A few months ago (!) at Continuum, Liz and Steph and friend of No Award Melina did a panel about the prison Island of Sodor. Steph finally wrote up her panel notes to tell you about it. Behind the cut — if you’ve ever wanted 1000 words on the governance of the Island of Sodor, this is for you.
Category: meta
intersectional is more than a three-letter country
As Australians, as non-white people who aren’t from the USA, as activists, we have got to talk about the USA dominance of the internet, and our social justice conversations.
Over at North Coast Musings, there’s a quick snapshot of some of the terrible things that @ebswearspink, @stringstory and @upulie had to deal with over the weekend, some of it from African American activists, including claims that Indigenous Australians only have a voice because of African American culture.
Which
NOPE
NOPE
NOPE.
Many years ago, darling wonderful Chally wrote Dear USians on the Internet (yes, it’s on Feministe), about US centricity in social justice and how problematic is. Literally the first comment is a complaint about this letter!
Because we can’t ever have social justice that isn’t informed by the USA, I guess.
The thing is this:
Our Australian injustices cannot be righted through a paradigm that fits the USA.
The injustices that plague the USA do not necessarily translate outside of the USA.
We can exchange thoughts and techniques but we cannot
we cannot
match perfectly, or even imperfectly.
Liz has her own reasons for being my partner in yelling here on No Award, but this was my moment:
An act called the Jackson Jive performed on Hey Hey It’s Saturday. They performed in blackface, and it was bullshit. There was debate whether it was intentionally racist or just clueless, and one theory was from the name: that their name was ‘Jackson Jive’, it was postulated, was an intentional reference to shucking and jiving, an element of minstrelsy, and therefore intentionally racist. I was decried by a USAmerican person when I pointed out our history of blackface didn’t include quite so much minstrelsy, and the shucking and jiving thing isn’t as known here. Australia’s Blak history is different from any other country’s. Just like our experiences of colonialism, racism, and imperialism are different.
[Liz notes: Minstrelsy in Australia started out with US minstrel acts touring Australia, and then Australian performers began to mimic them. I could make a remark about Iggy Azalea, but I haven’t had nearly enough tea.]
[Liz’s moment was the controversy about the KFC ad in which a lone Australian white guy finds himself surrounded by Indians at the cricket, and makes friends by sharing his KFC. Racist in the sense of playing on fears of brown people? Yes, although obviously there is also the fear of being surrounded by supporters of a rival team. Playing into stereotypes about African Americans and fried chicken? Uh, no.]
But apparently we can’t have racial experiences that are different from those experienced in the USA.
To make something about someone else’s racial history is to ignore our own very real issues, and means the discussions we have are limited and restricted. If I’m going to educate anybody, it’s going to be the people in communities here in Australia. We shouldn’t need to expend our energy fighting those who are supposed to be our community, our allies in oppression, whose experiences are similar but not the same.
Indigenous Australians may be light-skinned, and if they are it is often a product of the imperialism and genocide of our Australian history. But sure, let’s call an Indigenous Australian white, like that’s not loaded, like A.O. Neville, “Protector of Aborigines” from 1936 – 1940, didn’t endorse “biological absorption” of Aboriginal Australians, like we don’t have the Stolen Generation.
And we know light-skinned privilege exists, I live it (as a light-skinned Azn), but ugh, gross. Gross. The entire concept of “white passing” is dangerous and hurtful in the context of Indigenous Australians. That’s what the whole Eatock v Bolt case was about.
This is not to deny that often the language and work done by USAcentric and USA-based activists doesn’t assist us in our work and in our activism and in our fights. There are lots of great USA-based voices that help out. But that doesn’t mean their concepts are universally applicable.
When our language is different from theirs and they yell at us for it, don’t lose hope.
And when our frame of reference is different from theirs and they call us wrong, and racist, and too white, yell back.
Come here to No Award, if you have to. I will always yell with you.
Maybe what we need is a primer for well-meaning USAmericans. It’ll be about Indigenous Australians being classed as fauna, The White Australia Policy, slavery in Queensland, and I’m tired just thinking about it. Bags not me.
Here read some things: Luke Pearson on ‘When It’s OK to be ‘Part Aboriginal‘; Defining Aboriginality in Australia; Anita Heiss’ book Am I Black Enough For You? (If African-American – and other POC – people knew they were doing what Andrew Bolt has done to Indigenous Australians, would that disgust them? I hope so.)
And on the Invasion Day weekend! Ugh.
Australians remember Captain America
“Tell the truth, we all thought it was another silly rumour. Bad enough the Yanks sit out the first three years of war, but then, right when it’s getting hairy, they go out and spend money on a super soldier project? Well, we knew they were [CENSORED], but who’d have believed it?”
– Bruce Leonards, Private, 7th Division of the Second Australian Imperial Force, WWII
“Just bloody typical, isn’t it?”
– Police Inspector Charles Price

“It seemed rather silly to spend all that money when our boys were dying in Burma and New Guinea. But that’s Americans for you. Well, he was rather handsome, I’ll give them that. Didn’t he die?”
– Beryl Montgomery, Australian Army Nursing Service
“Bad enough that Brisbane was practically an armed camp — girls falling over themselves to go to nightclubs with American soldiers, couldn’t say no to a bit of chocolate and a pair of nylons — then the Yanks went and put a silly costume on a male model. Bet the girls will be going silly for him, next, too.”
– Leading Aircraftman Keith Avard, Royal Australian Air Force
[No Award notes that the legendary appeal of American soldiers to Australian women had as much to do with their coming from a culture where women were, you know, considered worth talking to, as their material advantages.]
[Also, what’s up with this thing where YouTube doesn’t let us get the old embed code anymore? DOES THE NEW ONE WORK FOR ANYONE AT ALL?]
Using no less than three primary documents, discuss the effect of the Captain America mythos on the Australian experience of World War II.
– year twelve Modern History exam question, Bongoola State High School, Queensland, 1997
“Of course they needed to build a super soldier. Everyone knows the US Armed Forces were [CENSORED].”
– Private Clyde Cotterill

“What a [censored]. Those seppos need us more than we need them. We don’t need a super soldier when we have true blue Aussies.”
– Billy Sampson, farmer (father of Private William Sampson)
Angered by the slurs cast towards Captain America and the Howling Commandos, American soldiers Harold Hicks, William Edward Arford and Terje Brekka began an all out brawl that drew in all American naval staff, all New Zealand naval staff, and a number of Australian boys present in the National Hotel at the time. Although initially uninvolved, Stanley Reginald Hooper (26) and Ned Rako Kelly (21), Maori soldiers unwinding in the bar, were soon drawn into the brawl, and were the only fatalities. The Coroner at the time ruled these deaths as caused by self-defence, but later testimony by Australians and New Zealanders present reveals the ongoing antipathy towards the Americans over constant boasting of the role of the Howling Commandos, and the lack of stamina of the Antipodean boys…
– excerpt, Captain America and the Boys and Girls of Australia, David Tiller, Penguin Books, 1966

