high school with barely enough marks to get into uni. That play also earnt me a repeat showing at LTU for the first year drama students and a short season at La Mama a year later, which Geoff came to see. After that La Mama show Geoff encouraged me to develop more pieces and expand upon "Not One Nation". I haven't actually ever done that; work, life and numerous other things got in the way, but one of these days I will.

Geoff affected my life in many ways. I think of him when I refuse to buy automatic cars because he felt that changing your own gears brought a more authentic driving experience. I think of him when I'm cursing my mobile phones (yes, plural) because he refused to have one for the longest time. I'm not the only one either. I knew the torch had been passed to the next generation of LTU drama students when I found on Facebook one day a few years back "The Geoffrey Milne Appreciation Society". I saw Geoff quite a few times after I left LTU as I would often just drop in and I did stay in email contact. When the news came through that he passed away, however, I was deeply regretful that I hadn't seen him for a couple of years. I am glad that tonight I got the opportunity to remember him with so many others who had been inspired by him, his openness, his passion for theatre (and politics!) and his encouragement.

So, how can you say "thanks" for all that, hey? It's really quite impossible but this post is a start. So thank you, Geoffrey John Milne for so much. Thank you for being a teacher, a mentor, a supporter and an inspiration. Thank you for giving me a spot in your classes and for assisting me in changing the course of my life. Thank you for realising talent in me and nurturing it. Thank you for leaving a mark on my life and on the lives of so many others. And thank you for the stories. Please charge your glasses, folks. 

Musings on 35 part 2: The personal "body shame" issue

I have been whinging of late that the "muse" has not been taking me, and this blog has been awfully quiet. Sure, on a daily basis there are plenty of things that make me want to rant. The ever-mounting pile of "draft" posts that I have on this thing are testament to this fact. But as usual, as I draw nearer to yet another birthday, I feel gripped by an endless tide of introspection. So what better to write upon, hey?

Today as I was walking back from a short lunch break, I found myself pondering my own personal journey with "body issues" and how I have felt quite liberated from that for a number of years. I was wondering why I felt liberated from it. Was this strength that I had drawn from feminism over the years? Was it the freedom I have felt in so many ways from being in my 30s rather than my teens or 20s? Was it as simple as me being within the recommended BMI and having been for years (PFFT to that idea!)? It struck me that there was a journey that got me to now and having that type of liberation was in fact an achievement, all things considered.

Many people know this, but for those that don't, I'm going to "come out" now: I'm a Jenny Craig Success Story! By the way, I mean that '!' in a rather ironic way. It's cool that I did well on that programme and four years later have maintained it with very little actual effort. I am being open about this though because as I read through that old success story it kind of makes me shudder. I am not ashamed that I lost weight, nor am I ashamed that I turned to a weight loss programme to do so. I am only too aware that weight loss programmes gain a bit of well-deserved flack because they do peddle a whole "you'll be healthier and feel more confident if you lose weight!" message which is consistent with a bunch of other body shame stuff which women do not friggin' need. By participating in the Success Stories (adhering, unfortunately, to the usual structure these companies use in the main) I probably contributed to some body shame in other women which is an awful thing and not something I intended. When I wrote that story I was elated at my "success". Was I healthier as mentioned in that piece? Well partially. My back (note: this was prior to a car accident that put me back to square one on this front) was not so easily aggravated, but as mentioned in the first piece on 35dom, I also landed myself a date in the hospital due to an ectopic, so in truth, "healthier" may have been a stretch. If I am honest, the most positive part of it all for me was as I outlined in the third-from-last paragraph: at a time when I was re-imagining my life as a single person and learning how to focus on myself for the first time in years, this was an outlet for me and gaining some affirmation at that time propelled me forward in other ways. Four years on though I can say without any shadow of a doubt that there are so many other things that can do that. The following things have since made me feel similarly elated:

1. Being published online!
2. Kicking arse at Uni
3. Working towards broader social change
4. Being at a stage in life where people are more accepting of me as I am rather than as I should be, and I am more accepting of that too
5. Having the most amazing group of friends ever

So if all these things have made me feel similar, why did I choose weight loss back then to feel better about myself? Well, unfortunately I was not immune to the numerous comments I had received about my size/shape etc over the years, and these had truly been constant. In a society where so much of a woman's/girl's worth is placed upon her appearance, it takes a damn strong individual to be immune to that sort of stuff. I definitely wasn't in a position of strength at that time; that was something that I was working towards. It gave me a starting point, but losing weight wasn't the end point and nor should it ever be considered to be.

