Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Maguire, Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle

As the year begins to wind down, and the days grow longer, our critics have a fresh slate of films and series to keep you glued to your screen.

This month’s streaming picks include a 90s “filmic time capsule”, some tense US political drama (refreshingly set in a non-Trumpian America), and the harrowing real-life story of child sex abuse at a Jewish school in Melbourne. There’s also some sharp, tender animation from the creator of Bojack Horseman.

Whether you’re chasing comfort, catharsis or a good cliffhanger, November’s streaming picks are sure to delight.

Surviving Malka Leifer

Stan

Surviving Malka Leifer, directed by Adam Kamien, centres the survivors of Leifer’s abuse. Sisters Nicole Meyer, Dassi Erlich and Elly Sapper reveal their trauma and claim their power through this film.

The sisters are interviewed alone and together and we see their video diaries. While the sisters recount their abuse, we are often taken into a constructed dollhouse, classroom and courtroom where the sisters are represented as tiny dolls. A spider moves about these constructed rooms – it appears enormous relative to the dolls.

Alongside Freya Berkhout’s haunting original music and the raw accounts of the documentary subjects, these devices heighten the sense of risk and vulnerability in the film. As we follow the chronology of the sisters’ campaign to bring Leifer to Australia, we become ever more engaged in their rising panic about whether she will face justice.

We learn about the sisters’ psychological torment, to the point of suicidality and hospitalisation. The delay in justice is central to the film’s narrative. The sisters’ trauma was compounded over their many years of campaigning and waiting.

Surviving Malka Leifer tells several important stories. We see how the perceived interests of an insular religious community are prioritised over the victims of sexual abuse. We see how legal processes, especially when protracted, re-traumatise victims and maintain their vulnerability as abusers pose counter-narratives before courts.

We also see three women who have persisted through unimaginable trauma in their campaign for justice. Their courage is breathtaking.

– Amy Maguire

Read more:
New documentary about the Malka Leifer case centres trauma, persistence and survival

The Diplomat, season three

Netflix

Season three of The Diplomat is back, with romance and comedy wrapped up in high politics. Star of the show, Keri Russell, is the United States ambassador in London and a possible candidate for the vice presidency. Instead she ends up as second lady, maintaining a trans-Atlantic marriage with her vice-president husband, the infuriating Hal Wyler (Rufus Sewell).

The program is infused with nostalgia for a pre-Trumpian world, symbolised by the ascension of President Grace Penn (Allison Janney) who, like her First Gentleman Todd Penn (Bradley Whitford), also starred in West Wing (1999-2006). That series, with its thoughtful and liberal president, represented a vision of politics which has now largely vanished in the US.

Meanwhile there is growing tension between the US and Britain, whose prime minister Nicol Trowbridge (Rory Kinnear) is a thug without charm. This tension dates back to an attack on a British naval vessel, in which the US was apparently involved. But if the exact reasons for it seem murky, it’s because the show moves at such a fast pace – and we are carried along as it features increasingly improbable romantic entanglements.

The Penn White House remains more attractive than its real-life counterpart. And President Penn doesn’t seem interested in demolishing part of the building.

– Dennis Altman

The Celebrity Traitors UK

ThreeNow (New Zealand) and 10 Play (Australia)

The British didn’t do The Traitors first, but they definitely do it the best. The reality show pits traitors against faithful in a social deduction game built on bluffs, double bluffs, “murders” and banishments – with a stack of money awaiting the winners.

The latest season, technically a spin-off, stars UK celebrities – and it’s really bloody good. As usual, there’s dramatic footage of the Scottish Highlands, the looming Adross castle, many extremely camp cutaways, some outrageous and well-produced outdoor missions, and host Claudia Winkleman stalking around in impeccable knitwear, whispering threats and encouragements in equal measure.

The winnings (apart from bragging rights) go to charity. Kudos to the casting director; this season’s lineup features national treasures such as Sir Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross (dubbed the “big dogs” early on), as well as sporting stars, actors, singers, comedians, presenters and Gen Z celebs. They’re all thrown into scenarios that cut through carefully curated personas.

The season particularly excels at juxtaposing the gothic with absurdity. Where else would beloved actress Celia Imrie be caught out loudly stress-farting before a particularly gross challenge? It also plays with preexisting friendships and professional relationships in a sly fashion, as the cast struggle to play as strategically as “civilian” casts usually do.

You might tear your hair out at some people’s ability (or lack of) to figure out the show’s deceptions, but it all makes for impeccable viewing for old fans and newbies alike.

– Erin Harrington

Son of a Donkey

Netflix

Son of A Donkey, from the comedy duo Superwog (brothers Theodore and Nathan Saidden), tells the epic tale of Theo, his best friend Johnny, and Theo’s unnamed parents as Theo attempts to buy back his impounded car and to resolve his daddy issues once and for all.

Superwog are part of the third wave of wog humour. Here, their skewering of the vagaries of modern life leans more to the carnival of Pizza (2000–07) than the cosmopolitan ethos of Acropolis Now (1989–92). But the juxtaposition of classical music against some of the show’s more ridiculous scenes serves as a sly wink to its audience.

Its satire of an Epstein-esque sex island, conspiracy theorists, Jordan Peterson and the manosphere is at once ludicrous and needle-sharp. Even as they sink into a misogynist rabbit-hole, Johnny’s grandma is there to remind them who really is the boss in the ethnic family.

The main challenge for the Saidden brothers is to move from the disconnected episodic approach of Superwog to a cohesive narrative arc for Son of A Donkey. In this, they largely succeed, progressing the overarching story incrementally across the six episodes even as each has their own micro-misadventure.

Ultimately – despite flying shoes and rancid food – wog blood is thicker than water.

– Jess Carniel

Read more:
From Wog Boy to Son of a Donkey: how ‘wog humour’ made Australian comedy its own

Monster: The Ed Gein Story

Netflix

The Ed Gein Story is the third season of Ryan Murphy’s anthology series, Monster, an examination of violent killers at the centre of some of America’s most shocking crimes. This latest instalment follows the life and crimes of one of the most culturally impactful serial killers of the 20th century – a man who inspired the films Psycho (1960), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Perhaps most surprising, then, given Gein’s reputation, is the sensitivity and empathy shown to him in Murphy’s portrayal. In Monster, Gein is abused, downtrodden, soft-spoken, lonely and easily confused. His killings are (largely) unplanned – the result of bursts of anger. His desecration and mutilation of corpses is suggested to be a simultaneous function of his desire to bring his much-missed mother back to life, and to experiment with his own gender identity.

Murphy’s depiction is not limited to a reenactment of Gein’s crimes. It also looks at his influence on popular culture, via other serial killers who emulate his actions, as well as big-screen adaptations by directors such as Alfred Hitchcock.

But ultimately, as Monster would have it, it is we who are responsible for Gein’s celebrity. As Gein himself tells the viewer: “you’re the one who can’t look away”.

– Jessica Gildersleeve

Mother and Son, season two

ABC iView

Season two of Mother and Son, a beautiful remake of the original 1980s–90s Australian sitcom, is just as strong as the first. And luckily, viewers don’t need to have seen the original show in order to enjoy it. The latest season features significant character development, as well as some delightful gender and genre gear shifts that make for cutting-edge situational comedy.

There is not one weak link in the ensemble cast. Denise Scott, who plays the mother, Maggie, and Matt Okine, who plays her son Arthur, are one of the best pairings in recent comedy history. They are supported the most by Angela Nica Sullen, the “golden child” Robbie, and the lovely alternative parent/adult child pairing of Tony and Maya, played respectively by Ferdinand Hoang and Catherine Van-Davies.

The tension between comedy and accessibility – especially the looming “D word” (dementia) for Maggie, and Arthur’s social isolation – makes the story arc of each episode and the overall season quite compelling.

This season is a collection of dark, funny and thoughtful moments. And the stunning cameos from Jean Kittson and Virginia Gray are wonderful easter eggs for those with a deeper knowledge of Australian comedy.

– Liz Giuffre

House of Dynamite

Netflix

It’s Dr. Strangelove meets Rashomon in Kathryn Bigelow’s House of Dynamite. The film has blasted onto Netflix with 22.1 million views in the first three days.

It details the 39-minute countdown until a nuclear missile hits America’s mainland. The Pentagon has taken issue with the film over its claim that America’s missile defence system isn’t perfect, whereas screenwriter Noah Oppenheim stands by his research for the film. Oppenheim is, however, “glad” the Pentagon watched it – “or is watching and is paying attention to it, because this is exactly the conversation we want to have”.