“We used to love the boys coming through, but they’ve all come up skiting since this all went down. Really, the Battle of Perth was inevitable.”
– Helena Cook, Pub Owner, Fremantle
“MacArthur was already neglecting Australian and New Zealand troops. We knew, without a doubt, that once they started producing super soldiers, we were right out of it. No chance of a look in after that.”
– Captain Charles Hardy, 9th Division, 2nd Australian Imperial Force
Australian Prime Minister John Howard again refused to apologise for experiments conducted on young Aboriginal men in the 1950s in an attempt to reproduce America’s super-soldier serum.
“These terrible experiments are in the past,” said the Prime Minister. “It’s time for Australia to move on.”
Until 1995, the Australian and British governments denied that Project Albion existed. Four men died and eight suffered permanent disability as a result of the experiments.
Transcript, ABC News, 12 April 2000
“Saw him on a newsreel. Big bloke, eh? Reckon he’d go in for Aussie rules? Melbourne could use a player like him. Provided we ever get the MCG back from the Marines.”
– Betty Fraser, nurse, Melbourne, 1944 (as remembered by her daughter, Adele Brunton, in 2012)
[Historical note: for part of WWII, the US Marines were housed at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.]
Colebatch argues that American unions were so inspired by Captain America that they refused to strike during the war. Australian dock workers, he suggests, lacking such a powerfully patriotic motivator, fell prey to the manipulation of Communists, fifth columnists and traitors. What we needed was not just a superhero, but a conservative superhero.
Colebatch writes of Steve Rogers as a sepia-toned historical figure. The fact that Captain America is alive and well, exposing SHIELD corruption and talking up universal health care, is as insignificant as any of the other facts he mangles.
– J. M. Caudwell, review of Australia’s Secret War: How Unions Sabotaged Our Troops in World War II in The New Left, October 2014.
“Bloody Yanks.”
– Private Jim White
A Tour of Issues of Appropriation and Racism in Melbourne’s Restaurants
One day I was cycling around Melbourne and I saw a delivery motor bike in front of me. On its rear it said “you ling, we bling,” and I braked so fast you’d have thought I was in a cartoon. The unfortunate thing is, Miss Chu’s is not alone amongst Melbourne’s eateries in its racist imagery. So come with me now on a tour of racism, appropriation and ‘fun’ across Melbourne’s restaurants.

Continue reading “A Tour of Issues of Appropriation and Racism in Melbourne’s Restaurants”
service: tell my jerkbrain that i can do this thing
Dear all who were raised whilst being told they weren’t as good as white men, here is an article that tells you nothing new.
A review of personnel records found that women working at HP applied for a promotion only when they believed they met 100 percent of the qualifications listed for the job. Men were happy to apply when they thought they could meet 60 percent of the job requirements. At HP, and in study after study, the data confirm what we instinctively know. Underqualified and underprepared men don’t think twice about leaning in. Overqualified and overprepared, too many women still hold back. Women feel confident only when they are perfect. Or practically perfect.
Australian ladies are in no way exempt from this terrible phenomenon, and although I’m struggling to find evidence, I suspect they are further constrained by the frustrating Tall Poppy Syndrome.

And non-ladies will also find this relevant; basically any member of any minority group who was told they weren’t as good as a conforming white man. Please ignore the USA tech industry biases in this article and apply its truths to your life as you see relevant. Note that what is considered self-confidence varies across cultures, traditions and upbringing, and can be exacerbated: when this article comments that assertive women are often considered bitches, it fails to note that black women (and men) in North America are considered uppity; that Asian women in Australia are considered dragons; that Aboriginal people are ignored as if they are not even there.
In light of this not new and completely unsurprising information about the role of misogyny in our established societal systems and jerkbrains, No Award and Penguin Productions are compelled to offer a new service: the I Can Burn It Down service.
Services provided in this program:
- You ask: No Award, can I do this thing and crush this city to the ground? No Award replies: Indeed, you can do this thing, and lists you why so you can shut up your lying jerkbrain.
- Positive reinforcement is aided by motivational sharks, an evil cat, and adorable penguins who will assess your abilities (all excellent) and experience (so great) and confirm for you that you can do this thing.
- Reassessment of negative feedback from jerkface other parties, and confirmation that you can indeed burn it down.
This service was designed with Australians in mind, and please note that it is opt-in for all self identifying ladies, gender non-specifics, those who were forced to be ladies against their actual identity, and any others who were raised whilst being told they weren’t as good as gender-conforming white men and currently feel a need for this service.
The management recognises that sometimes it will not be available to provide this service, as all service operators are currently located in Melbourne, Australia. To that end, we also provide a handy toolbox below.
Techniques for those momentarily lacking the confidence to burn it down:
- Armour yourself for battle. Stephanie likes to do this wearing wings and bright pink clothes, but this is not suitable for all world-destroying tasks.
- Confirm it for yourself: Can I do 50% of this thing; if I were marked on my performance for this thing, would I earn a passing grade? If the answer is yes, then do the thing.
- Is your jerk brain telling you no? Literally do the thing anyway.
- Say this out loud: I contain multitudes. They will swarm out and subdue my enemies if I do not get my way.
- Don’t take responsibility for things outside of your control. You are not a godling, despite your multitudes.
- When someone tells you you can’t do the thing, put your feet firmly on the ground, cross your arms, and assert your dominance through an eyebrow raise.
- Do not give ground.
- On public transport, always establish your dominance, especially against those who consume more spaces than allotted. If you push back against their lavaballing, they will give way in surprise. Take advantage of this, and the endorphins of success it provides, to push harder. Hold onto this feeling when you disembark the tram.
- Accept negative feedback, but only after running it through a trusted third party. You cannot have any of the best friends associated with No Award, but they are very good at their jobs and we recommend someone with similar skills.
- ALWAYS ask someone society says is better than you to move their bag from the train seat. (Please don’t put your bag on the seat, anyone else, because I don’t want to have to consume you with my multitudes)
- If you have something to say, say it.
- Remember that your failures belong to society. Blame it accordingly.
- Do not say sorry (except if you run over a cat. Then, maybe. MAYBE).
- Always check the emails you write and remove excess apologies. Do not feel regret.
- Do not run over a cat.