Yes, consciousness about my size was something I had experienced from a young age. When I was a very little kid (we're talking 5 or 6 here) I remember being referred to as "solid", "tubby", "fat" and "stocky" on a regular basis. None of this was actually true. I was awkward kid-shaped. Definitely not a lean build, nor long and slender. Just tall and waiting to gain shape. Kids are pretty blobby-shaped in general, and their builds are usually quite genderless until puberty starts to kick in. Really, apart from a round face, blobby was what I was too. But commentary on appearance starts early with little girls, and I was clearly not ideal in other people's reckoning, even at such a young age. I think the first time I was told I needed to lose weight was when I was about 10, and honestly, when I read this piece about a 7 year old girl who was undertaking an exercise and weight loss regime, I could remember myself thinking that I needed to do similar when I was that age. Add this to how I was also experiencing enforced femininity at the same time and you have one girl who felt like she was rather NQR.

This scrutiny intensified when I was a teenager. I was still tall, and still more "solid" than "lean" but I had also been told I was "broad". I have broad shoulders naturally and through hearing that I was "broad", I assumed that the rest of my must be too. I remember from about the age of 16-30 referring to my "battleship hips". Additionally, I described my build as being a "large hourglass". I apparently also had "quadzillas". I knew I wasn't particularly busty despite early beginnings but I was reasonably comfortable with that. That was actually the only body-image thing I managed to be correct on. I would watch the TV and be convinced that there were no girls on any shows who had builds remotely like mine. The fact that I ever thought any of this (with the exception of the non-bustiness) about myself is completely laughable nowadays. It dawned on me only a couple of years ago when a jeans company FINALLY decided to bring out a range to fit a variety of women's shapes that I was somewhat wrong. My measurements put me in the "slight curve" category. Ergo: small hip-to-waist ratio, comparatively slender thighs and a derrière on the smaller side. Where on earth had I got those other ideas from? Could it have been that years of endless and unwarranted scrutiny had completely warped my mind to the point where I was almost seeing myself as the exact opposite of what I really was? Even more frightening: I had been an active feminist for roughly 17 years before that point so why on earth was I still so completely out-of-sync with my own body image? That was a huge "wake up call" for me. It completely changed the way that I relate to my body in a way that weight loss never did. It made me see that I had for YEARS been relating to myself wrong and I promised that I never would again, but nor would I ever listen to the bullshit that was fed to me about my image by others and use that to define how I relate to myself.

I still scrutinise. I still have my moments. A lifetime of scrutiny not only by others but also by yourself is difficult to shake, and I wonder if any of us truly ever completely shake it considering how reinforced it is in society, in the media, in family etc. Generally speaking though, for the most part I am emancipated from those rubbish body image messages of yesteryear. I will never be regretful that I lost weight through a programme, but nowadays I know that that little thing I was doing back then was part of a much broader programme of strengthening and coming into my own, and it is good to be able to look back on it within context, rather than as an achievement by itself. Because it wasn't. It was, to me, a mere grain of red dust in the Simpson.  

Spambots: the horsemen of the binary patriarchy apocalypse

I have now something like 10 half-written blogposts just waiting to be finished and I do so wonder if they will just end up sitting there waiting to be finished for all eternity. The truth of the matter is that some of them have been sitting there for 9 months and my writing style is such that if I don't finish writing something in one sitting, it doesn't usually get done. The only exception to this rule were my uni essays and even then, more often than not they got churned out in one sitting, proof-read and then submitted. Amongst the saved half-written pieces are posts about the fallacy and limitations of "agency", why I quite loathe PETA, Bettina Arndt (enough said) and misogynistic statements used culturally in a way that allegedly is respectful. Just some light reading, really. We'll get to all those one day...

But today, I wish to whine about spambots. One of the downsides of allowing "Anonymous" posting on my blog (and by the way, if you use that can you PLEASE type a name or a handle as requested on the sidebar? It would be really appreciated) is that I do get some doozies. Initially, I removed unmoderated comment posting because I received some utterly disgusting trolling when my post on Miss NAIDOC went national. Also, I have been very clear that I do not want this blog to be YET ANOTHER space that is dominated by conservative white heterosexual male opinion and despite this, conservative white heterosexual males tried to dominate it. Unfortunately this means everyone has to enter those captcha thingies to post anything and then wait for me to add it. Whilst this means that a good portion of people probably just cannot be bothered, I also wish to thank those who do post for their patience and their wonderful contributions, even if I am slack in responding. On the plus side though, I also get to delete the comments written by spambots and sexist service floggers.