The ensemble cast is stacked with Rebecca Ferguson, Anthony Ramos, Tracy Letts, Idris Elba, Gabriel Basso, Greta Lee, Kaitlyn Dever and Jared Harris all having great moments in the tense drama.

House of Dynamite has a Rashomon-style narrative, where the countdown is told three times over with new perspectives each time. In the first segment, Rebecca Ferguson holds a tense conference call where we hear the voices of Greta Lee and Idris Elba, and see Jared Harris and Gabriel Basso via a screen. In later segments, we see this countdown from their perspectives.

Some may find the handheld camera distracting, and the ending frustrating, but the film is nonetheless intense, with Bigelow never letting up the pressure. With its apolitical, hard-working staffers, it feels very at odds with the contemporary political climate. This seems a deliberate choice from Bigelow.

In the moment, several players realise that while they know they need to focus on their jobs, they have loved ones in the target city. Do they stop what they are doing and tell them they only have minutes left to live?

– Stuart Richards

Disclosure

Netflix

There is almost an unwritten rule that every great 1990s thriller must have Michael Douglas playing the scandal-prone leading man. Douglas doesn’t disappoint in Disclosure (1994). He pays Tom Sanders, a middle manager at the DigiCom computer company who is falsely accused of sexual harassment. Demi Moore is also at the height of her star power here playing Meredith Johnson, the young, predatory career woman who lies and cheats her way to the top.

However, it’s Donald Sutherland who really steals the show as Bob Garvin, the power-hungry director who gets a sadistic thrill from playing favourites among the staff, and promoting his sexy, surrogate “daughter” Meredith above more senior and meritorious colleagues.

There are many guilty pleasures in this 90s filmic time capsule. First, there is the nostalgic amusement of watching clunky, outdated technologies (answering machines! CD-ROMS!) being presented as contemporary or even cutting-edge. The film also features a deliciously melodramatic soundtrack and other neo-noir elements. The first image we have of Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore), for example, is a close shot of her black, killer high heels. When the camera pans up to her blood red lips and defiant stare, we are reminded of the old sexist stereotype of the manipulative “vamp”.

Like many other erotic thrillers of the 1990s (think Fatal Attraction) Disclosure offers the politically-conservative reaction against female power that feminist Susan Faludi famously described as the “backlash”. The film is certainly dated in its sexual politics. On the other hand, its subplot about economic recession, redundancies, ruined careers, competition and corruption remain relevant and very entertaining.

– Susan Hopkins

Long Story Short, season one

Netflix

Long Story Short is a quirky adult animation that oozes charm and heartfelt realness. The series centres on podcast scriptwriter and playlist creator, Avi Schwooper, a character based somewhat on the lived experiences of creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg, the mind behind BoJack Horseman (2014–2020).

In this first season, Long Story Short explores Avi’s everyday existence in California, negotiating his complex attachments to his parents, siblings, ex-wife, daughter, and his Jewish faith.

Episodes jump between various decades and generations up to the 2020s and routinely grapple with the absurd. Episode 6 (“Wolves”) satirises the public education system in the US via a bizarre lockdown situation, which occurs when wolves start roaming the halls of the middle school Avi’s daughter, Hannah, attends.

Episode 3 (“There’s a Mattress in There”) also stands out as affecting. It focuses on Avi’s neurodivergent brother, Yoshi, on a quest to prove himself equal to his siblings, only to be undone by unscrupulous capitalists.

Visually speaking, the series has a groovy colour palette reminiscent of vintage storybooks, and a distinctive hand-drawn aesthetic. Each figure is both exaggerated yet realistic in a way that avoids slipping into caricature thanks to the influence of designer and supervising producer Lisa Hanawalt.

There are some strong, resonant themes around family, memory, selfhood and generational continuity. It is funny, yet achingly sad – a bit like life, really.

– Phoebe Hart

Amy Maguire receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jess Carniel received funding from the Army History Unit for her research into wog history.

Dennis Altman, Erin Harrington, Jessica Gildersleeve, Liz Giuffre, Phoebe Hart, Stuart Richards, and Susan Hopkins do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘Wog’ humour, tense US politics and real-world monsters: what to watch in November – https://theconversation.com/wog-humour-tense-us-politics-and-real-world-monsters-what-to-watch-in-november-268647

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Once again, the Nationals have got out in front of the Liberals on a key issue, this time net zero, announcing on Sunday they were dumping their commitment to it.

This is not unexpected, but more than awkward for their Coalition partner. It makes it trickier for the Liberals to retain the target – which is politically important in city seats – albeit in some watered-down form. It raises the question: if the Liberals stick with net zero what does that mean for the Coalition relationship?

And it puts the Liberals under greater pressure to get a policy out quickly. The party will now speed up its release – it was already planning to do this before Christmas.

The early positioning follows the pattern of the Voice referendum, where the Nationals announced their opposition ahead of the Liberals. In climate and energy debates over the years, the Nationals have been earlier out and more stridently conservative than the Liberals.

The Nationals party room, after several hours of discussion on Sunday, agreed unanimously to a revised policy that says Australia should cut its emissions in line with the developed world, rather than moving faster to order to achieve net zero by 2050.

On Saturday, the party’s federal council called on the parliamentary party to drop the net zero commitment. The Nationals signed up to it in 2021 when Scott Morrison was prime minister and Barnaby Joyce was deputy prime minister and Nationals leader.

The council’s resolutions are not binding on the parliamentary party, but the timing of the council and the parliamentary party meeting was coordinated, given it was clear where the party was moving.

Nationals leader David Littleproud told a Sunday news conference, “We are not walking away from reducing emissions. We can peg ourselves to the rest of the world. If the world moves we move with them”.

He described this as an “agile” model, and was anxious to distance it from denying climate change.

Litteproud said Australia had cut emissions more than like countries. “OECD countries have been cutting their emissions by 1% per year. Australia has been cutting its emissions by about 2% per year – double the OECD rate.”

The Nationals policy would tie the reduction to the average of OECD countries (this would exclude China and India which are not full OECD members). Under this formula the Albanese government’s 2035 target of a 62%-70% cut on 2005 levels would come down to a 30%-40% cut.

“Our emissions cuts will be capped and calibrated, which is common sense,” Littleproud said.

“The responsibility will be shared and transparent,” he said.

He pointed to the “proven model” of the Emissions Reduction Fund, saying that in 2014-2023 it “facilitated real emission reductions that didn’t ruin the economy.

“We will incentivise lower emissions through a renewed Emissions Reduction Fund. This will be a small fraction of the $9 billion now being spent each year on net-zero subsidies, regulations, and administrative costs.

“Our approach will increase investment in cheaper electricity by broadening the Capacity Investment Scheme [which presently excludes coal and gas] to include all energy technologies and remove the moratorium on nuclear energy,” Littleproud said.

Senator Matt Canavan, one of those leading the work on the new policy, said that under the Albanese government’s plans Australia would be cutting its emissions at a rate three times more than the rest of the world.

Littleproud said he had informed Opposition Leader Sussan Ley of the Nationals’ position. After the Liberal Party reached its position the two parties would talk. He would not speculate on what the Liberals would do.

Liberals gave their views on net zero on Friday at a meeting organised by a Coalition backbench committee.

Within the Liberal Party there is a spectrum of views, with hardline conservatives wanting to ditch the net zero commitment, some moderates strongly believing in keeping the 2050 target firmly in place, and yet others seeking a compromise such as retaining the target as an aspiration.

Environment Minister Murray Watt said once again in the Coalition “we’re seeing the tail wagging the dog”.

“We’ve got the National Party, which didn’t even rate 4% of the vote in the last federal election, dictating terms to the Liberal Party who claim to be the majority party in a coalition,” Watt told the ABC,

He said it was a repeat of the nuclear issue “where the National Party went out first to drag the Liberal Party into supporting nuclear, only to be resoundingly rejected by the Australian people at the last election”.

The Greens Sarah Hanson-Young denounced the Nationals’ policy move – and sought to invoke it in relation to another issue, the government’s attempt to get a deal with the opposition or the Greens for its changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

“The question I have for the Labor party now is how on earth can you work with such a ridiculous, out-of-touch party like the Coalition in order to pass your environment laws over the next few weeks, or indeed into next year?” Hanson-Young said.

Crossbencher Zali Steggall said the Nationals’ decision showed they were “captured by fossil fuel interests”.