Leave a comment below to receive useful feedback from the No Award service. Others of the
No Award community are encouraged to aid this No Award service by also offering useful feedback. White cis men are allowed in the comments but will be gazed upon with non-yielding eyes.
literature and identity at the early words
Today I woke up early to go spend some time at the Emerging Writers Festival. I was on the Early Words: Literature and Identity. The Early Words is a series of panels that have been running at 08:30 this EWF, with breakfast (not vegan) and chats.
I was on this session with the awesome Rosalind McFarlane and Laurie May, both of whom were excellent. I have to mention that Laurie May performed a piece of hers from a few years ago, that she wrote in response to Andrew Bolt and the too white to be aboriginal shit, and she was very disparaging about having written better stuff since then but this piece was amazing. Laurie is at Voices on the Attack in Melbourne on 10 June, and I am going. ARE YOU?
So anyway, this morning’s session was on identity. And this is sort of what I said.
The thing about identity is that it’s in everything. The most objective, well-researched, totally boring article is still, somewhere in there, about identity. And I LOVE IDENTITY. It means understanding oneself, what one knows and what one reinterprets. It’s a constant questioning of a person and their surroundings and their history and their influences.
I’m especially interested in concepts of the other and the normalisation of otherness as identity. That’s about taking someone’s identity and turning it into a point of reference, especially a point of difference. It’s why I love travelogues and hate them at the same time, because it’s always about one person’s self discovery adventure facilitated by exotic, zen brown people who live life to their fullest because they’re not trapped by the bits and pieces of modern culture. (It’s why I hate hashtag first world problems, by the way. It’s othering and dehumanising and I can get better internet speeds in some developing countries than I can in Australia).
But it’s not just about non-fiction; it’s about fiction too. It’s especially prevalent in western fiction, and double especially in science fiction and fantasy. In SFF, identity can clearly be seen in protagonists and villains; in alien cultures and final frontiers. Novels and films are fictional, but they can still be racist, sexist, hurtful – they’re part of the world, too.
A big element of writing for me is a reflection of the world I see and a reflection of the writing I read; but its also about how I see my world reflected in writing. Everything a person writes fits into their identity somewhere, no matter what that writing is.
Let’s use Tolkien as an example. He never, presumably, lived in a world with hobbits and elves and Gandalf and giant eagles that he could ask favours from. But he was a linguist, And his writing is filled with linguistic experiments and language games and, of course, languages he developed for the hell of it with internally consistent rules. And his Uruk-hai were black and brutal and ugly; and his elves were white and beautiful and ethereal and good. Because he was a product of his times (This is my code for ‘dude was racist’).
And to use a more recent example, Maleficent came out just last month. And passing by on the internet (the Tumblrs) I saw a comment asking what a black man was doing in that movie. It’s true, black people weren’t invented back then. But the real question is, when were dragons invented? (I recommend all people to ask this question of the media they consume)
My identity is pretty firmly embedded in my writing. Even the things that, on the surface, have little to do with my identity still have them in there a little bit. And to help example that, I’m now going to read from a thing I wrote in 2011. It was published in 2012 in an anthology called Steampunked 2: More Lesbian Steampunk Fiction. Now, I’m not an airship captain slash pirate, like the love interest in this story. And I’m certainly not a clerk at the top of the Komtar where airships lash themselves in an alternate universe Malaysia before the race riots. And yet – well. We’ll get to the end and maybe you’ll see what I mean.
[I read the opening of that story. I was shaking even though I wasn’t shaking for the rest of it]
After we all rambled for a bit we split off and each picked a table to chat with. An interesting thing that came out of this discussion for me was how we all defaulted into talking about cultural and ethnic identities. One of the things we had floated before the panel was talking about queer identities. So in my table discussion we had a chat about gender and sexuality, the role of gender binaries in constructing our identities, and then I segued a little bit into what I’m hoping will get explored in this weekend’s triptych of gender and sexuality panels. I think it’s interesting the way we can construct these excellent intricate worlds in SFF and yet still fall back on the same gender binary, or the same assumptions around sexuality. And what does it say that that’s where we stop? How does this representation limit our own identity and the identity constructions of others?
An audience member who works as a therapist talked about working with identities as a therapist. In particular she works with her clients to deconstruct the masks they construct for themselves, the good girl or the rebel, and images like that. I’ve never really considered my identity in this way, so this was great, too! To think about these elements of identity. I would posit that, although there are always Facebook memes and whatever where we identify our identities in this way (introvert, adventurer, and other coded words), we’re not truly ever asked to interrogate these sorts of our identities and where they come from.
Another audience member asked me about how a travelogue can truly be done right. TRAVELOGUES. I love them so much. For me, doing one right, exploring another culture and having a revaluation about oneself can only be “right” when it’s divorced from colonialism and embraces the identities of those with whom one is engaging. It’s the difference between your perfect white face cuddling with a small brown child, or the photo of an Asian man where half his head has been cut off, effectively controlling how the world sees him in a dehumanising way; and centring the experiences of others even as you construct your own. I’m not saying it’s easy and straightforward. It’s not. And as westerners, it’s not something we’re expected to challenge.
Two nights ago I had to do a colonialism check on some photos. The photo we picked was one of a woman and her bike, crossing the road with intent; she was centred in the photo, and the commentary wasn’t ridiculously condescending.
I took the opportunity to mention intersectionality, and was surprised at how many people didn’t know it. It’s an important concept in identity.
Follow ups, election day, WorldCon, links
I’m pretty sure I promised Stephanie that I would review The Deep ASAP, so that she can borrow the graphic novels off me. But I’m tired, I’m arthritic, I have a cold. So here’s a whole bunch of things.
Further to previous posts
1. In my second Dance Academy post, I said some nice things about Ben Tickle, to wit, that I was unfair to dismiss him as a creepy and annoying Nice Guy.
As of last week’s episode, I hereby take that back, and every other nice thing I said about him as well. SO THERE.
2. After I posted about the general whiteness of Adam Bandt’s campaign posters, I started to think that maybe I hadn’t given the Greens enough credit for what diversity they did have. For example, Stephanie posted this to Instagram.
(I also learnt that Stephanie herself could have featured in the advertising, but people thought she was too busy and didn’t need the extra stress. When will we learn: Stephanie always needs the extra stress.)
(Not really.)
Anyway, I still maintain that there’s an uncomfortable white saviour narrative at work in the Greens’ visual presentation, but the Greens were doing better than I had realised. And I am really happy that Bandt kept his seat (and sorry that my local Greens candidate, Tim Read, didn’t beat the Libs into second place behind Labor.)
(Living in the second safest Labor seat in the country, you take what you can get.)
Yes, there was an election
And the capitalistic, socially conservative Liberal Party won. They claim they have a mandate, even though the swing away from the ALP generally went to new parties such as Palmer United, and even though it looks like three Senate seats will go to extreme fringe parties: the libertarian Australian Liberals, the Sports Party and the Motoring Enthusiasts Party.
There has been a lot of classism about the Twitters with regards to the Motoring Party’s new senator. I’m kind of hoping he turns out to be a brilliant leader, just to shut that up. But as his Facebook revealed that he’s a 9/11 truther and a misogynist, I’m not holding my breath.
As usual after a conservative win, there has been a lot of gnashing of teeth and threats to move to Canada (where Quebec is banning “prominent” religious symbols that coincidentally are mostly used by minorities) and New Zealand (which already has a conservative government and shite economy). I like Stephanie’s response best:
This country will have to be pried from my dead, cold, queer asian hands. It’s mine and I’m staying right here and kicking everything over until I’ve got my fingerprints all over the furniture and everything is just the way I like it.
Now that it’s almost over, we’re down to dissecting the campaign.
I, for one, was quite troubled by the Liberals’ strategy of silencing their candidates of colour so as to avoid gaffes and difficult questions. This was the case in my own electorate, where candidate Shilpa Hegde did not participate in any public forums or interviews with citizen journalists. Nor was she seen out campaigning.
As a Commie leftie pinko, I should be glad to see the Liberals mis-step, even if they still win the election, but I think this is a pretty shitty approach. It’s not enough to have people of colour as your candidates, you have to let them be candidates. Allegedly, or so I read in the mainstream press (probably a Fairfax paper, but I couldn’t tell you when or which one because I’ve been site-hopping to avoid their paywall), the strategy was conceived after Jaymes Diaz famously stuffed up an interview. If they’re so worried about candidates looking stupid, though, they would have put a lid on Fiona Scott before she could tell the world that refugees cause traffic jams. Funny how it’s only the non-white candidates who were told to shut up.
And as a person who quite likes democracy, thanks, I’m pretty horrified that the Liberal Democrats got into the Senate by setting up front parties to funnel preferences their way. (They also got votes because people apparently mistook them for the actual Liberal Party. Sadly, we cannot legislate for reading comprehension.) I’ve also been less than impressed with the backroom deals done for preferences, although that had the advantage of destroying the Wikileaks Party, and wow, what a tragedy that was. Really.