Here's the thing: I am currently thinking that the patriarchy is so deeply embedded that all you need to do is type a phrase whilst sitting on your couch in your pyjamas and suddenly shiny patriarchy will appear. Like dial-a-patriarchy or something. It's really so convenient. I, for example, typed "fake tanning" on my blog and managed to receive three posts from alleged fake tan providers discussing the virtues of their products. My post examining labiaplasty got a further two posts from cosmetic surgery companies (apparently) talking about the wonderful procedures they had on special should I wish to craft myself into the ultimate socially-acceptable woman. My comments on surrogacy earned me a post from an international surrogacy provider talking about the wonderful genetic material incubators they had available (in other words, women) just raring to produce a little Celeste clone so my life would be complete. Elsewhere, I questioned the Lingerie Football League and ended up with a free-ticket offer to one of their games (sadly, the tickets were available in North America not Northern Burbs Melbs). A literal cornucopia of patriarchal advertising just eager to get to my inbox. It is really quite insane.

It's like a step up from the old email junk mail boxes really. I personally have never gotten tired of knowing that I can buy some cheap herbal Viagra that will change my life (free postage!) and that one click will get me into a secret webcam session where I can watch "Sarah" have some sexy time. Chucking out junk mail is something we are all used to, whether it is the paper variety or the email variety. The difference here though is that EVERYONE who has ever had an email inbox receives these sorts of ads. They don't appear to be triggered by something you type like the spambots above. We are moving to a whole new level of patriarchal invasion here and whilst it would be folly to assume that we are ever safe on the internet, the spammy products that are being flogged by these means are quite telling.

I could be wrong here, so in an attempt to see if I can trigger some feminist spambot comments I'm going to write a few phrases that are more feminist-compliant:

1. Egalitarianism
2. Riot Grrls
3. Menstrual cups 
4. The patriarchy is bad for all
5. Body pride
6. Black feminist theory

I will keep you posted how this little experiment goes.

My real point in all this though is quite simple: If the patriarchy is so pervasive that one little word or phrase can trigger the infiltration of information via binary coding, imagine how pervasive this much broader source of structural power must be in all other every day interactions. Is there ever any way to escape this and will people ever be aware of just how incredibly embedded it is in culture/society/etc? Also, how do we fight a power that is so prepared to assert itself in the most insidious ways all of the time? I'll leave you with that...

Turning 35 and the quandaries of reproductive "choice"

This piece was initially featured in a zine from the "Campaign for Women's Reproductive Rights Melbourne" published in March 2013. For further information on the group or how to obtain a copy of the Zine which features a number of other pieces on Reproductive Rights, please check out their page on Facebook, or via Twitter @CWRRmelbourne

Turning 35 for me is now not even two months away, and with the amount of things attached to this age when you're a woman, I'm both excited and apprehensive. You see, I remember sitting around when we were teenagers at high school, talking about sex as teenagers do. We had been told, for example, that whilst our male classmates were currently hitting their sexual peak, women hit theirs in their mid-30s. I'm fairly certain that a good portion of that knowledge is complete fallacy that may or may not have had something to do with discouraging teenage girls from having sex by perpetuating myths that they simply wouldn't enjoy it until they were much older, but I'm no sexologist. One thing that I do know is that 35 was always explained to us pretty much as “ground zero” as far as a woman's fertility goes. From here onwards biological findings state that it decreases at a much more rapid rate making it more and more difficult to conceive, even with assistance. Additionally, there is more of a chance that the egg a woman beyond 35 ovulates will have autosomal abnormalities so the chances of having a miscarriage are higher.

