FEATURES

I’m Not Racist, But…

Australia! Mate-ship, a fair go, the good ol’ Aussie spirit, friendly bogans, Rhonda and Katut, and systemically embedded racism.

Australia has always held the image of a relaxed, laid-back, free-spirited country. While this facade has begun to crack in recent years due to political turmoil and a global systematic right-wing shift, the idea of Australia being a racist country still draws controversy. This country was birthed from stolen land and genocide, it contains a history littered with the White Australia Policy, and the likes of One Nation. Only those who have the privilege of being blissfully unaware, or those who want to keep a system which grants them disproportionate power, would dare make the claim that racism is not deeply entrenched in the foundations of this land. Today, you only have to look to the lack of sensitivity towards the hardships faced by refugees, or the dismissal of the disenfranchisement of Indigenous peoples to see the very normalised view of oppression held in this country.

When hate crimes occur, when a politician makes racially insensitive comments about needing a “final solution to the immigration problem” (see Fraser Anning), when an Australian citizen commits a racially motivated act of terror in another country; these aren’t ‘un-Australian’ acts. These are the very behaviours we and the systems which make up this country foster.

Being a Pakistani woman born in Australia to immigrant parents, I cannot speak for, but can reflect some of the experiences of many second-gen South Asians in this country; one of the many groups of people who experience everything from hate crimes, to ‘casual everyday racism.’ I was sixyears-old, sitting by myself eating a rainbow paddle-pop when a group of white boys in the school playground ran up, circled me and chanted “brown monkey.” Several weeks later I was told by the friend I had made on the first day of school that her mum had told her not to be friends with “Indian people.” When I was nine a brown man was brutally beaten at our local train station in a perceived hate crime. My dad had to catch the train home from work every night one week, and every night I wondered if he’d make it back. In high school I was casually told by a ‘friend’ during a political debate in class that I wasn’t “as bad as other immigrants” – the fact that I was born in Melbourne aside – this exhibited a common trope of being brought up on the backs of others like me. My own people being put down to point out how I “acted quite Australian” and was “pretty for an Indian” etc.

Over the years this has highlighted to me some of the privileges I have such as being light-skinned and speaking English as my first language. I cannot fully understand how much worse many others have had it, yet these ‘compliments’ must also be recognised for the oppressive tools that they are. Even when you are differentiated as one of ‘the good ones’ you are being other-ed and used by someone to put down a group of people. You are painted as the exception to whatever the racist rule may be.

These are just my first-hand experiences. I’ve seen my mum face random glares when she walks out with a headscarf on or speaks to me in Urdu in public. I’ve seen passersby's experience shouts of “go back to your country,” friends having to fight the fetishization of their ethnicity. We hear of hate crimes on the news, hear of innocent brown people being questioned and detained by the government agencies that are meant to protect them. We’ve seen it with how asylum seekers are demonized in this country, with whole elections hanging on whose border patrol policies are strict enough to keep them out. Most notably at the moment we are seeing heightened racism against those of Chinese (or perceived Chinese) descent being revealed as a result of Coronavirus reporting. The key word here being ‘revealed,’ because this hatred and prejudice has always bubbled within the foundations of Australian society, rearing its head far too often. From hate crimes to the casual ‘just-a-joke,’ this is Australia.

Many hear of instances like these and presume that they are in the clear because they’ve never shouted racial obscenities at a passerby or used slurs or done any number of the things mentioned. The minority experience (in this case racial minority) is riddled with not just these more jarring experiences, but the day to day casual racism. Looking at Macquarie University’s official Instagram story and seeing the caption “it’s hard to find a local among all these international students” (yes this was really posted), being the only woman of colour in a tutorial full of white men, and struggling to have your voice heard or validated, the seemingly trivial things like people not bothering to learn how to pronounce your name, hearing statements like “it’s all the same” when clarifying “oh, where I’m from isn’t the same place as India.” Racism is complex and characterised by forceful power structures and systemic suppression and will not always present itself as a white hood or a racial slur. It is a series of norms. It’s growing up in a country you love which will not love you back because the other-ing of people like you is in its roots. We cannot kid ourselves and believe that casual racially insensitive comments and jokes at the expense of minorities are harmless or not a part of a greater oppressive system.