The ABC’s Antony Green has an interesting article here, looking at the history of such developments, and ways we can better regulate Senate nominations without undermining democracy and shutting out smaller parties all together.
Then there was WorldCon
And the annual recriminations that follow.
Things for which there should be no recriminations whatsoever: the excellent Tansy Rayner Roberts won the Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer, making her the first Australian woman to win a Hugo. And I can’t think of anyone more deserving.
Chicks Unravel Time, to which I contributed, did not win the Hugo for Best Related Work, but I’m told that Writing Excuses, the podcast which won, is excellent. I’m mostly glad that CUT didn’t, say, lose by one vote, because I couldn’t spare the money for a supporting membership with voting rights.
(Every month, it was like, “Hmm, well, it’s only $50 … but my mobile bill is coming up, and that’s going to be $70. Next month!” Self, mobile bills are a monthly curse.)
This brings up the first round of recriminations and “what’s wrong with WorldCon” debates, “It’s too expensive.” Which, sorry, Lolmericans, I know $250 for a five-day con seems like a lot to you guys, but here in Australia, we pay that much for a three-day con. Aussiecon 4, back in 2010, was close to $400. (Luckily — or not — my mother was getting married that weekend, so I could only attend for a couple of days. Oh yeah, her divorce is being finalised next Monday, so congratulations Mum!)
I realise that going from “The supporting membership was too much” to “LOL, only $250 for attending!” isn’t exactly logical, but priorities. (And also, international travel has really done a number on my credit card.)
There was talk a couple of months ago of introducing a cheaper voting membership, but apparently that’s not practical with the (amazing and brilliant) electronic pack of nominated works. May I humbly and cheaply suggest that I would buy a voting membership without the voting pack? I mean, I’d rather have the pack, especially since I don’t usually get access to the short stories and novellas otherwise, but it’s a sacrifice I’d be willing to make in those times when I have to choose between voting in the Hugo Awards and paying my bills.
And if your con is significantly more expensive than others, and you’re widely perceived as being less friendly and less fun, these are things you should maybe be looking at. I enjoyed AussieCon 4, but I wouldn’t say it was a fun experience (except for the times L M Myles and I spent in the bar, or making fun of terrible Doctor Who panels), and it wasn’t as friendly and open as other Australian cons I’ve seen attended. Which is, okay, Continuum.
HAVING SAID ALL THIS, I am really hoping I can get to LonCon next year, and Nine Worlds the weekend before. Lots of people I know and love are going, and it’s London, and … stuff.
Some links to WorldCon discussions:
Three Gray Fandoms – Ursula Vernon on her three fandoms, and how only one is unwelcoming to young people.
WorldCon has some Happy Things Plus Some Problems – an overview of LoneStarCon’s successes and failures. Includes an account of a wheelchair-using panellist who was unable to access the daises on which the others sat. A quote: “That’s not cool. It was an oversight in a huge, fan-run convention, so it’s not worth a rage-fueled rage.”
I have to say, I did have a rage-fueled rage about it, because this should be basic Conrunning 101. Which brings me to…
Disability, Diversity, Dignity – a further discussion of the issue. The panellist herself pops up in the comments, along with a committee member who, I have to say, does not cover herself in glory.
There are more posts over at RadishReviews — I’m cheating because I haven’t had time to read them all yet, and I’m trying to rest my mouse hand so I can play Mass Effect 2 later. Hashtag arthritislyfe.
Finally, opera
Hey, I was surprised too.
See, I don’t know much about opera, but Barbara Hambly’s Die Upon A Kiss (part of her Benjamin January series, about a free man of colour in 1830s New Orleans who teaches music and FIGHTS CRIME) is set in the opera season, and is very much concerned with the cultural differences between French and American opera fans, and also a controversial performance of Otello. (Controversial ‘cos … well, it’s the South. And Othello is quite famously black. Except when — anyway, even a white actor in blackface was too much for some historical racists.)
Every time I read that book, I think, “Opera is really interesting. I should learn more about it and maybe, like, see some and find out if I like it.”
And then the opera community goes and does something stupid, like the Melbourne run of Nixon in China where all the Chinese characters are white people in yellowface. Or, as I discovered yesterday, Queensland Opera’s Otello, with an all-white cast.
Apparently, or so QOpera said on Twitter when people began asking very pointed questions, modern thinking is that the power of Otello comes from the psychology, and race is a secondary concern. And also, they did it in South Africa with a white Othello and black cast, so what’s the problem with an all-white version?
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah. You want to make the traditional SF fandom and community look good? Go look at opera.
solidarity for white women and the (white) face of aUStralian feminism
Las week Mamamia chose to blog about Miley Cyrus twerking, but I know you’ll be surprised to know that they didn’t touch on the racial aspect at all. Or will you be surprised? Maybe you didn’t notice the racial aspect yourself. We’re Australian, right? How can we be expected to know the nuances of USAmerican Feminism’s racism if it’s silent about its racism?
This is a valid question! How CAN we, Australians of an intersectional nature, be expected to know about the nuances of racism in feminism? Uh, by learning it, my friends. By recognising our own and how it’s reflected in our media. By recognising that USAmerican feminism and social justice is an imperfect fit for Australia in so many ways, not least of all because of its racism and its USCentrism.
Betty Mamzelle has written an excellent article on the racial implications of Miley’s twerking, covering all sorts of aspects including expected knowledge, commodification of black bodies, representation and sexuality. Solidarity is for Miley Cyrus: The Racial Implications of her VMA Performance. It is very USA, obviously, and it is an illuminating read in many ways if you are unaware of how racial sexualism and its politics works. And the theories within it are applicable to Australian racial politics!
As Australians I don’t think we need to be experts in the racial politics of other countries; but as Australians heavily influenced by USA media and more importantly heavily influenced by USA social justice blogging and articles, I think it behooves us to understand exactly what it is that we’re consuming. It also behooves us to more critically examine why it is that we are consuming it. (there are three links in that sentence for your further reading)
Remember when the Jackson Jive thing happened on Hey Hey It’s Saturday? A totally racist thing of blackface, for sure, and then dismissed as a USA thing that we couldn’t have known. Aside from the massive prevalence of US narratives in Australia from the period in which blackface was a huge thing, blackface is an Australian thing, too, something Australian history chooses to forget as it picks and chooses and copies from White American Feminism. I recommend reading White Australia has a blackface history by Maxine Clarke at Overland for some backgrounding; it was an important piece to me in 2009 and is still an important piece to me now on this issue.
Look, there is a limit to the USAmerican-ness of our Australian Feminism. Did you know that Australian intersectional commentators (myself included) were also expected to know that Jackson Jive = a shuck and jive reference = intentional reference to shucking and jiving? We were. And how could we? There is only so much USCentrism we can suck down. And this is not new. The Amazing Chally has long been at the forefront (for me) of Australia is not the USA and we don’t need their White Lady Feminism
By the way if you missed #solidarityisforwhitewomen on twitter, well, I’m sorry, I meant to post about it but it just didn’t happen. At some point I’d like to talk about how this applies to Australia and the ways in which it doesn’t, but for now you can read (USA narratives) Why “solidarity” is bullshit at Bitch and Solidarity is for white women (but it doesn’t have to be) by Betty Mamzelle.
Some links:
- On being black and not existing (2011) by LJ User little_seahorses, on being Indigenous and growing up in a racist country where academics assert they don’t exist.
- Nowhere near good enough (2009) by Chally on the continuing removal of Indigenous children from their families, and how this continuation of the Stolen Generation is Australia’s ongoing racism at work.
- When racism becomes a white person’s issue (2013) by Ruby Hamad on how one step for one is a step for all, but only when that one is a white lady (with reference to USAmerican TV)
- On Femen, action, Mia Freedman, and seeing racism (2013) by Megan Clement-Couzner
- I’ll keep it brief Mia – Australian Blackface (2013) by 1deadlynation on Australian Blackface
Dance Academy and the (re)/(de)construction of Australian masculinities (part 2)
This post is a lot shorter than the last one, because … well, it’s not that I don’t like Ethan and Ben, but they don’t set my world on fire. They’re characters you can find in any media aimed at tweens. And Ollie is a very new character, and I feel like I’m still getting a handle on him — we are in the first half of the first season, after all.
(This post features quite detailed spoilers for season three.)
Ethan Karamakov: he smells like Christmas, apparently
I’ve had some trouble writing the second half of this piece, because, well, I’m kind of dealing with two characters I don’t care for, and one I’m still getting to know.
Take Ethan, for example. Ethan is the older half-brother of Tara’s best friend Kat, and her first crush. He’s a third year, aged about seventeen; she’s a brand new fifteen year old first year with about as much common sense as a newborn lamb. I don’t hate Ethan (anymore), but I feel like he was a necessary evil — a rich, white counterpoint to Christian — and not a hugely interesting character.
Basically, when I watched the first season, I appointed myself President of the Go Away Ethan Karamakov Club. (For one thing, although actor Tim Pocock is actually quite good — if anyone actually saw Wolverine: Origins, he played a young Scott Summers, and was promptly named the Next Heath Ledger — he’s the least convincing teeenager in the cast. I presume it was difficult to find an actor who could also dance, but he looks about ten years older than everyone else. And he has an abnormally symmetrical face.)