I've never given having children a serious amount of thought, and all of a sudden, as I get closer and closer to this magic number, I'm supposed to be taking the whole idea a lot more seriously and I don't even know where to begin. I've always been ambivalent about having children, and whilst I have been told by far too many people that I have a natural nurturing side, I haven't necessarily felt a need to channel that nurturing in to children of my own. Yet at this point in time I am feeling an extraordinary amount of pressure to become less ambivalent about child-bearing, whether it's from society wondering what the hell a 35 year old woman is doing showing no signs of settling down, or family who have taken it upon themselves to make comments on my childlessness. Honestly, as part of an Indigenous Australian family I thought I may be buffered from this a bit due to the fact that culturally I'm already a mother, and a grandmother, but apparently I am missing out on something huge, or so I've been told, and I won't be complete if I don't have children. Yep, even with kinship at play, it still seems to be rather unthinkable that an Aboriginal woman hasn't given having her own children much thought.

Additionally, I have been pregnant once, and am already down a fallopian tube because of it (so knock another 20% off my soon to be plummeting fertility). That traumatic experience gave me a bit of a reality check about the less publicised side of pregnancy; what can, and occasionally does, go wrong. Plus it left me, at a most critical junction of my life (as I had just left a long-term relationship only 3 weeks earlier), completely and utterly powerless to make any sort of choice at all on my pregnancy. I couldn't choose to continue on and face the task of being a sole parent head on, nor could I choose to terminate and just rebuild my life as a single woman. The choice was gone. Honestly, I would have hoped that those family members and friends who knew that I went through this would perhaps lay off the “when are you having a baby” talk, but they haven't and if anything it has made them seek “solutions” for me just in case. Everything from sperm donation to IVF have been suggested. If anything, I think my history makes it all the more urgent in their minds.

If the concept of reproductive choice was already incredibly strong in me as a feminist woman, it became amplified from that point onwards. The absence of choice makes the concept of having a choice available so much stronger. And it also makes me so much more protective of women's bodily autonomy and the right to choice in so many different ways. I remember back when Tony Abbott was Health Minister in the Howard Government and how he tried to block RU486 being available in this country (and Senator Kerry Nettle's tshirt emblazoned with the words “Get your rosaries off my ovaries!”) and the thought that this man, who holds such antiquated views of women in general, might be Prime Minister later this year chills me to the bone. Let's also not forget the pro-life pregnancy counselling line Abbott set up with the help of a few religious organisations in order to try and “offer assistance” to women who were considering terminating a pregnancy. What can we expect next in the attack on women's bodily autonomy under an Abbott Government? I hope we don't find out but unfortunately I think we will.

Becoming more aware of “choice” and in just how many ways it operates and is precarious when it comes to women's reproduction has opened up so many lines of enquiry for me. Speaking to some of my friends who have gone through childbirth has uncovered some horror stories. I have been told by some, for example, of how they have felt pressured by their Obstetricians into having a caesarian section or an inducement in order to have the baby born to a schedule when it was medically not necessary. I have been told that when in the delivery room, whilst in the most comfortable position they can find for them and the child they're giving birth to, women have been told by doctors to move or lie down, mainly because it is more convenient from a medical point of view for them to be in a different position. I have heard of women being told they are being “irresponsible” because they wish to give birth at home rather than in a hospital. Something as natural as childbirth has been so heavily regulated and if soon-to-be mothers challenge those regulations they are often criticised. Who can forget the media criticism Dannii Minogue received when she attempted a home birth but ended up having to go into hospital due to complications? As a more knowledgeable friend of mine stated, the media kept on referring to Minogue's “failed” home delivery when what was actually the case was that Minogue had a successful birth plan that took into account issues should they arise. So I long ago decided that should I ever decide birthing babies is for me, then it's home birth, in a pool and surrounded by a bunch of my friends who have been through it. Their stories of regulated birth have been enough for me to wish to emancipate myself from that scene completely.

This regulation of childbearing took a whole new meaning for me last year when the QLD government removed access to altruistic surrogacy for gay couples, singles and heterosexual de facto couples in new relationships. The “right” to access surrogacy is something I openly question, but the right of women to offer surrogacy is something I support. Yet the entire argument at this time seemed to be overrun by the “right to access” side of the debate so we saw endless statements from the Government, from the Australian Christian Lobby and other right-aligned religious groups in support of these changes, and from queer lobby groups opposing the changes as they were hit the hardest because they were excluded from access completely (a heterosexual defacto couple could arguably just wait longer to access the programme whilst a single heterosexual person could have a change in relationship status). Yet what was not all over the media were any responses from women's groups demanding their right to bodily autonomy which would include the ability to make a choice to offer surrogacy and to choose the circumstances under which they offer it and to whom. This is not to say that women were not responding to these changes but rather, despite it being their bodies that are being regulated by laws such as this, their voices were not deemed important enough by the government or the media to be heard. Why is it that not only are governments so very able to make laws regulating women's bodies without any consultation with women's lobby groups at all, but that the argument for or against these laws again excludes women's voices? Are women mere producers of the next generation in this circumstance or are we just a bit more important than that?