Another independent, Allegra Spender, said the Liberals “are left with a choice – either be honest that the Nationals are once again setting the Coalition’s climate policy, whatever words the Libs come up with to dress up their own policy, or split with the Nationals altogether”.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Nationals dump net zero – say Australia shouldn’t cut emissions faster than comparable countries – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-nationals-dump-net-zero-say-australia-shouldnt-cut-emissions-faster-than-comparable-countries-268100

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma McKibbin, Senior Research Fellow in Social Work, The University of Melbourne

Allegations of sexual abuse by early childhood educators have rocked Australia in recent months.

Now, the ABC’s investigation into the childcare sector has revealed hundreds more cases – this time committed by children against other children.

But some distressed parents have told the ABC their concerns were not taken seriously by the centre or police because it happened between children.

So, when is sexual behaviour from children normal and when is it abusive? And how can we intervene to make sure it doesn’t keep happening?

What is child-on-child sexual abuse?

These kinds of incidents can be difficult to pin down – and even to describe.

Practitioners and researchers often use the term “harmful sexual behaviour” to acknowledge abusive behaviour can be driven by childhood trauma, and to avoiding stigmatising children who sexually harm.

But research I have done with colleagues interviewing victim-survivors shows they often prefer the term “child-on-child sexual abuse”. It also seems to be the term people are using to seek help and information on platforms such as Reddit and among some survivor advocates.

So, what is it?

Children’s sexual behaviour is typically understood on a continuum, from “normal” to “problematic” through to “harmful”.

At pre-school age:

• normal sexual behaviour might involve playing “mummies and daddies” or using “rude” words to be funny

• problematic sexual behaviour might mean children trying to expose their own genitals or those of other children, or trying to engage siblings or others in masturbation (touching themselves or each other).

• harmful sexual behaviour can involve forcing other children into penetrative acts, such as oral sex, or coercing other children into sexual “play”.

Read more:
7 ways to teach little kids about body safety before they can talk

Victim-survivors of this kind of abuse may feel confused about their experiences, even as adults, because they were made to feel complicit or the abuse was not taken seriously. Adults may dismiss the behaviour as kids’ normal exploration or experimentation.

But child-on-child sexual abuse is not normal. The impacts on victim-survivors are profoundly negative and lifelong, comparable to adult-perpetrated sexual abuse.

What we know – and don’t know – about why it happens

We actually know very little about very young children in Australia who develop problematic sexual behaviours.

But the evidence we do have shows early childhood educators often receive training about mandatory reporting of child abuse, but no specific training about how to identify and intervene when child-on-child sexual abuse occurs.

One 2002 study from the United States looked at 37 preschool aged children with problematic sexual behaviours. It found more were female (65%) than male (35%), contrary to studies in school aged children. And while we know harmful sexual behaviour can stem from abuse, many (62%) did not have histories of sexual abuse.

However, the majority had been exposed to other forms of sexual activity: 35% had seen sexually explicit imagery and 27% had witnessed their parents have sex.

What should intervention involve?

Some evidence suggests most children who display harmful sexual behaviour do not go on to perpetrate abuse as adults.

This is true when children receive therapeutic intervention by a specialist practitioner who works with harmful sexual behaviour in children, such as a social worker, counsellor or psychologist.

They work with children and young people and their families, to develop safety plans and help them understand how and why the abusive behaviour developed, and what can be done to prevent abuse in the future.

But there is a gap in our understanding of how best to identify and most effectively address this growing issue. A new national framework for approaches to children with harmful sexual behaviours will help guide clinical practice when the National Office for Child Safety releases it. We don’t yet know when this will be.

Colleagues and I have also helped develop a program to address child-on-child sexual abuse, called “Power to Kids in Schools”. The program trains educators how to have “brave conversations” about healthy relationships, exploitation and sexual safety.

It also helps them identify problematic and harmful sexual behaviours and intervene appropriately. For example, an educator may notice behaviour changes and ask directly if the child is experiencing abuse or exploitation from another child.

This kind of program could be adapted to use in childcare centres, and help fill the gap so educators understand better how to actively intervene.

We are also developing a website and helpline called “What’s OK?” Australia, based on successful models in the United Kingdom and United States. School aged children and young people will be able to access anonymous help if they are worried about their sexual thoughts and behaviours.

What you can do

Attention this week has been on sexual abuse in childcare centres. But child-on-child sexual abuse can happen anywhere, to any child. There are particularly alarming forms of child-on-child sexual abuse emerging that are sadistic, often perpetrated by groups of teen boys and young men.

At early ages, one of the most protective things we can do is teach kids about body safety – and we can do this at any age, even before they can talk.

But it is equally important to target contextual factors, such as children’s access to sexually explicit material and platforms that facilitate sexual abuse.

As safe adults, it is also our responsibility to learn about this form of abuse and to stay vigilant.

If a child discloses sexual abuse by another child, do not dismiss it. Believe them, and act to make it stop.

If this story has raised any issues for you, please contact one of the services below:

• Lifeline, 24-hour crisis support and suicide prevention: 13 11 14
• Bravehearts, counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse: 1800 272 831
• Kids Helpline (ages 5–25 and parents): 1800 55 1800

Gemma McKibbin receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse.

– ref. How to recognise child-on-child sexual abuse – and how to respond appropriately – https://theconversation.com/how-to-recognise-child-on-child-sexual-abuse-and-how-to-respond-appropriately-268762

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University

Parents have spoken about harrowing cases of their young children being abused by other children in daycare centres, as part of an ABC investigation into the New South Wales sector.

How common is sexually abusive behaviour between children?

Why does it happen? And what can daycare centres do about it?

Read more:
7 ways to teach little kids about body safety before they can talk

What does the data say?

There is no national data to track these incidents in childcare centres.

The national childcare regulator reports on the number of “serious incidents”. But there is a lack of detail around what these involve and they don’t even necessarily include child abuse.

States and territories also report on “reportable conduct allegations” (claims of abuse of children) in early childhood. But there are inconsistent standards, expectations and enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions.

The best data we have about all forms of child sexual abuse is from the 2023 Australian Child Maltreatment Study. As part of the study, a nationally representative sample 8,503 Australians aged 16 and older were asked about their experiences of child maltreatment, including child sexual abuse.

Overall, 28.5% of the group reported they had experienced child sexual abuse. The interviewer then asked who did this to them. As a proportion of the population, here’s what they said about abuse from other young people:

• 10% of Australians reported child sexual abuse from other known children or adolescents (not romantic partners)

• 2.5% reported sexual abuse from adolescent romantic partners

• 1.4% reported sexual abuse from an unknown adolescent

• 1.6% reported sexual abuse from a sibling.

As the study relied on adults recalling childhood experiences, it may mean it’s an under-representation of cases, particularly very early in childhood.

We need a lot more data about what’s going in the early years.

Is the problem getting worse?

Nevertheless, the Australian Child Maltreatment Study study suggests sexual abuse between peers is becoming more common.

Those aged 16-24 were more likely to have been sexually abused by a peer (18.2%) than by an adult (11.7%). Older age groups were more likely to have been abused by adults. For example, of those aged 25-44, 14.1% reported having experienced child sexual abuse by another young person, compared to 17.9% by an adult.

This pattern suggests we have made some progress in reducing the rates of adult perpetrated child sexual abuse, but sexual abuse between peers is increasing.

Read more:
New research shows some gains but fresh difficulties in combating child sexual abuse

Why is this happening?

We can understand this at both an individual and situational level.

If a child is engaging in harmful or abusive sexual behaviours, this may be because they have been exposed to sexual abuse, violence in the home, pornography, or other trauma. They may be reenacting or processing something they have seen or experienced.

But there are also situational factors that enable this behaviour, such as a lack of supervision. We know this is an issue in childcare centres if there are low staff numbers, educators are overworked or there is a lack of adequate training.

How can centres respond?

Research tells us we need to create safe environments for little (and bigger) kids. On top of adequate supervision, this means:

• everyone, from kids to educators and parents, understands body safety (what is appropriate touching? What are healthy boundaries?)

• everyone is able to recognise if something is not right

• everyone feels safe to talk to someone if they need to

• trusted adults take incidents or concerns seriously.

This then means, even if a child is at risk of harming a peer or inappropriate touching – there is little chance they will have the opportunity to do so. And there is a culture to support healthy interactions between kids.

It should not matter who is in the room or the playground, every child deserves to feel and be safe.

Read more:
With a new minister for early childhood education, what can the federal government do to make centres safer?

How should childcare centres talk about bodies?

Children are naturally interested in their bodies and other people’s bodies. This is part of growing up and learning about their world.

If curious children do something inappropriate, good quality childcare centres will deal with these episodes calmly, as they arise. For example, a child might say:

I felt yuck because Sam asked me to pull down my pants.