What made me grudgingly like Ethan in the second season was that he began sharing scenes with Abigail, who is scientifically proven to make everything better. She’s an overachieving, anxiety-ridden lifelong dancer who is slowly coming to terms with the fact that hard work isn’t going to overcome her lack of natural talent. She’s also incredibly blunt, and thinks being likeable is for lesser people.
Ethan has given up a place in the National Ballet Company to become a choreographer, and he approaches Abigail for his showcase piece. He wants someone who is intense and a little scary.
Okay, then. She’s interested.
I began to like Ethan, not so much for himself, but for the way he became a vehicle for Abigail to find new options. Together they become involved in musical theatre, and have a funny, sweet friendship that verges sometimes on romance. I wasn’t sorry when Ethan went to Barcelona to pursue his ambition, but I wasn’t counting down the minutes until he left, either.
The Self-Styled Benster
Ben Tickle, introduced in the second season, is a much more interesting character, even though I frequently find myself wanting to punch him in the face a bit. When he joined the cast — as a first year student promoted to second year because he was just that good — I was like, seriously, the last thing we needed was yet another white guy.
And I still feel that way, but in terms of portrayals of masculinity, Ben’s an interesting case. See, he feels he has a lot to prove, being the youngest in the group, and he starts out by putting on a display of braggadocio and masculinity. And not the positive kind of masculinity. He’s sexist, racist and homophobic. Kind of your standard stereotype of … you know.