Finally, and to change the frame completely, being closer to the magical number of 35 has made me more aware of the stigma that is attached for women who opt out of contributing to the numbers of the next generation. For example, it has made me just that little bit more passionate and vocal when I see criticism directed towards our female Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her choice to not have children. Yes, there have been the rather unfortunate babblings of twits such as Bill Heffernan accusing Gillard of being “deliberately barren” and therefore not having a clue, but it's even the more subtle forms of misogynistic slander such as “she chose her career” that get me mad. I don't think people really question those more subtle forms of criticism but they should. Comments like that infer that there must be a choice for women, that women focussed on their careers cannot also be mothers, or that mothers will never become Prime Minister of this country because they've “chosen” motherhood. Why does this view, 30 years after the Sex Discrimination Act was introduced still seem to have so much currency in this country? Are women not as entitled to choose to not have children as men, or to balance careers and family like men do? Do people still feel that the nurturing side of mothering is not compatible with strong leadership? Why is it, particularly in an environment where we have a female Prime Minister, a female Governor General AND a female Head of the Commonwealth, one being childless and the other two being mothers, that these stupid ideas persist? I think it's about time that women are not judged on whether they have progeny and are instead allowed to be judged on their leadership and abilities. Men don't “choose” their careers and they don't have criticism flung at them depending on their reproductive status so it's about time women were afforded the same respect.

So as I trot towards 35 with my decreased reproductive capacity and my increased libido (apparently), what do I choose? I choose to have the full capacity to make choices over my own body as I see fit. I choose to be respected for those choices as an intelligent human being should be. I choose to not be pitied or have condescending remarks made towards me because I am not adhering to what is expected of a 35 year old woman in this society. I choose to remain ambivalent about having children or not and roll with whatever the next few years bring. I choose a supportive workplace and the ability to excel in that workplace regardless of my reproductive choices. And I choose cake. Lots of it. 

EDIT: This post was featured as a guest blog on Bob Gosford's "The Northern Myth" Crikey blog. Link here

FGM vs "Cosmetic Surgery", and the falseness of "choice"

I never thought that an episode of Insight would inspire another blogpost from me, but clearly hell has frozen over. I have watched the show again for the first time since I appeared on it, and here we are. In my defence though, this post has not happened in a bubble. Many things have culminated in it, and whilst this will inevitably be a post that barely scratches the surface of what is an incredibly complex issue, I'm going to give it a burl.

So to start at the Insight programme, the topic was female circumcision/genital mutilation. It featured three women who had gone through the procedure in different parts of Africa talking about their experiences; two of which had been through the procedure in childhood and one who had chosen to go through it in adulthood as part of reaffirming heritage via women's initiation ceremony. In addition to this, there was a Gynaecologist who has worked a lot with African communities, a GP who campaigns actively against FGM, a couple of women who felt the need to explain to the women who had been through FGM exactly how what they had been through was horrific and incomparable to things such as having your ears pierced, a Cosmetic Surgeon who specialises in genital surgery, and a Lawyer. I wasn't expecting much with regards to how this weighty topic would be handled on this programme, and I wasn't pleasantly surprised. What I was surprised though was what I ended up being most angered about.   

After watching the show, I tweeted the following comment: 

"ALL "culture" that propels women to feel that their genitals should be altered for social inclusion needs to be examined".

It was interesting to see how this comment was perceived by other people who viewed the show. Most got it, but I think some assumed that I was just referring to FGM (which I still see as FGM, by the way, despite hearing more about the contexts of this practice as discussed on the programme, as it is still the removing of parts of female anatomy) because they made the assumption that "culture" was something those other women had, and that western culture has little equivalence. I can't begin to express just how erroneous this assumption was. When I say "ALL culture", that's exactly what I mean. Western culture, and the Australian context, does not get a free pass here.