Educators should respond in a kind, empathetic way and not shame anyone involved.

They can use the situation to explain we don’t ask our friends to do this. And just because someone asks us to do something to or with our bodies, it does not mean we have to say yes. We often think of consent education being the job of high schools, but this education needs to start much earlier.

Educators can also model this. For example, with little children, they should let them know they will be changing their nappy. For example,

You need a nappy change because you’ve done a wee. Do you want Alex or Kim to do it?

This teaches children a safe adult only touches your genitals for the purposes of care or hygiene, and always with communication and respect.

These micro-level practices build up over time. Ideally, they can also help show parents what is healthy and safe behaviour.

We should not demonise little kids

Lastly, we should not demonise children who engage in harmful sexual behaviour.
Most children do not go on to offend later in life.

What they need is support, guidance and supervision, not stigma or exclusion. While schools or childcare centres sometimes isolate children who have harmed others, exclusion rarely addresses the root cause and can make the problem worse.

Instead, we need to create opportunities for positive, healthy relationships and help children experience safe and appropriate forms of touch. For example, high-fives, hand-holding and hugs within clear boundaries and supportive adult supervision.

Abusive behaviours between children are deeply distressing, but are also preventable. By ensuring strong supervision, body safety education from early years, and responding to children with empathy rather than fear, we can protect kids.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council (as one of the Chief Investigators on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study), Australian government and state/territory government departments.

Gabrielle worked with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) team as part of her PhD candidature. She has also previously worked for Bravehearts in various roles, including for the Turning Corners program, which provides support to young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.

– ref. How common is sexually abusive behaviour between children? How should daycare centres respond? – https://theconversation.com/how-common-is-sexually-abusive-behaviour-between-children-how-should-daycare-centres-respond-268760

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara, PhD Candidate in Theatre, Monash University

What makes a good death? Quietly surrounded by friends and family or going out in a flash of blazing glory (whatever that means)?

Would you like to know when you’re going to die?

Will knowing when you die help you to appreciate all the small finalities – the last time you drive a car, the last touch of grass on your fingertips, the last time you feel your partner’s breath on your cheek, a final kiss on the lips?

Or do these small closures matter at all when looking backwards is a distraction from “the great unknown” that lies ahead?

Do you deserve the right to choose when you die?

Author Cory Taylor was confronted with these questions when diagnosed with melanoma after a biopsy of a mole on the back of her right leg. She was just about to turn 50.

Death in modern Western society exists in a peculiar limbo – simultaneously sanitised and sensationalised. We’ve outsourced dying to hospitals, nursing homes and palliative care units, creating physical and emotional distance that leaves too many people unprepared for when loss arrives.

In her 2016 book Dying: A Memoir, published just months before her death, Taylor writes:

For this is one of the most lamentable consequences of our reluctance to talk about death. We have lost our common rituals and our common language for dying, and must either improvise, or fall back on traditions about which we feel deeply ambivalent.

Taylor exposes the cost of our cultural avoidance: by refusing to engage meaningfully with mortality, Western society has left individuals to face death’s deepest questions in isolation.

Playwright Benjamin Law brings Dying: A Memoir to the stage in a one-woman show starring Genevieve Morris, directed by Jean Tong for Melbourne Theatre Company.

Immediate intimacy

Morris gives a commanding performance. She brings a formidable presence to her portrayal of Taylor and fluidly inhabits a range of characters in Taylor’s world: doctors, siblings and acquaintances connected to Exit International, a support and advocacy group for voluntary euthanasia.

Tong’s direction creates immediate intimacy with the audience. Morris begins out of character, gently acknowledging the difficulty of discussing death while honouring Taylor, before the performance proper begins. This connection with her audience is strengthened across the show.

Set and costume design (James Lew), lighting design (Rachel Lee) and sound design (Darius Kedros) all function to support Morris’ delivery, its constant movement and fluidity.

Red theatre chairs on wheels form the main set piece, which Morris rearranges into various configurations. The surrounding black walls feature small reveals and cracks of light that reflect thematic shifts.

The sound design anchors each scene with precision: the hum of a doctor’s waiting room, the noise and clatter of a restaurant, the clinical quiet of a psychologist’s office. Mostly understated, it punctuates key moments with purposeful intensity, working to mark emotional shifts.

Oppressive lighting pervades the production, its unrelenting bleakness mirroring the subject matter too literally. The lack of variation or contrast flattens what could be a more visually complex exploration of its themes.

Evading the emotionally complex

Law’s persistent examination of the end of Taylor’s life within his adaptation reveals an evasion of the book’s more emotionally complex and spiritually challenging entanglements.

Taylor’s memoir spans three interconnected acts; Law’s adaptation fixates primarily on the first, circling questions about euthanasia and the right to a “good death” in ways that lean into and recapitulate parts of popular debate.

Acts two and three of Taylor’s memoir overflow with childhood recollections – vivid, nostalgic landscapes painted through thick descriptive prose and family memory. These sections reflect closely the relationship with her mother and father, giving rise to questions of: where do we come from? What is home? How are we formed and by who?

This complex and poetic examination of life is excised from Law’s play. But, for his part, he manages to embed his signature biting wit while telling Taylor’s story.

On the frustrations of managing one’s final affairs, and specifically password retrieval, Morris turns to the audience and flatly delivers the line: “If cancer doesn’t kill me, two factor authentication will.”

The situation with an over-enthusiastic therapist is described as a “government-subsidized hostage situation”.

These moments of searing humour help make the story feel fresh and grounded.

However, Law chooses didacticism to end the play as Morris steps out of character again. The choice drains the production of Taylor’s sharp intelligence and emotional depth, leaving the audience instructed rather than stirred. Despite a chorus of sniffles amongst the audience, the ending is strangely unmoving.

It avoids the mess and the grit that fascinates Taylor in composing her memoir. She quotes T.S. Eliot:

In my beginning is my end
Old fires to ash, and ashes to the earth
Which is already flesh, fur and faeces
Bone of man and beast, cornstalk and leaf

The kind of raw and unflinching acceptance of death’s physical reality that inspired Taylor is upended in favour of what is, sadly, a little too sterile and neat.

Dying: A Memoir is at Melbourne Theatre Company until November 29.

Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A stage adaptation of Dying: A Memoir asks the big questions about death – but ends up strangely unmoving – https://theconversation.com/a-stage-adaptation-of-dying-a-memoir-asks-the-big-questions-about-death-but-ends-up-strangely-unmoving-267635

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Arlanda Harris, Associate Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University

Families with young children are yet again reeling after this week’s Four Corners investigation into abuse in the early childhood sector.

The program identified almost 150 childcare workers who had been convicted, charged, or accused of sexual abuse and inappropriate conduct.

System-wide changes are needed to improve standards and safety in the early childhood sector. But parents may also be wondering what they can do in the home to teach their kids about body safety.

There is increasing awareness of how to talk to children about body safety. This includes teaching kids that adults should not ask them to keep secrets and to tell a trusted adult if something feels wrong.

But what about babies and younger children who have not yet learned to talk?

According to Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, children under two can understand language and even communicate before they develop speech. It is never too early to teach them about body autonomy, normalise safety, and model trustworthiness in relationships.

How can parents and caregivers do this?

Read more:
A UK hack shows Australia needs to be very careful about its CCTV trial for daycare centres

1. Use the correct words

When you’re talking to a child about their body, you may want to use “baby talk”.

But it is important to use the correct anatomical words for their genitals, the same way that we teach them about other parts of the body.

This reduces shame and normalises body boundaries. It also ensures children grow up being able to describe any experiences clearly if there is a problem.

2. Narrate what you are doing

We teach older children that people should not touch their penis, vagina, or bottom.

But obviously for younger children, parents and carers need to touch their genital areas at nappy changes.

When changing a nappy, you can talk to little children in straightforward language and narrate what you’re doing in simple and easy steps. This is so they understand what a “normal” nappy change looks like.

For example,

I’m going to pick you up now. We need to change your nappy. We change your nappy when it’s dirty. First, I’m going to get a new nappy out of the drawer. Now I’m going to take off your pants. Remember, we only touch your bottom when we need to clean it.

3. Would you like to go to Tickletown?

You can normalise consent around touching from the beginning.

For example, teach consent around tickling. Practice using language that invites them to respond: “Would you like to go to Tickletown? Would you like me to tickle you?”

Then teach and demonstrate “yes/no” or “happy/sad” with a smile/frown, or thumbs up/thumbs down.

As they get older this can develop into having a safe word or modelling safe touch and unsafe touch.

4. Respect ‘push-away’ body language

Even very young children can send clear messages when they don’t want to be touched or held.