(This also leads to charming moments, like when Sammy explains that you shouldn’t use “gay” as a pejorative. I’m not usually one for didacticism in my entertainment, but Sammy is so earnest — having himself just started addressing his own sexuality — that it’s charming. And frankly, my teacher friends have to work really hard to get “gay” out of their students’ vocabularies, I feel like it really means something to have a bisexual character on kids TV explaining this.)
(Ben proves his basic likeability by apologising, and then baking rainbow cupcakes for Sammy and Christian. Because he thinks — well, at least there are cupcakes.)
Ben also gives us one of my favourite exchanges of dialogue. From memory:
Ben: Hey, Christian, do you do martial arts? There was this Asian guy at my old dance school who did martial arts. You remind me of him.
Christian: Are you saying we all look alike?
Ben: That’s pretty racist, dude.
Well, I laughed.

Having been called out, humiliated and initially rejected by the group, Ben settles down and becomes, you know, a nice kid. It comes out that he suffered leukemia as a child, and doesn’t want anyone to know because he fears he’ll become an object of pity and special treatment. (Tara, who has her own problems with respecting boundaries, tells everyone. I love Tara a lot, but she makes a lot of mistakes in her journey.)
Late in the second season, Ben and Tara start going out. Ben has a massive crush on Tara; she seems to care about him, but mostly she has that problem common to teenage girls where she thinks she can’t be without a boyfriend. It doesn’t last, but Ben tells Tara at the beginning of season three that, “I still ship it.” Basically.
This made me really mad at the time, because I was like, BEN, SHE’S NOT INTERESTED! HAVE SOME RESPECT! STOP ENGAGING IN BEHAVIOUR THAT BORDERS ON CREEPY NICE GUYNESS!”
Well, joke’s on me, because Tara was interested, she was just making a concerted attempt to be boyfriend-less for third year. (Good try, Tara. When I eventually do my post on the girls of Dance Academy, I am going to talk about her SO MUCH. And also the way the fandom slut shames her, because no teenager ever had three boyfriends in three years, right?)
And maybe I was reacting against Ben because, well, I’m a product of a patriarchal society too, and maybe I wasn’t comfortable seeing a male character express his feelings so openly. (I am generally drawn to the stoic types, but these preferences don’t develop in a vacuum.) Ben really likes Tara, and he’s not offended when she wants to be “just friends”. He doesn’t go off to Reddit to complain about being friendzoned, he just goes, “Yep, well, I hope one day you change your mind,” and then gets on with trying to be a good friend.
We’re in the middle of season three right now, and I have no idea where Ben’s story is going to take him. But his arc so far has been interesting. He, Tara and Grace were picked up to fill positions in the Company, and he was selected by the principal dancer, Saskia Duncan, as a protege.
Now, Saskia also appeared in season two, and I could write a whole essay about her, but it basically comes down to this: Saskia Duncan is Dolores Umbridge in pointe shoes. She literally broke Tara’s back in season two. She is so friendly, and so reasonable, how could she possibly be a bully who targets younger dancers?
One thing I really loved about Saskia was how she was a villainess who wasn’t sexualised. And then she started mentoring Ben, and they were dancing together, and she was asking him out to dinner … and she still wasn’t sexualised.
I mean, she was coming across as a sexual character, but she wasn’t being exploited, either by the script or the camera. Her behaviour bordered on inappropriate, but she seemed sincere in her belief that Ben could be the Nureyev to her Fonteyn.
She also seemed pretty sincere in the way she was using Ben to humiliate her current partner and the other adult male dancers. Who seem, on the whole, to be an unpleasant lot in general, at least in the way they treat the three student dancers.
And when Ben realised that, he did something I’m really uncomfortable with: he dropped Saskia. I mean, literally. On stage. Twice.
But was it deliberate? I actually couldn’t tell. But the way he was watching her made it plain he was enjoying her humiliation as she ran off stage. And as much as I think Saskia is a terrible person who undermines and bullies people whom she regards as threats, it wasn’t exactly fun to watch a professional woman being humiliated by a schoolboy.
(Humiliation doesn’t even look like a word anymore! But I keep coming back to it, because it’s Saskia’s main weapon.)
At this point in the series, Ben and Tara are dating, and Ben is back in school, taking the lead role in the third year tour. As much as I think I’ve been unfair to him in the past, he’s still not a character for whom I have any great love. I save that for …
Ollie: not actually a chick magnet
Ollie is introduced in season two as Sammy’s tutor turned love interest, and with Sammy’s death, he has become a regular in the third season.
I mentioned in the first post that Ollie has an ego the size of Western Australia. A lot of his character development involves learning to temper that, and work in a team. (For starters, he’s now a regular because he’s repeating third year.)
For a while, I wondered if it was, you know, problematic that one of the few regular black characters on Australian TV is defined by his arrogance, and that the narrative needs to bring him down. Taken in isolation, I think that would be highly problematic. But in the context of the series, this is something nearly every character struggles with. (Even Tara, who simultaneously struggles with the need to be something other than a human doormat. People are complicated!)

Ollie is coming to grips with the idea that maybe he won’t have a brilliant career in ballet, and maybe, as he says, “I’m just another middle class kid who can’t do fractions.” This struggle forms the foundation for his friendship with Abigail, Sammy’s other love interest, and brings him into conflict with Christian, who is so talented that he can miss half a term and still keep his place and his scholarship.
Ollie’s back-up plan is commercial dance, but he’s also dabbling in pop/hip hop. For which he adopts a heterosexual persona, because it’s hard enough to succeed in the Australian music industry when you’re black, let alone black and gay. “Everyone knows you’re not into girls,” says Abigail disdainfully, but Ollie just shrugs.
He’s not exactly going back into the closet, though, if there was ever a closet that could hold him. As of the most recent episode, he’s openly flirting with a young actor who’s taking the lead in a dance movie — YES, THERE IS A DANCE MOVIE WITHIN THE DANCE SHOW, IT IS AMAZING — and if this doesn’t end with him being “discovered” and going on to achieve fame and fortune, I’ll eat one of my many hats.
In conclusion
I don’t think the creators of Dance Academy set out to create great feminist television for tweens. But I do think they set out to create good television, and that means having a wide range of interesting characters. The mere fact of the dance school setting meant that the male characters would have to address concepts of masculinity in some way, and I think it’s been executed well.

Dance Academy and the (re)/(de)construction of Australian masculinities (part 1)
[Note the first: This essay got way out of hand. I’m up to 3000 words, and I’ve only covered two characters. Hence my breaking it up into parts.]
[Note the second: Sadly there are no resources for Dance Academy transcripts online, and those quote lists and gifsets that do exist are often inaccurate. A lot of the fandom is based in non-Anglophone countries, and Australian accents tend to throw people. So most of the dialogue in this post is more of a paraphrasing from memory. I wanted to go through the episodes and get proper quotes myself, but I’m working with a sprained wrist here, and decided to save my transcription-fu for work. Think of it as, uh, an extra layer of spoiler protection if you go on to watch the series.]
[Note the third: This post totally contains spoilers.]
It’s set at, you know, a dance academy
Dance Academy is an Australian TV series set at a prestigious ballet school in Sydney. It’s aimed at tween girls and the export market. All the cliches are there: loving footage of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House, the naive heroine, the goofy best friend, the mean girl. The love triangle. The dreamy love interest, the troubled bad boy and the sweet nerd.