Australia is full of beautiful wildlife, awe-inspiring natural and man-made structures, a rich Indigenous history and cultures, and a diverse group of people from all over the world. For that it is beautiful, but it can also be ugly. Its ugliness lies in the hatred which has been bred within it. In the oppressive power structures that date back to colonisation and are deeply entrenched as a result, and in those who continue to perpetuate these knowingly and unknowingly, and therefore are complicit. It is racist, no but.

By Sara Choudhry

EUROVISION

Eurovision has crept up on us, with the announcement of Australia’s representative as none other than 24-year-old Montaigne. Yet, once again we find ourselves asking the collective question: why is Australia in the contest?

The world has been blessed with Eurovision and its many offbeat and amusing contestants since 1956. Giving the people what they want, with national treasures such as ABBA, Celine Dion, and the very underrated Buranovskiye Babushki – aka the old Russian grandmas who sang Party for Everybody.

The history of Eurovision is a complex one. Created by Marcel Bexençon, it was one of the earliest live broadcasted events for large international audiences. The contest has come a long way since the early years which included a live orchestra with simplistic sing-a-long performances. Now over 60 years later, the event has become synonymous with over the top musical numbers and the overuse of pyrotechnics and wind machines. Looking back at contestants such as Jedward and Latvia’s Pirates of the Caribbean themed entry Pirates of the Sea, it’s clear that Eurovision is a unique event which unites a broad number of countries through a fun and competitive annual competition. Yet behind the over the top musical entries is a history of tense political commentary and a voting system which provides a very high school clique-like spin to diplomatic tensions and yet Australia loves it.

Australia-like-really-likes-Eurovision. So much so that in past years the percentage of Australian viewers who have tuned in to watch the televised event has surpassed some of the countries who actually participated in it. SBS has had a significant role in developing Australia’s love for Eurovision, dutifully broadcasting the event every year since 1983. This apparently is the answer to why Australia was invited to the 2015 Eurovision contest. Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the event, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) invited Australia to participate in honor of our country’s commitment to the competition.

To many in 2015, this seemed like a very excessive way to thank Australia for broadcasting the contest. Its timing suspiciously coincided with SBS’s attempt to get a legislation passed which ultimately allowed more advertising slots during prime time. News that Australia would be competing in the 2015 contest was met with an excessive amount of backlash by a country that claimed to love the show, with one question on everybody’s mind – isn’t Eurovision only for European countries?

Short version: no, it isn’t. For a country that is deeply invested in the event we seem to quickly forget that Israel competes every year, as does Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia – all countries which lie outside the continental borders. Basically the ‘Euro’ in Eurovision does not necessarily mean only European nations can compete, it was created by the EBU who is more focused on membership rather than geography. Any country which is a member of the European Broadcasting Union is eligible for the contest, and to join the EBU a country must fall within the European Broadcasting area. Again, Australia doesn’t really fit this criteria. However SBS is an associate member of the EBU, a status they retain by paying a fee. So really, Australia competing in Eurovision isn’t that far left of center that everybody makes it out to be. It’s definitely not the first non-European country to compete in a Eurovision Contest, that title is given to Canada who in 1987 competed in the Eurovision Dancer’s contest held in Germany. Besides, it’s not like Australia is that bad when competing. Over the past four years we have competed, Australia has seen pretty impressive results, with Dami Im coming second place in 2016 and Guy Sebastian finishing fifth in 2015. We’ve done pretty good for ourselves, so good that instead of just performing for the 60th anniversary as a one off, we have been invited back year after year. Eurovision has invited Australia to participate up until 2023, a decision which should be met with enthusiasm by a country that claims to love the competition so much.

Instead of arguing over whether Australia deserves to be competing or not, we should instead focus on the alarmingly normal contestants which have been making their way through to the grand finals. For a competition which has always been synonymous with overly dramatic performances and a celebration of each nations’ unique culture, the competition is becoming scarily boring with many of the contestants singing in English. This isn’t what the people want, we want more Verka Serdyuchka singing in head to toe tin foil, not a large scale version of the X-factor. The question around language is a historic one. Whilst it was expected for contestants to sing in their native language, Sweden was the first to break the mold and perform a English entry in 1965. Strict laws were quickly introduced by the EBU which saw entrants only allowed to sing in their national language. These language laws would only be reversed in 1977.