Where possible, respect their “push-away” body language such as pushing back, turning away, wriggling to get down, or arching their back. This teaches them they have autonomy of their bodies.

You can say things like: “Do you want to be put down? Your body belongs to you”.

5. Don’t force affection

Family and friends may be eager to hug or kiss your child, especially if they don’t see them often.

Resist the temptation to force your child to hug or kiss adults (“go on, give Grandad a kiss”) – even if it is a special occasion or visit. This teaches children about body boundaries and lets them know they can make decisions about their own bodies

Read more:
Why you shouldn’t force the kids to hug Granny at Christmas

6. What if a child doesn’t want a nappy change?

The “my body, my rules” message can be complicated when a child does not want a bath or when they don’t feel like having their nappy changed.

If you meet resistance during these times, calmly explain and narrate what you are doing and why. It will help form a foundation for them to understand healthy and necessary touching and recognise if someone is touching them inappropriately.

For example,

we need to have a bath to wash off all the dirt from the park. Let’s put some soap on your feet where they went in the sandpit.

7. Recognise nonverbal signs of distress

Preverbal children communicate through gestures and behaviour. Parents can learn to recognise nonverbal cues that might indicate signs of general distress.

In preverbal children such signs might include increased meltdowns or tantrums, withdrawal, unexplained genital pain or redness, changes in appetite, regression in toileting or sleeping, sudden fear or dislike of people or places, and even sudden mood changes or changes in personality.

Learning these signs can improve parent-child interactions and make it easier to recognise early signs of abuse.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, you can call 1800 Respect on 1800 737 732, Lifeline on 131 114, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts (counselling and support for survivors of child sexual abuse) on 1800 272.

Danielle Arlanda Harris receives funding from the Queensland Family and Child Commission and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. 7 ways to teach little kids about body safety before they can talk – https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-teach-little-kids-about-body-safety-before-they-can-talk-268651

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anam Bilgrami, Senior Research Fellow, Macquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

A growing number of Australians want to stay at home rather than moving to a residential aged care facility when they need extra support.

But availability of home care packages has slipped far behind demand. As a result, more than 120,000 older Australians are already waiting to be assessed for aged care at home. Another 87,000 have approval but no package yet.

After a delayed start, a new Support at Home program will begin on November 1 2025. It aims to improve care at home, with more categories of support and 83,000 new places being added over the next year.

A contested component of the new system is that older Australians will be required to pay for more of their non-clinical care. This includes support for personal care such as showering, as well as everyday living costs such as cleaning, gardening and meal delivery.

Here’s what’s changing, what you will pay and how to prepare.

What’s changing?

Support at Home will have eight budget levels, called “classifications”. This is up from four package levels under the current system.

More levels should mean support that better matches needs, including for higher care needs.

You will receive quarterly budgets that can be used across three broad service groups:

1. clinical care. This includes services such as nursing, occupational therapy and physiotherapy

2. independence support. This includes personal care such as showering, getting dressed and help with hygiene, transport and social support such as assistance to participate in social interactions (in-person or online)

3. everyday living assistance. This is for cleaning, gardening, shopping assistance and meal delivery.

You can save any unused funds between quarters to cover unplanned needs. The carryover cap is 10% of your quarterly budget or A$1,000, whichever is higher.

In addition to the eight levels, there will also be three short-term, needs-based funding options:

• Restorative Care Pathway. This aims to help maintain or improve independence after an illness or injury, mainly through allied health support ($6,000 for 16 weeks, or up to $12,000 if eligible for extra support)

• End-of-Life Pathway. This helps older Australians remain at home in the last three months of life ($25,000 over 12 weeks)

• Assistive Technology and Home Modifications scheme. This is separate funding for products, equipment and home changes. It has three tiers: low (under $500), medium (up to $2,000) and high (up to $15,000). More may be available with a prescribed need.

The Department of Health has published the list of services that Support at Home will fund, and the items covered under the Assistive Technology and Home Modifications scheme.

So what will you have to pay for?

Clinical care will be fully funded by government. You will not pay for clinical care.

If you get a Support at Home package for the first time after November 1, you will contribute to any independence support and everyday living services you use.

These new fees replace the current basic daily fee and income-tested care fee.

Your percentage contribution will depend on your income and assets and on the type of service. Everyday living services will have the highest contribution amounts.

Around 75% of Support at Home recipients will be full pensioners. If you are one, you will contribute 5% toward independence support costs and 17.5% toward everyday living.

Around 4% of recipients will be self-funded retirees without Commonwealth Seniors Health Cards. If that is you, you will contribute 50% to independence support and 80% for everyday living.

There is a lifetime cap of $130,000 on your contributions across aged care to protect people who receive care for a long time. This cap includes non-clinical contributions in residential aged care.

What if I’m already receiving a home care package?

Current Home Care Package (HCP) recipients will move across automatically. From November 1, you will shift to a “transitioned Support at Home classification” and keep the same funding you receive now.

The ‘no worse off’ rule

If you already receive a Home Care Package or were approved for one before 12 September 2024, your fees under Support at Home will be the same or lower. You will not be worse off, even if you are later re-assessed as needing a higher Support at Home classification.

If you had no fees on your Home Care Package as at September 12 2024, you will never pay fees under Support at Home. Your lifetime Home Care Package cap of $82,018, indexed, will also remain.

5 ways to plan for these changes

The new system starts on 1 November 2025. Here are some simple steps to prepare now.

1) Know how your budget will be managed

Under Support at Home, your budget will be held by Services Australia, so you won’t need to manage expenses yourself. Your provider will work with you to decide how to use it across approved services.

2) See what your monthly statement will look like

Download the official Support at Home monthly statement template so you know how budgets, services and carryover will be shown.

3) Look at some case studies

The government has published some case studies for what cost contributions could look like for:

• new entrants who will pay contributions based on their income and assets

• people approved before September 12 2024 covered by the “no worse off” rule (see “Narelle” and “Harry”).

4) Estimate your own potential out-of-pocket costs

Use My Aged Care’s Support at Home fee estimator to see likely contributions based on your income and assets, to help budget ahead of time.

5) Check indicative service prices

The Department of Health has released a summary of indicative Support at Home prices for common services such as nursing, personal care and domestic assistance. This can help you understand typical hourly rates and compare what different providers charge.

If you can’t afford to pay your fees or contribute to your aged care costs, financial hardship arrangements are available.

Anam Bilgrami does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Aged care at home is changing. Here’s what you’ll pay for and how to plan – https://theconversation.com/aged-care-at-home-is-changing-heres-what-youll-pay-for-and-how-to-plan-265675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lexi Eikelboom, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic University

The documentary, 1,000 Men & Me: The Bonnie Blue Story, has made Tia Billinger – stage name Bonnie Blue – a household name.

Famous for her sexual stunts, including one in which she has sex with more than 1,000 men in 12 hours, Bonnie Blue fascinates us because we do not understand her.

Billinger claims to be an embodiment of feminism. She points out she is rich and independent, and says she has taken control of her sexualisation. Yet it is difficult to imagine how sleeping with 1,000 men in a day could lead someone to feel empowered rather than degraded.

Some have offered personality-based explanations for Billinger’s choices, saying she may simply be an opportunistic sociopath.

But explanations like these relegate her to the status of a social oddity, or a monster. And this discounts the social conditions that produce someone like Billinger – the same social conditions all women face.

The contradiction Bonnie Blue embodies reveals just how fraught a woman’s relationship to power and influence is. Women who seek power often encounter a double bind that leads them to use their power in a way that also curtails it.

Power through subservience

Power requires two ingredients. It involves autonomy and self-determination. It also requires being embedded in society so as to exert influence within it.

These two aspects of power work in tandem for men, and especially white men. But for women, and people with other marginalised identities, they often pull in opposite directions.

US feminist writer Andrea Dworkin described this situation in her 1978 book Right-wing Women: for women, power comes through subservience to male values.

For a woman, to be embedded in society is, by definition, to have her autonomy and self-determination restricted. As a result she is forced to choose: do what you want or have influence.

The reward for protecting men’s access to women

Billinger’s business model is striking. She makes enormous amounts of money by offering sex for free. The fact the sex itself is free enables her to turn around and sell a desirable commodity through subscription-based platforms such as Fansly – namely, the fantasy of female availability.

After her 1,000 men stunt, Billinger told her documentary film makers

I loved […] seeing how many men had wedding rings on. I just loved knowing I was doing something their wives should’ve done.

She tells men not to “feel guilty for doing something you deserved and you was, well, you was owed”. Despite appearances, then, Billinger is not autonomous at all. Her power is the result of subservience to male entitlement.