What makes Dance Academy notable is the way its writers — who include such seasoned YA novelists as Melina Marchetta — subvert the cliches without straying too far from the (audience friendly) boundaries of the genre. The mean girl learns to cope with failure. The goofy best friend recognises her own self-sabotage. The naive heroine faces reality.
What I find interesting about Dance Academy is its treatment of male characters. This is, remember, a show aimed at young girls. And while I don’t want to take media aimed at women and make it all about the men, I am always quite interested in the way men are portrayed in fiction aimed at teens. There’s an element of “sauce for the gander” in the way Edward Cullen is blatantly a wish fulfilment fantasy, but that type of character is so two-dimensional it’s uncomfortable. (Maybe I’d feel differently if it was my wishes being fulfilled?) Dance Academy‘s male characters are familiar types, but they’re also thrust into a ballet school, an extremely feminine space, and the show deals with that in ways which are both subversive of stereotypes and problematic.
Problematic because, particularly in the half of the first season, much emphasis is placed on the masculinity and heterosexuality of the male ballet students. The only queer male we see is a teacher, and he is replaced in the second season by a straight man of about the same age. (This is for plot reasons — a student falsely accuses him of molesting her, a storyline which has issues for different reasons, but also organically from the student’s own background and behaviour — but it’s still a shame to lose a gay male role model.)
The male students are essentially defensive about their masculinity. “They act like we’re not athletes,” complains Ethan when the school is forced to share space with a football team, and Christian is criticised for lacking the core strength to complete a move. (I should note that the girls are also seen worrying about their strength and fitness, but in their cases it’s often coupled with concerns about weight. That’s not a criticism of the series; it feels quite realistic, given the setting.)

- A screenshot from “Best and Fairest”, with the football players in costume and the ballet dancers in civvies. Patrick, the gay teacher who appeared only in season 1, stands in the centre.
There are slow changes in the way the boys approach masculinity, though. In the first few episodes, Sammy, the nice, nerdy friend-who-is-a-boy, is told that he has weak ankles, and that he needs to strengthen them by dancing in pointe shoes. At first this is a source of much hilarity, and Sammy, who has already had his male identity undermined when a clerical error has him rooming with a girl, is quite put out. But after a few weeks, the only person who finds it funny is an outsider, a non-dancer. Everyone else knows that pointe work made Sammy a stronger, better dancer.
Let me just talk about Sammy Leiberman for a while

Sammy is an interesting character, and Tom Green’s performance was without doubt one of the highlights of the first two seasons. Samuel Lieberman has an ambitious father who wants his son to follow him into medicine. (“I know we don’t like to talk about it, but your grandfather was only a dermatologist.”) He comes from a conservative Jewish family, has a close relationship with his Yiddish-speaking grandfather, and is acutely aware that he’s letting the family down by pursuing dance instead of his considerable academic potential.
He’s also aware that ballet is perceived as a “feminine” pursuit. His little brother Ari — who’s into games and, from memory, martial arts — makes sure no one ever forgets it. Because what else are little brothers for, right? But it’s awkward for Sammy, as he’s trying to persuade his father that he could have a future in ballet, and that it’s not just the easy (feminine) option.
Sammy eventually comes to terms with the fact that he’s never going to be an alpha male, and over the course of two seasons, his father makes peace with his chosen profession. But then there’s another wrinkle in his identity: his sexuality.
The episode with the rugby players ends with one of these manly young athletes asking Sammy out. This in itself is amazing: football plays a big part in Australian culture, and our various footy codes (we have, like, five) are all notably homophobic at every level. There are no openly gay football players in Australia. When I was younger, the sport(s) began to make a concerted push against the institutionalised racism that dominated football. That work is still ongoing, but the culture of homophobia and misogyny also needs addressing. To portray an openly gay footballer, even at the junior level, is a big deal for an Australian drama. Let alone a series aimed at viewers in their early teens.
Sammy is taken aback by the invitation; he’s so befuddled he admits he’s not available. And thus his secret relationship with Abigail becomes joyously public. Happiness all around. If you weren’t paying attention, you’d hardly notice Sammy’s words. Not, “I’m straight,” but, “I’m taken.”
So it shouldn’t be such a shock that Sammy realises towards the end of the first season that (a) he’s also same-sex attracted, and (b) he’s attracted to Christian, his roommate and best mate. (No one should ever be surprised when someone is attracted to Christian. He’s basically a human magnet.)
What follows is a coming out story that’s both familiar and unusual. Familiar, because “boy falls in love with boy and grapples with his sexuality” stories are a dime a dozen these days, and unusual because, miracle of miracles, Dance Academy acknowledges that bisexuality exists.
“I have these feelings for Christian, and I don’t know if these feelings mean I’m gay,” Sammy says, although the actual dialogue goes, “I have these muffins for mouse ears, and I don’t know if these muffins will make me a labrador,” because it’s easier to talk about scary issues via metaphor. Sammy thinks he has to choose between losing his identity as a totally straight guy, and losing his best friend.
This turns out to be a false choice, of course, because Sammy’s identity has always been more complex than mere sexuality, and because even though Christian doesn’t reciprocate his feelings, the honesty between them makes their friendship stronger.
Cut to the second half of season two, and Sammy’s being tutored by Ollie, a third-year student. Their competitive relationship turns romantic, and Ollie, whose ego far exceeds his respect for boundaries, outs Sammy by telling everyone they’re dating.
Tara’s reaction to Sammy’s coming out is to hug him and squeal, “I always wanted a gay friend!” This is adorable, but also problematic, and framed as such: Sammy responds awkwardly, “But … I’m not…”
Sammy spends the rest of the episode fighting two perceptions: that he’s attracted to men only, and that being same-sex attracted makes him feminine. The first perception is imposed externally, by his social circle. The second is internal, a reflection of the society in which Sammy has been raised. He himself doesn’t suggest there’s anything negative about being female or feminine, but he’s part of a culture that associates male homo or bisexuality with being effeminate. Sammy has already come up against the stigma attached to male dancers; now he’s trying to reassert his identity in a society that wants to replace it with a stereotype.
That battle over, there is … his father. Who is coming to terms with Sammy’s career, but how is this conservative, middle-class Jewish doctor going to cope with his son having a boyfriend?
Sammy is a really lovely character who tries very hard to do the right thing, but when he stuffs up, wow, he stuffs up. In fact, he asks Abigail to pretend to be his girlfriend, offending her and Ollie. And when it’s all made up and everyone’s reconciled, his father doesn’t even care. He glimpses Sammy and Ollie holding hands, and he smiles, introduces himself, and it’s just a really sweet, positive scene.
And that’s great, because shortly afterwards, Sammy dies.
I have a lot of feelings about this. Like, I tear up just thinking about it. And the cliche of the gay or bisexual character dying is terrible, and should have been beneath the show.
On the other hand, I can see why they had to do it. Tom Green was leaving — he has changed the spelling of his name to Thom, and can be seen in the lead role in Halo: Forward Unto Dawn and a major role in NBC’s Camp (along with about two-thirds of the Dance Academy cast — but Green is the one making the critics stand up and pay attention). And Sammy was not a character you could simply write out. His entire motivation was to be with his friends and dance. It would have been drastically out of character for him to change his mind and, say, transfer to another ballet school.
What reconciles me, somewhat, is that Ollie has taken Sammy’s place as a regular. Yes, we’ve replaced a bisexual character with a gay one, and I hate that, but at least the cast hasn’t become 100% heterosexual.
Even better, though, we’re four episodes into the third season, and Sammy’s presence is still a big part of the show. His friends are mourning him, examining his legacy and slowly adjusting to a world without him. He’s gone, but not forgotten.
Meanwhile, Christian