Australia competing in Eurovision isn’t really the most pressing issue in the competition’s history. Eurovision has a very tumultuous past that brings trans-European tensions to the forefront. Scandals have included the expulsion of Romania due to unpaid debt owed to the EBU in 2016, Austria boycotting the 1969 contest in Madrid due to Francesco Franco’s ruling, and Russia’s withdrawal in 2017 after their contestant was banned from the host country, Ukraine. Eurovision has always been a very public platform for political statements as seen in Turkey’s emphasis on the importance of integration between themselves and the EU during their turn at hosting in 2004 as well as the criticism drawn to Azerbaijan’s human rights record when they hosted the competition in 2012.

So as Australia gets ready to once again mock themselves in this year’s Eurovision, let’s remember that it’s not that strange for us to be performing. Instead let’s start planning our Eurovision parties, demand Julia and Sam host the SBS coverage again, and pray there will be some weird and wacky contestants to make Eurovision great again.

The Gender Wage Gap? Yep, It’s Still a Thing

Australia is one of only two developed countries which has seen a rise in the gender pay gap over the last two decades. We may have Milo and Chris Hemsworth, but this definitely isn’t a good look for us down under. Sometimes the push for gender equality saturates the media so much, you actually think that the cogs of justice might be moving. Sadly, this means we can neglect to look in our own backyards to see what’s really changed. The answer? Not much. As of 2019, the wage gap still sits at 14.9%, which means that men are making about $240 a week more than women. Depending on your priorities, that’s an entire week’s rent or your share of the accommodation for Bali in November- either way, you should be appalled. This also equals out to mean that women need to be working an extra 59 days to earn the same amount as men- that’s a lot of overtime forms to have to fill out just to even the playing field. One of the primary reasons the wage gap seems to be so persistent is gender-based hiring and the over representation of genders in certain job sectors. For example, women tend to be clustered into jobs like healthcare and education whereas men are more dominant in engineering, building and IT related fields. Highly gender segregated workplaces are pretty much stock standard, even in 2020 - meaning sectors that are dominated more by women, are paid less for their services. This is also still the case for higher ranking roles. That’s right ladies, we are still battling our way up that corporate ladder and smashing through that glass ceiling, only to be told at the top s right ladies, we are still battling way up that corporate ladder and hing through that glass ceilonly to be told at the top that our work is worth 14.9% less- oh and you better not be planning on having kids any time soon, cause that’s a major no-no.

Yep, you heard me right: in Australia women who want a career and children often can kiss a fair wage and superannuation goodbye. All of our workplace standards are still highly entrenched in the idea that women are the caregivers, and that means their pay and future career prospects will suffer. Studies conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) show that despite some workplaces addressing this issue, nearly half of working women are concerned about what a family will do for their career prospects and feel they are often overlooked for new roles and promotions upon their return to the workplace. I wonder if it’s a coincidence that some of our recent high ranking females like Julie Bishop and Julia Gillard, don’t have children. Another little fun fact, while women tend to experience a pay hit when they return to work after having kids, fathers have been known to see an increase in salary. Go figure. So, where to from here? Well, experts say there is still a long way to go before Australia will see equal pay and there is no way we will get there without addressing the gender stereotypes we have grown accustomed to in the workplace. Chat to your employer, start the discussion around pay equity for women- but the first step needs to be reminding Australians that this is still an issue and that archaic gender norms aren’t a thing of the past.

By Katherine Robinson

"We Men Must Do Better"