There have always been women who gain power by protecting men’s access to women. Consider, for example, US conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (1924–2016). While Billinger is famous for her extreme sexual stunts, Schlafly could be considered the original tradwife.

Initially an expert in foreign policy, Schlafly was unable to gain political traction through her expertise, so she built a career opposing women’s liberation on behalf of housewives. She got the political power she wanted, but not in the field she really cared about.

Womanliness as a masquerade

Both Schlafly’s and Billinger’s personas map squarely onto one side or the other of what psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud called the Madonna-whore complex, in which a misogynistic society categorises women according to the kind of service they offer men – either as a saintly mother figure or as a sexual object.

Each of these roles also deflects attention by attacking the opposite side of the dichotomy.

Billinger positions herself as a rival to men’s wives, claiming her critics simply want to turn her into a housewife. Schlafly positioned herself as a housewife opposing equal rights because she considered such rights to be bound up with sexual promiscuity.

In reality, each stance relies on the other. And we’re beginning to see this manifest in the emergence of tradwife Onlyfans content.

In 1929, psychoanalyst Joan Riviere wrote about a tendency in her female patients she called “womanliness as a masquerade”.

Riviere notes how women who exhibited traits socially coded as “masculine”, or who occupied positions historically reserved for men, attempted to hide this masculinity through a performance of femininity. She wrote:

women who wish for masculinity may put on a mask of womanliness to avert anxiety and the retribution feared from men.

To undertake a “masculine” pursuit of power, both Schlafly and Billinger uphold a particular ideal of femininity. And both women’s careers are logical – if misguided – responses to the messages women receive about where their value lies.

A never-ending tradeoff

Our systems punish women for wanting things such as power, money, or visibility, requiring them to turn against other women, give up their expertise, or make themselves infinitely available to men.

If women were allowed to pursue power without these sacrifices, it might curtail the harms other women face as a result of the masked pursuit of power.

Women should not have to choose between power, money and visibility on one hand, and community and liberation on the other. They should not have to choose between Madonna and the whore.

Yet as political gains continue to shrink around the world, many women are starting to feel this double-bind more forcefully. There may be more Bonnie Blues and Phyllis Schlaflys on the horizon.

Lexi Eikelboom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Sex with 1,000 men in 12 hours: why Bonnie Blue is neither a feminist nor a monster – https://theconversation.com/sex-with-1-000-men-in-12-hours-why-bonnie-blue-is-neither-a-feminist-nor-a-monster-267982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jess Carniel, Associate Professor in Humanities, University of Southern Queensland

In Son of a Donkey, the Saidden brothers Theodore and Nathan reunite viewers with the characters from Superwog, their shorts on YouTube since 2008, and later adapted into an ABC series, from 2018–20.

Superwog was a series of largely unrelated episodes. Now, the six episodes of Son of A Donkey tell the epic tale of Theo, his best friend Johnny, and Theo’s unnamed parents as Theo attempts to buy back his impounded car and to resolve his daddy issues once and for all.

A road rage incident sees Theo’s licence (hard won in season two) revoked, his beloved 1988 Twin Cam Corolla (definitely not a Daihatsu Charade) impounded, sold to a used car dealer (played by Mark Mitchell, aka Con the Fruiterer), and a round of court-ordered psychiatric treatment.

Theo’s father’s habit of eating food from the dump has resulted in fused kidneys. His mother finally decides to leave her husband when he tries to force Theo into a kidney donation. Thrown into the world of dating (via her parents’ matchmaking), Theo’s mother undergoes enough cosmetic survey to make her resemble Mob Wives’ Big Ang.

Meanwhile, Theo and Johnny’s schemes to scrape together enough money to buy back the Corolla lead them to first accept a stultifying corporate job and then an invitation to an Epstein-esque sex island before falling under the influence of the manosphere while taking Theo’s antipsychotics recreationally.

The evolving shape of wog humour

Son of A Donkey and its predecessor Superwog are part of the third wave of wog humour.

Wog humour is a particularly Australian brand of ethnic humour centred on the experiences and identities of predominantly southern European and Middle Eastern migrants and their children.

While ethnic humour is a feature of all multicultural societies – and often has transnational or diasporic appeal – wog humour’s appeal is somewhat limited because of its use of the word “wog”.

For many Australians, wog comedy has played an important role in reclaiming this ethnic slur. But still many others still find it problematic. It also limits its capacity to be exported as “wog” remains an unquestioned slur in places like the United Kingdom, where the word originated.

Wog humour first emerged in the 1980s with Nick Giannopoulos, Simon Palomares and Mary Portesi’s 1987 stage show, Wogs Out of Work. This first wave gained mainstream success via Acropolis Now (1989–92) and continues to this day in Giannopolous’ Wog Boy film series, the most recent instalment released in 2022.

The second wave of wog humour occurred with the TV series Pizza (2000–07), and its spin off film Fat Pizza (2003).

While Acropolis Now aimed for cosmopolitan comedy set in Melbourne’s cool inner north, Pizza provided carnivalesque chaos in Sydney’s western suburbs.

At their core both told stories of class, work and ethnicity in multicultural Australia.

The third wave

Third wave wog humour continues the exploration of cultural difference and class but centres much of its humour on the differences between migrant parents and their kids.

The third wave is best represented by Superwog and the skit comedy of Sooshi Mango (on YouTube since 2007), albeit at different ends of the comedic spectrum.

Sooshi Mango are perhaps best known for their skits portraying their ethnic mothers and fathers. (As the daughter of an ethnic concreter, this one hits home.)

One member of the trio, Andrew Manfre, has described this as a way of remembering their parents who worked hard for their children, and their adopted country.

Superwog emerged from the Saidden brothers’ re-enactments of their parents fighting. Unlike the gentle respect that motivates Sooshi Mango, the Saiddens sought to capture their parents’ over the top arguments.

In 2014, Theo spoke of his memories of:

Shoes flying. Getting offended. All wogs get offended … it’s a very big thing. They are very emotional and loud and make big deals out of little things.

Superwog comes to Netflix

In Son of a Donkey, the Saidden brothers humorously seek to resolve the dysfunctional relationship between Theo and his father that was a core part of the humour in Superwog.

The Saidden brothers’ skewering of the vagaries of modern life leans more to the carnival of Pizza than the cosmopolitan ethos of Acropolis Now. But the juxtaposition of classical music against some of the show’s more ridiculous scenes acts as a sly wink to its audience.

Meanwhile, its satire of Epstein, conspiracy theorists, Jordan Peterson and the manosphere is at once ludicrous and needle-sharp. Even as they sink into a misogynist rabbit-hole, Johnny’s grandma is there to remind them who really is the boss in the ethnic family.

The main challenge for the Saidden brothers is to move from the disconnected episodic approach of Superwog to a cohesive narrative arc for Son of A Donkey. In this, they largely succeed, progressing the overarching story incrementally across the six episodes even as each has their own micro-misadventure.

Ultimately – despite flying shoes and rancid food – wog blood is thicker than water.

And despite being the foil for their sons’ comedy, the Saidden brothers’ parents are happy with their success.

Son of a Donkey is now streaming on Netflix.

Jess Carniel received funding from the Army History Unit for some of her research on wog history in Australia.

– ref. From Wog Boy to Son of a Donkey: how ‘wog humour’ made Australian comedy its own – https://theconversation.com/from-wog-boy-to-son-of-a-donkey-how-wog-humour-made-australian-comedy-its-own-268085

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tilman Ruff, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

US President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing immediately, “on an equal basis” with other countries’ testing programs.

If Trump is referring to the resumption of explosive nuclear testing, this would be an extremely unfortunate, regrettable step by the United States.

It would almost inevitably be followed by tit-for-tat reciprocal announcements by other nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia and China, and cement an accelerating arms race that puts us all in great jeopardy.

It would also create profound risks of radioactive fallout globally. Even if such nuclear tests are conducted underground, this poses a risk in terms of the possible release and venting of radioactive materials, as well as the potential leakage into groundwater.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been signed by 187 states – it’s one of the most widely supported disarmament treaties in the world.

The US signed the treaty decades ago, but has yet to ratify it. Nonetheless, it is actually legally bound not to violate the spirit and purpose of the treaty while it’s a signatory.

What testing is used for, and why it stopped

In earlier years, the purpose of testing was to understand the effects of nuclear weapons – for example, the blast damage at different distances, which provides confidence around destroying a given military target.

Understanding the consequences of nuclear weapons helps militaries plan their use, and to some extent, protect their own military equipment and people from the possible use of nuclear weapons by adversaries.