To argue that Labiaplasty, or any other genital surgery, in an Australian context is not "cultural" and is completely choice-based is wrong. This culture around women's genitalia has changed so much that in the space of 10 years there has been a minimum of a doubling in the rate of Labiaplasty surgeries performed in this country, and that's just the ones claimed on Medicare. One Doctor states that he experienced a 100% rise per year. What's more, most agree that the majority of these procedures are aesthetic and not for medical reasons. Both the interviews I've just linked state that the women seeking these surgeries wish to look "normal". This stuff doesn't happen in a bubble, folks. Something has changed dramatically in a short period of time to make a number of women assess themselves differently.

And now I wish to travel back in my time machine to the 90s, as I have so oft returned in these blogposts before, to reflect partially on this "culture" that has changed. I reflected on this in another forum, and have had a similar discussion with one of my sisters, but back in those long ago years there really didn't seem to be such a narrow concept of what constituted "normal". Sure, occasionally in those dreaded PE classes when we had to go swimming you might have caught a glance of difference in the change rooms, but this was unlikely and even then, a judgement probably wouldn't have been made by those present as to who was the most, and least, normal. I've mentioned previously that back then a bit of a tidy up of the edges and a trim of the hair itself was the most common pubic hair style, so really, we were mostly covered. This wonderful world of labial diversity all seemed to change rather quickly. 

I remember that the first time I heard that women's Labia could be judged as more or less desirable was (sadly) when I was watching the first season of Big Brother. Sara-Marie, who worked as a manager in a strip club, was educating the housemates on "innies" and "outies" and how innies were seen as more desirable for that line of work. Additionally, that edge-trim and lawn mow seemed to no longer cut it, and Brazilian waxing, or at the very least removing all the hair there, became a normalised practice thus the entire area became much more visible than it had been. People link the rise in porn viewing to a rise in hair removal and surgery and I admit to not having seen enough/read enough porn to have a view on how accurate that idea is. This article does talk about the airbrushing of external genitalia in order to be consistent with Australian Classification laws. Despite my naivety on the porn front though, I do know that the internet happened and that this provided a vehicle for women to be able to compare and contrast the female genital area in a way that unless they were a gynaecologist or involved in female-to-female sexual practice would not have been able to do before. Thus, it seems that the idea that having externally hanging Labia Minora became an undesirable state for many women. What's more, men have been exposed to the same things and also therefore have made judgements on what may, or may not, be normal. If all that combined (and this is bare bones here, there is a lot more too this) does not state "cultural", then I am curious what does. The way I read it says that a number of social pressures that did not really exist before have been placed on to women, and therefore women are now more likely to judge their own genitals as being abnormal, when in actual fact they are perfectly normal, and then seek solutions. As mentioned earlier: this does not happen in a bubble.

I do question "choice" made under those circumstances. Sure, a woman may make a choice to walk into a surgery and undertake a procedure, and she may receive both physical and emotion benefits from doing so. Where that choice though has been made in the context of a woman being continually bombarded with images and ideas of what constitutes "normal" and where she may also have been told by a partner who has been bombarded with those exact ideas and images that she is "different", I then argue that she has been denied the complete and unfettered ability to ever interpret her own body as being perfectly normal, and make a decision in a society that positively supports anatomical difference for women. What's more, going back to Insight for a second, it was interesting to hear a Cosmetic Surgeon and a Lawyer use the idea of "choice" to differentiate FGM from Labiaplasty and related practices in a Western context. Just a little food for thought: of course a Cosmetic Surgeon specialising in genital surgery in a western capitalist society is going to argue that a woman undertaking a procedure in this context is making a "choice". Their very livelihood is dependent on women questioning their appearances and therefore spending big biccies on "corrective procedures". Questioning the culture surrounding those choices ain't going to bring home the bacon!

I think additionally there is enough of a cultural imperative here for a counter-movement to spring up. At this very point in time there seem to be a number of art installations, books and websites geared toward changing these ideas of what constitutes "normal" and celebrating diversity. Warning: none of the upcoming links are safe for work! The Great Wall of Vagina has involved artist Jamie McCartney taking casts of the external genital area of a number of women* volunteers then displaying these casts as a series of panels. The 101 Vagina Project (this is still looking for a few more volunteers so click the link if you're interested) is reproducing photos of the external area, as well as stories written by the anonymous participants related to that area, in an artistic coffee table book format. The Large Labia Project is a similar idea except that women submit their own pictures and stories that then get shared on the site. Oh, and one glance at the site tells you that what women think is "large" is perfectly normal. Finally, there was this UK documentary called The Perfect Vagina (note, there is a big pause in this doco after the first segment finishes but it does come back) which looks at the surgery women are undertaking and investigates some of the diversity-affirming activities women are getting involved in to counter these ideas of "normal". This documentary also asks a couple of Cosmetic Surgeons why they do what they do, and the answers are rather interesting... Can I just say though that whilst I think all these positive, affirming projects existing is amazing and they need to be encouraged and viewed by many more women and girls (and the blokes too), I really REALLY think it sucks that they have to exist, particularly when it wasn't that long ago that they would have been almost an unnecessary exercise.