Last week I was watching the news, the start of this decade has been a noisy one to say the least. Bushfires, Coronavirus and the potential for World War Three. Something on this particular day cut straight through the noise. It was a developing story about a Brisbane mother being burnt alive in her car with her three children. It made me sick to my guts. Over the next few days the story developed with new details that we are all familiar with; the mother Hannah Clarke had been burnt alive in her car with her three children in an act of family violence. The feeling of being sick in the stomach intensified. Every time the story was on one of my social media feeds or on the news the sick feeling came back. Until I saw what ‘Scotty from marketing’ had to say when he opened parliament with his speech. The sick feeling turned to anger pretty quickly after hearing what Mr Morrison had to say. The Prime Minister didn’t say anything offensive or untrue; it was what he failed to say which got me offside. Firstly, he did the obligatory ‘thoughts and prayers’ which was worded in such a way that he conveyed his sentiment while noticeable not using the words thoughts and prayers. Followed by some stats, “One woman every nine days is killed by a partner or former partner.” In the next few sentences he laid down his second statistic, “One in six women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner since the age of fifteen.” Whenever I hear statistics like this the first thing I do is reach for disbelief, not wanting to accept that the country in which we live has an endemic problem of domestic violence. Unfortunately, after a while I accept the facts and acknowledge the severity of the problem. The reason why Mr Morrison upset me stemmed from this quote. “We must reflect on how and where the system failed Hannah and her children as it has failed so many others.” One would question why this quote would upset me as it seems like the Prime Minister is shining a light on a serious issue that we as a country face, the one in which he leads. My issues is that this is a series of words that have been crafted into a sincere sounding sentence that doesn’t fucking mean anything! In the house of representatives, a room that is mostly full of men, I did not see a single man take a stand and lead the country’s male population. On that day a male should have stood in that room and taken the lead and vowed, “We men must do better!” We as men are failing the women and children of this country. We need a culture shift! In the past I have seen stories like this and told myself “I would never,” and then continued on with my life. I now realise that it is not enough. We need every male in this country to know from a young age that there is no excuse for a male to lay his hands on a female or an infant with violent intent or with the intent of sexual abuse. Boys need to know that it is above all morally incorrect and illegal. Boys need to know how serious the consequences will be if they break this law. Fathers need to tell their sons; teachers need to tell their students; any male of authority needs to be instilling this information into the boys of this nation. Our Prime Minister should be shouting it from the rooftops! Violence against women is a male problem and needs to be fixed by men. “We Men Must Do Better”

It sounds confronting that all men must take accountability for a problem that is only perpetrated by a few, but if Scomo’s statistics are correct, 41 Australian women die every year at the hands of a partner or former partner. If we let this statistic remain then there is something deeply wrong with our country. I had hoped that one of our elected leaders would have taken a public lead in the wake of the tragedy of Hannah Clarke and her three children but I was disappointed so I guess it falls on the rest of us to start fixing this issue. Without our leaders in Canberra spearheading this shift in culture, it’s going to be slow going but we as men should make a start. In the near future, I hope our leaders make a meaningful and public stand on domestic violence- but I wouldn’t expect the current Prime Minister to challenge the status quo. Until a leader has the courage to make the necessary stand on family violence, it is down to the individual male to challenge this issue. On the off chance that Scomo wants to make a meaningful stand, I know you love a slogan Mister Prime Minister so try this one, “We men must do better.”

By Dominic Giles

The Dark Side of Digital Health?

Hers is a US based telehealth service aiming to address women’s common health needs. Telehealth provides the exchange of healthcare services and education between patients and a digitally accessible health professional. But is there a dark side to digital health?

Hers boasts to its customers about gaining a sense of control over their health by using their products for specifically women’s skin, hair and sexual health concerns: their offerings ranging from shampoo to birth control. At first glance - the website does not appear to be a medical service. It features a minimalistic design, a “trendy millennial” aesthetic seen in the likes of brands such as Glossier. The marketing strategy features little text, non-offensive pastel colours and diverse, minimally made-up women. Medications are plainly packaged. A pastel picture collage aesthetically surrounds short, punchy marketing buzzwords whilst a link takes you to a page about the company’s purpose. The web designer definitely had a field day. Because I sure forgot it was a medical service. Is it beautiful? Yes. Does it pose itself as a credible medical service? No.

Hers is not a stranger to Instagram, in fact it is the platform where their marketing strategies received the most backlash. Among their social media posts and advertisements, they have marketed medication propranolol for performance anxiety; to calm nerves before a big date or presentation, and the worst of all-to stop anxiety from “standing in the way of you manifesting your badassery”. Luckily, this laughable marketing attempt for a serious medication didn’t have their aestheticloving consumers fooled. The statement has since been taken down from the Hers website, consumers taking to Instagram in anger.

A comment from user sleepyhousehealing states “Bizarre. I needed a prescription for this and it was for temporary relief of PPA. Advertising drugs as a one-size fits all solution is some dystopian future shit. This episode of Black Mirror sucks.”