But since the end of the second world war, states have mostly used testing as part of the development of new weapons designs. There have been a very large number of tests, more than 2,000, mostly seeking to understand how these new weapons work.

The huge environmental and health problems caused by nuclear testing prompted nations to agree a moratorium on atmospheric testing for a couple of years in the early 1960s. In 1963, the Partial Test Ban Treaty banned nuclear tests in all environments except underground.

Since then, nuclear-armed states have stopped explosively testing at different times. The US stopped in 1992, while France stopped in 1996. China and Russia also aren’t known to have conducted any tests since the 1990s. North Korea is the only state to have openly tested a nuclear weapon this century, most recently in 2017.

These stoppages came in the 1990s for a reason: by that time, it became possible to test new nuclear weapon designs reliably through technical and computer developments, without having to actually explode them.

So, essentially, the nuclear states, particularly the more advanced ones, stopped when they no longer needed to explosively test new weapon designs to keep modernising their stocks, as they’re still doing.

Worrying levels of nuclear proliferation

There is some good news on the nuclear weapons front. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has now been signed by half the world’s nations. This is a historic treaty that, for the first time, bans nuclear weapons and provides the only internationally agreed framework for their eventual elimination.

With the exception of this significant development, however, everything else has been going badly.

All nine nuclear-armed states (the US, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel) are investing unprecedented sums in developing more accurate, stealthier, longer-range, faster, more concealable nuclear weapons.

This potentially lowers the threshold for their use. And it certainly gives no indication these powers are serious about fulfilling their legally binding obligations to disarm under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Moreover, multiple nuclear-armed states have been involved in recent conflicts in which nuclear threats have been made, most notably Russia and Israel.

Worryingly, we have also seen the numbers of nuclear weapons “available for use” actually start to climb again.

This includes those in military stockpiles, those that have been deployed (linked to delivery systems such as missiles), and those on high alert, which are the ones most prone to accidental use because they can be launched within minutes of a decision to do so. All of these categories are on the increase.

Russia, in particular, has weapons we haven’t seen before, such as a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile that President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday his country has successfully tested. China, too, is embarking on a rapid build-up of nuclear weapons.

And the US has just completed assembling a new nuclear gravity bomb.

A new START treaty also not moving forward

Nearly all of the hard-won treaties that constrained nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War have been abrogated.

There’s now just one remaining treaty constraining 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, which are in the hands of the US and Russia. This is the New START Treaty, which is set to expire in February next year.

Putin offered to extend that treaty informally for another year, and Trump has said this is a good idea. But its official end is just four months away, and no actual negotiations on a successor treaty have begun.

The US has also said China needs to be involved in the successor treaty, which would make it enormously more complicated. China has not expressed a willingness to be part of the process.

Whether anything will be negotiated to maintain these restraints beyond February is unclear. None of the nuclear-armed states are negotiating any other new treaties, either.

All of this means the Doomsday Clock – one of the most authoritative and best-known assessments of the existential threats facing the world – has moved forward this year further than it has ever done before.

It’s really an extraordinarily dangerous time in history.

Tilman Ruff is affiliated with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Medical Association for Prevention of War.

– ref. If the US resumes nuclear weapons testing, this would be extremely dangerous for humanity – https://theconversation.com/if-the-us-resumes-nuclear-weapons-testing-this-would-be-extremely-dangerous-for-humanity-268661

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Townsend, Research Fellow, UQ School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland

Early on Thursday, a seventeen-year-old cricketer died in hospital after being injured in a training session in Melbourne days earlier.

While details of the tragic accident are still emerging, it appears Ben Austin’s death was the result of being struck by a bouncing ball.

Cricket Victoria told the ABC Ben was wearing a helmet, but not a neck protector, at the time of the impact. The ball appears to have struck the base of his skull or high on the back of his neck, an area that remains exposed by most cricket helmets.

For those who knew Ben, the emotional weight of his passing cannot be overstated.

Understandably, it has also raised questions about the effectiveness of protective equipment used in cricket.

What we know about neck and head injuries

This kind of injury immediately recalls the blow that killed New South Wales and Australian international batsman Phillip Hughes during a Sheffield Shield match in 2014.

Hughes’ death prompted the introduction of neck protectors attached to the back of batters’ helmets. But the injury risks had been known long before he died.

Data available since 2013 for elite cricketers showed that 17% of head injuries occurred at the back of the skull and 6% occurred at the neck, with no contact to the helmet.

A 2023 study in elite Australian cricketers reported 22% of injuries in state and national level cricketers were to the neck.

In 2020, a review of available evidence found the head/face/neck was the second most commonly injured body region in community cricket.

This suggests the injury is common across all levels of the game, and points to the difficulty of fully protecting players from head injury with a helmet alone.

Current rules for helmets

The International Cricket Council requires any helmet worn in international matches to be compliant with the British Standards. In 2019, these were updated to include specifications for neck protectors.

Since 2019, Cricket Australia requires all players in its competitions to wear a helmet while batting and when fielding close to the batter. This includes Sheffield Shield, domestic T20 competitions such as the Big Bash League, and international fixtures with Australian teams.

Since 2023/24, Cricket Australia has also made neck protectors mandatory for its players, when they are facing fast or medium pace bowling.

Essentially, this means all elite cricketers playing in Australia are required to protect both their head and neck during training and games, going beyond the International Cricket Council’s requirements.

While evidence suggests helmets have reduced injuries overall, we don’t know about neck injuries specifically, given data is grouped together under “head and neck injuries”.

Different rules for community sport?

The rules are less concrete for community level cricket.

Cricket Australia “strongly recommends” community level players wear a helmet compliant with the British Standard from 2013. Neck protectors are also “strongly recommended” but not mandatory for community players.

However, enforcing helmet and neck protector use is left up to local associations.

We can’t speculate whether a neck protector would have prevented this tragic death in Melbourne.

But what is clear is that the potentially fatal consequences of a fast-moving cricket ball are not confined to the sport’s elite levels.

Resistance to protective gear

Helmets did not become commonplace in Australian cricket until the 1980s, a trend which sports physician Peter Brukner argues led to a significant decrease in the number of deaths.

But cricket is often seen as a genteel and generally safe game, especially compared with football codes. This perception – combined with the sport’s historical emphasis on tradition, forbearance and toughness – can make it difficult for new safety technologies to gain traction.

English player Dennis Amiss was the most prominent early proponent of wearing a helmet, famously donning a modified motorcycle helmet for the 1977 series against Australia.

A decade prior, suggestions Australian players should wear helmets to protect themselves from a ferocious West Indian bowling attack were debated in the press as a sign “sportsmen of the present day are going soft”.

Much earlier, a 1935 editorial in The Referee dismissed the deployment of protective equipment, including helmets, as “fastidious, ridiculous, and unchecked”.

Even the 2015 introduction of neck protectors was met with initial resistance from prominent players such as David Warner and Steven Smith, who argued the devices were restrictive and uncomfortable.

All sport is contact sport

Research and public debate on brain trauma in sport has mainly focused on combat and contact sports such as boxing and football. But the tragic deaths of Phil Hughes and now, Ben Austin, are a reminder that all sports are contact sports.

These accidents also show the risks are not confined to elite sport. Further attention must be paid to monitoring and mitigating the risk of brain injury in community sport.

Devices such as neck protectors can partially mitigate these risks – but they need to be normalised at all levels of sport.

To do this, Cricket Australia should mandate their use at the community level. At the elite level, we need prominent and charismatic athletes to break through the cultural stigma associated with their use.

Alan Pearce is currently unfunded. Alan is a non-executive director for the Concussion Legacy Foundation Australia (unpaid position) and Adjunct research manager for the Australian Sports Brain Bank (unpaid position). He has previously received funding from Erasmus+ strategic partnerships program (2019-1-IE01-KA202-051555), Sports Health Check Charity (Australia), Australian Football League, Impact Technologies Inc., and Samsung Corporation, and is remunerated for expert advice to medico-legal practices.

Stephen Townsend does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Yes, cricket is a contact sport. We have safety gear – but we need to do more – https://theconversation.com/yes-cricket-is-a-contact-sport-we-have-safety-gear-but-we-need-to-do-more-268650

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Taubert, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland

When you look at clouds, tree bark, or the front of a car, do you sometimes see a face staring back at you? That’s “face pareidolia” and it is a perfectly normal illusion where our brains spot faces in patterns that aren’t actually faces.

For most of us, these illusions are harmless. But my new research, published in Perception, suggests people with visual snow syndrome – a rare neurological condition that causes constant “visual static” – experience this phenomenon more strongly and more often.