To return to the Insight episode, I think this was why, by the end of it, I sensed the frustration that the women who had undergone FGM were feeling, particularly when some in the audience were so easily dismissing Labiaplasty in the West whilst demonising FGM and the women who practice it, in other cultures. There was at times a complete cultural arrogance on display, and an almost stubborn refusal to look at practices that exist here with the same amount of scrutiny. That's wrong and it should not have been the case in this show. As I wrote earlier: ALL "culture" that propels women to feel that their genitals should be altered for social inclusion needs to be examined. Considering all I have written above, if people still think that this means cosmetic surgery in an Australian context gets a free pass on the basis of "choice" then they are sorely mistaken. All women, worldwide, need to know that they are born perfect and that they do not have to endure any sort of genital mutilation to be socially acceptable. No matter what the cultural circumstance. 

* Sorry, but I just am still not good with this entire area being referred to colloquially as the "Vagina" as it erases all the other brilliant bits!  

 

"Reef N' Beef", and one hell of a disgusting sign

So I'm using this platform again for a rant that is not of the feminist variety. I promise, at this point in time I have nine half-written women-focussed pieces, and I will finish and post one of them soon. In the meantime though, I'd like to draw the attention of those wonderful people who do read my blog to this brilliant piece of signage out of Denmark.

This was snapped by one of my Uni friends when he was recently in Copenhagen Airport. He posted it on Facebook for opinion on what he thought was the use of rather racist imagery and immediately I asked if I could pinch it. Naturally, the majority of people who commented on my Facebook post found it similarly racist and offensive. Indeed, some of us actually took the time to write the business an email informing them of such. I am yet to get a response to my email, but one of my good friends did and whilst an amiable response, it did seem to insinuate that she had misinterpreted the idea behind the campaign as it was merely a marrying of the "traditional" with the "contemporary", and was not meant to be anything other than that. The email also showed no indication that they were going to take action on the points she had raised.

My own email was open in tone and educating in its pitch. I took the stance that perhaps Reef N' Beef were naive of just how loaded this image could be. I mentioned Gillard's "rivers of grog" and stereotypes of drunkenness. I highlighted notions of "authenticity" and stereotyping when it comes to Aboriginal appearance. I mentioned the use of images of someone who has passed away and what that can mean from a religious point of view. And thusfar: nada, zip, zero. So I was initially prepared to wait patiently until they found it in their hearts to respond to me when the plot thickened...

You see, this is not the first time Reef N' Beef have been informed by mob that this image is offensive. Indeed, it was brought to their attention a couple of years ago by some strong and intelligent people from the community and I cannot imagine that those people would have minced words, nor would they have been remotely unclear in expressing the issues of this image. Not only that, but this solo sign which my attention was drawn to is actually not solo at all. According to other reports from mobs, this image is all over the buses of Copenhagen and at other public sites. I repeat: this image is everywhere despite the fact that Reef N' Beef have been told it is offensive over the past two or so years by the very people that it is supposed to represent. Consider me utterly disgusted.

So stuff waiting around for my polite email response! In light of the fact that Reef N' Beef are either extraordinarily slow learners or they simply do not give a shit that their advertising is offensive no matter how many times they are told, I am posting it up here on my own platform. It is bad enough that Aboriginal people have to deal with knuckle-dragger racism in our own country but to see it overseas is just something else, PARTICULARLY when the business in question has been educated on the issues. Please feel free to send Reef N' Beef an email, give them a call, or share this around so that others are aware. The contact details will be below.

Reef N' Beef Website - Link
Reef N' Beef Facebook - Link 
Reef N' Beef Twitter - @ReefBeefDK
Phone: 33 33 00 30
Fax: 33 33 08 38
Email: reef@reefnbeef.dk 

Oh, and let me know if you get a response! Bonus points to those who post them in the comments section ;)