Oh, Christian. Christian, Christian, Christian.
He’s the Bad Boy Love Interest, the Troubled Young Man With A Past. His mother is dead; his father left when he was young; partway through the first season he’s arrested for an armed robbery. He’s trouble, but he’s a talented enough dancer that the school keeps giving him second chances. He’s also the boyfriend Tara can’t quite let go of, although she’s doing a good job so far in season three.
I love him madly.
True confession: the entire reason I started watching Dance Academy was because of Christian. I was in a cafe, and the series was playing on the TV behind the bar. No sound, just attractive teens, dance montages, Sydney scenery, and actor Jordan Rodrigues.
Secondary true confession: the reason Christian caught my eye was because he bears a passing resemblance to Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender, and despite my love for Dev Patel and his giant ears, I will never stop being bitter that The Last Airbender was a terrible, racist adaptation that didn’t have Jordan Rodrigues as Zuko.
Oh yeah, the show’s primary love interest? A young Asian-Australian.
Now, Australian TV is pretty damn white. Some shows make a concerted effort to combat that, but they’re generally your gritty, adult dramas. So while Dance Academy is very, very pale, it’s notable that not one but two prominent love interests are men of colour. (But more on Ollie later.)
(The overwhelming whiteness of the school is probably an accurate reflection of a prestigious ballet school’s demographics, but should accuracy really be a priority here? The first season featured an extra, a black girl who could occasionally be seen stretching in the backgrounds — while wearing pyjamas and Ugg boots in one episode — and the second and third seasons feature a clique of juniors led by a brilliantly prissy Asian dancer. But these are far from prominent characters.)
(But I was talking about Christian.)
Now, Christian represents a whole bundle of cliches, not all of them positive. It’s pretty dodgy, in my opinion, that the lone Asian cast member is the one who gets in trouble with the law. (For context, Australia has cliches of gang violence associated with Asian youths. For example, back in 2007, when I told a co-worker I was moving to Melbourne, he asked if I had felt there was a lack of Vietnamese gangs in my life. I once mentioned my reservations about Christian’s criminal background to a fellow Australian who was unfamiliar with the series, and her response suggested she was picturing a character who was involved with organised crime. I was a bit like, It’s ABC3, not Underbelly.)
Christian is also the only character representing the urban poor. Tara’s family are strapped for cash, but they own a farm, and the rest of the cast are solidly middle class. Upper middle-class, in some cases. Christian’s a scholarship kid who grew up in Housing Commission Flats. Public housing, in other words. In fact, his class probably has more of an impact on his characterisation than his race, which no doubt stems from Australia’s general reluctance to discuss racial issues. (‘Cos it’s racist, hey?)
Christian acts as an inter-class ambassador for his peers. He introduces Ethan to street dancers, saving Ethan’s hip hop choreography assignment from the stigma of inauthenticity. (I’d argue that there’s still a heavy dose of appropriation in the final product, but appropriation + research, in my opinion, is better than appropriation with no research at all. It also reflects the show on a meta level — if you’re familiar with the nuances of Australian accents and inflection, most of the working class kids are quite obviously being played by products of the middle class drama school industry.)
Later, when Kat decides to mentor a talented, underprivileged dancer, it’s Christian who warns her that a working class kid is for life, not just for Christmas. That is to say, she can’t just sweep in with all her privilege and play Lady Bountiful until she gets bored. Kat’s eventual recognition of her privileges form a big part of her story, although it’s never heavy-handed, and Christian is the first person to call her out.
Dealing with adults, though, Christian’s background is a liability rather than an asset. The teachers and authority figures in his life sometimes seem confused by him: why can’t he just accept their help, and trust them and get along? This is sometimes echoed by the fandom itself: why can’t he just get over it?
Why, the unspoken litany goes, can’t he just be middle class?
(I am reminded of Legend of Korra fandom’s reaction to Mako, a similarly divisive brooding love interest. Long before Mako finds himself caring for two girls at the same time, the fandom was complaining he was way too interested in money. On account of how he was, you know, a former street kid turned professional athlete in an era where “professionals” are being exploited by the industry. While I’m impressed by the way fandom for once turned on the problematic male rather than the female characters, the tide started turning for Mako when he started talking about money.)
(Classism and fandom: it’s just really interesting, okay? And I’m quite new to the middle class, so I guess I see it more than others?)
This need for Christian to be a nice, middle class boy tends to be particularly strong when he’s called on to articulate his feelings. There’s the masculine ideal of the taciturn working class bloke, of course, who only cries when his beer runs out. But that doesn’t suit the school board and choreographers. Several times, Christian has been asked to express his feelings verbally, as if these powerful adults want to really get their teeth into his psyche. Since Christian expresses himself more through action and dance, this never ends well. The voyeuristic interest in his emotions makes him defensive, as well it might. “You’ve experienced more than your peers,” they seem to say. “Let us live vicariously through you. But let us also judge you.”
…I’m just saying, if there was a Dance Academy vampire AU, the school board would be bloodsuckers.

Season two marks Christian’s reunion with his absentee father. The deadbeat Asian dad isn’t an archetype we see very often, although Reed Senior isn’t so much deadbeat as chronically irresponsible. He lives on the northern coast of New South Wales — it’s never said, but Australians regard that region as the type where everyone is either a hippie stoner artist or a meth head — and handcrafts surfboards.
The rebuilding of their relationship is a familiar story, executed without any remarkable characteristics. I like Christian’s dad as a character, but he doesn’t excite me (and the actor is sadly prone to Aussie Soap Acting). But it’s interesting that this real Aussie bloke demonstrates nothing but mild interest and a bit of pride in his son’s ballet career. Anything else would be a retread of Sammy’s storyline, of course, but it’s a small subversion of the usual rural Australian male stereotype. (By contrast, Christian bonds with Tara’s dad over cars.)
A conclusion … FOR NOW
One thing that I think Dance Academy does really well is its portrayal of adolescence as a time for learning one’s boundaries, not just sexually, but emotionally, even professionally. For the boys, raised in a culture with fairly restrictive concepts of masculinity, this means developing an understanding of their identities as young men, and as young men entering a profession heavily dominated by women. That’s not to say that the girls aren’t also negotiating with concepts of femininity and feminism, but those stories are often told in media aimed at tweens and teens.
For me, it’s more remarkable that Dance Academy addresses issues of masculinity in so many ways, but rarely with a misogynistic subtext. (I will have my Ben rant soon, I promise.) The stories I’ve discussed above come in addition to, not at the expense of, the stories about the girls. And, in the context of a series that’s primarily aimed at a female audience, their inclusion is interesting. There’s a fine line between demonstrating that boys, too, struggle with the patriarchy, and giving their struggles precedence over those of women. Dance Academy, I think, does unusually well in balancing the two.
Next week! Ethan, Ollie and Ben!