Many users mentioned how Hers’ marketing pathologises normal experiences of anxiety, helloitssita stating “Holy. Shit. This is actual bonkers. I am so disgusted and disturbed, this isn’t ethical. Everyone has pre date jitters, some level of anxiety is normal. We all experience it. But to think with all the cute packaging and the right marketing that this is ok is so wrong. Why call it Hers? Trying to push strong medication with serious known side effects onto people who don’t know better with cute packaging. Have you thought about girls who think pre date jitters are something to medicate then they have a drink on said date, they could pass out and god knows what. This is negligent as hell to say the least.”

Propranolol is a beta blocker, primarily used in the treatment of high blood pressure to prevent strokes, heart attacks and kidney problems. The way Hers uses a combination of techniques such as emojis, simplistic language and plain packaging to market the drug on their Instagram page begs the question of whether this should be subject to the same laws and regulations as a medication product claim advertisement. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “A product claim ad names a drug, says what condition it treats, and talks about both its benefits and its risks. An ad must present the benefits and risks of a prescription drug in a balanced fashion. Balance depends on both the information in the ad itself and how the information is presented.” Hers does not provide a fair balance of information about the drug’s risks and benefits. Under the FDA, presenting a medication’s risks in “small type size”, positioned “far from where the benefits are discussed” is considered an unfair balance of information. In Hers case, the risks of the medication are not presented in the post, relying on the patient to source the information externally on their website.

It fails to mention that Propranolol is not FDA approved for the treatment of “performance anxiety”, let alone anxiety, and is used off label to treat such conditions. Moreover, consumers are not presented with the FDA’s required “brief summary” including additional risk information. Does it matter if it is just an Instagram post? In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) prohibits the advertising of medication directly to consumers. As non-US consumers have access to Hers marketing, at the very least, they have a responsibility to inform consumers of the risks of their medications. Hers has issued a public apology on their Instagram page about pushing propranolol, particularly for the quote about being “nervous about your big date”. They stated that they have “permanently removed that ad and are working with our medical team to ensure that all copy is safe and accurate for the consumer moving forward”. However, a user comment from missmeganwhite reveals, “THIS IS BULLSHIT I JUST GOT THE SAME SPONSORED AD BUT INSTEAD OF FIRST DATE IT WAS “work presentation” JUST STOP”. Hers’ treatment for “performance anxiety” is no longer boasted on their front page, standing beside their golden skin, hair and sexual health treatments. Instead, it is just a few extra clicks away.

The issue with telehealth services is that online doctors cannot observe a patient outside of an online interaction. A patient’s actions, speech, mannerisms or appearance could go unnoticed before diagnosis. Doctors may have trouble handling patients with complex medical history or needs digitally, and it may be easier for consumers to skip side effect warnings. As consumers are required to pay for their medication and subscription to Hers before consulting with an online doctor, this begs the question whether this is an ethical way to provide a medical service especially if a consumer only requires short term treatment. For example, if propranolol is supposed to be for a “one-off” anxiety-inducing event, why do consumers need to subscribe to receive 5 pills every month?

Following in the footsteps of Hers, Kin Fertility is an Australian-based telehealth service providing access to birth control and fertility testing. The company uses similar visual marketing that lessens the seriousness of the health service. Unlike Hers however, Kin Fertility adheres to Australian TGA guidelines as no medications are mentioned or promoted specifically. You are only able to see the brands of pills they carry and their prices. They have a similar business model, and you still pay for subscription upfront, however you undertake a medical questionnaire first. Emojis are used in the questionnaire as well as casual slang terms. You are unable to proceed in the questionnaire and pay for subscription to Kin if you indicate you have never tried the pill. Kin recommends the consumer to see a doctor in person, which enables them to be seen by a health provider that can ensure full duty of care in person.

Yet, there is a place for telehealth services. They create accessibility to medicine where it is unavailable. Rural women benefit from access to a doctor itself, as well as a doctor willing to prescribe contraception. It creates accessibility for people living with mental or physical disabilities, empowers marginalised groups to seek treatment, caters towards busy professionals with little time, or provides the convenient option to receive the medication you know you are happy with.

From an ethical standpoint, telehealth services need to provide duty of care to their consumers. With social media being a two-way street, luckily, consumers are pushing companies in the right direction.

By Angelica Owczarek