This finding offers a unique window into how an overactive brain may amplify the erroneous illusory patterns it sees in the world. It also shows how perception isn’t a perfect mirror of reality.

What is visual snow syndrome?

Visual snow syndrome is characterised by the persistent perception of flickering dots, like television static, across the entire field of vision. People with the condition often report the dots never go away, even in the dark.

The cause of this syndrome remains unclear, but recent evidence points to hyperexcitability in the visual cortex, the region of the brain that interprets what we see. In essence, the neurons responsible for processing visual information may be firing too readily, flooding perception with noise.

Many individuals with visual snow syndrome also experience migraines, light sensitivity, afterimages or visual trails that linger after motion. These symptoms can make everyday visual experiences confusing and exhausting. Yet, despite growing awareness, the condition remains under-diagnosed and poorly understood.

Testing how ‘visual snow’ shapes perception

To test whether this hyperactive visual system changes how people interpret ambiguous visual input, our research team invited more than 250 volunteers to complete an online experiment.

Participants first completed a short questionnaire to determine whether they experienced symptoms of visual snow. They were then shown 320 images of everyday objects, from tree trunks to cups of coffee, and asked to rate, on a scale from 0 to 100, how easily they could see a face in each image.

In total, 132 people met the criteria for visual snow syndrome, while 104 formed a control group matched for age. We also tracked whether participants experienced migraines, allowing us to compare four subgroups.

The brain that sees too much

The results were striking. People with visual snow consistently gave higher “face scores” to each and every image than those without the condition. This suggests they were more likely to see faces in random textures and objects.

Those with both visual snow and migraines scored highest of all.

This pattern was remarkably consistent. In general, the groups agreed on which images looked most like faces, but the visual snow group reported seeing illusory faces more vividly.

In other words, the same objects triggered a stronger illusion.

The results align with earlier theories that the visual snow brain is hyper-responsive. Normally, our visual system generates quick, low-level “guesses” about what we’re seeing, followed by slower checks to confirm those guesses.

When that feedback loop is disrupted by excessive neural activity, an early “false alarm”, such as mistaking an object for a face, may be amplified rather than corrected.

Why migraine makes it stronger

Migraine and visual snow have been frequently linked, and both involve abnormally high levels of cortical activity. During a migraine, visual neurons can become hypersensitive to flicker, light and contrast.

Our data suggest that when migraine and visual snow occur together, the brain’s sensitivity to illusory faces increases even further. This may reflect a shared neural pathway underlying both conditions.

Future research could use this relationship to develop new diagnostic tools. Face pareidolia tests are quick, accessible, and could be adapted for children or nonverbal patients who can’t easily describe what they see.

A new way to understand perception

Face pareidolia isn’t a disorder — it’s a side effect of a perceptual system that prioritises social information. Evolution has biased our visual system to spot faces first and ask questions later.

For people with visual snow, that system may be dialled up too high. Their brains may “connect the dots” in visual noise, interpreting ambiguous input as meaningful patterns.

This finding supports the idea that visual snow is not just a vision problem but a broader disturbance in how the brain interprets visual input.

By understanding why some people see too much, we can learn more about how all of us see at all.

Why it matters

Visual snow syndrome is often dismissed or misdiagnosed, leaving patients frustrated. Linking the condition to a measurable illusion such as face pareidolia gives clinicians a tangible sign of the altered brain activity behind the symptoms.

It also humanises the experience. People with visual snow aren’t imagining their perceptions – their brains are genuinely processing the world differently.

Beyond diagnosis, this research contributes to a bigger question in neuroscience: how does the brain strike a balance between sensitivity and accuracy? Too little activity, and we miss the signal. Too much, and we start to see faces in the snow.

Jessica Taubert receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. People with this rare visual condition see illusory faces more often, new study shows – https://theconversation.com/people-with-this-rare-visual-condition-see-illusory-faces-more-often-new-study-shows-267007

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Summer May Finlay, Senior Lecturer – Indigenous Health, University of Wollongong

Billions of dollars are spent annually on Indigenous programs and services. Yet we know little about which programs are effective, and often struggle to understand their impact. That’s why evaluating programs is crucial.

We need to know what worked, what didn’t, and why.

The Productivity Commission has called for “more and better” evaluations of Indigenous programs, meaning evaluation processes that engage Indigenous communities, organisations and leaders.

So, what do best-practice program evaluations look like?

To find out, colleagues and I looked at how governments and non-government organisations commission evaluations of programs aimed at boosting Indigenous health and wellbeing. We wanted to know what kinds of evaluation commissioning practices would support Indigenous engagement and leadership.

Our paper, published this week in First Nations Health and Wellbeing – The Lowitja Journal, found it’s vital to explicitly embed Indigenous values from the moment an evaluation is commissioned.

Simply “consulting” Indigenous people later in the evaluation process after the evaluation has been designed – or having no meaningful Indigenous involvement at all – risks yielding evaluation results that don’t actually help, waste time and money, and may ultimately lead to more death and illness among First Nations people.

What we did and what we found

Our project included a comprehensive scoping review, where we analysed 39 peer reviewed and grey literature documents (meaning documents produced by government, academics, business and industry) from Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the US. The documents were mostly from Australia and New Zealand.

We identified five main ways these evaluations are commissioned:

1. Indigenous-led models

This is where the evaluation is commissioned by and for an Indigenous community-controlled organisation. All engagement in the evaluation is overseen by an Indigenous organisation.

2. Delegative models

This is where the person or organisation commissioning the review – the “commissioner” – requests an evaluation. However, the commissioner delegates responsibility and funding to an Indigenous-led service provider.

3. Co-designed models

This is where the person or organisation commissioning the evaluation works with the Indigenous service providers to design the evaluation, and each has equal power in the decision-making process.

4. Participatory models

This is where Indigenous people may be involved in the evaluation to varying degrees, from tokenistic participation to active engagement. However, the power to make decisions rests with the non-Indigenous person or organisation that commissioned the evaluation.

5. Top-down models

This is where the non-Indigenous person or organisation commissioning the review has all the power and places no emphasis on Indigenous people’s engagement.

An evaluation could fall into one or more of these categories at different points in the process.

3 good models

We identified three of these five models – Indigenous-led, delegative, co-design – as good practices.

They achieved outcomes that:

• were culturally safe (meaning they respected Indigenous people’s rights, cultures and traditions)
• met the the needs of service providers and commissioners
• provided insights that were actually useful for Indigenous communities.

Some service providers have extensive experience and can commission evaluations themselves.

Others, however, have limited capability and would value input from the person or organisation commissioning the evaluation. This could supplement their staff skills.

For evaluations involving multiple service providers, a co-design model may be used instead.

What does good practice look like?

One example we looked at showed how Indigenous health program evaluations can be done well.

The Healing Foundation, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation that supports members of the Stolen Generation and their families, funded three organisations to deliver services to their local communities.

The Healing Foundation contracted a non-Indigenous evaluation organisation, Social Compass, to evaluate the programs. They made sure local people were engaged in the evaluation design and conduct.

Guiding the evaluation was a “knowledge circle” that included Aboriginal men from the three communities in which the program was being developed.

Community and relevant government and non-government agencies in these three communities were also involved in the evaluation. However, the power was maintained by the Healing Foundation to ensure the program and evaluation were culturally appropriate.

Top-down doesn’t work

Not all evaluations are done so well, unfortunately.

The top-down approach, due to its lack of Indigenous engagement, emerged as the worst-performing model. It risks wasting time and money for little practical benefit.

Without Indigenous engagement, and ideally self-determination, in the evaluation process, evaluation findings would be of little value to organisations providing services to First Nations people.

More importantly, the evaluations would likely be conducted in a culturally unsafe way, causing potential harm.

For example, not engaging Indigenous people means the evaluation could focus on the wrong questions for key communities, rendering the findings useless.

And if the right Indigenous people are not engaged from the start, it might damage relationships between the service provider and commissioner. Indigenous service providers may choose not to engage with the project at all, making it hard or impossible to collect data needed for a good evaluation.

This doesn’t just waste time and money, including taxpayer dollars. It also means that, due to a lack of good information to inform policy, First Nations people will continue to be sicker and die younger than other Australians.

Evaluations matter

Our research comes as Indigenous leaders are calling for opportunities to influence the evaluation decision-making processes.

If we are to have any hope of closing the gap, our research suggest First Nations people should be meaningfully involved in evaluating what worked and what didn’t about Indigenous-focused programs.

The author would like to acknowledge the other authors on the paper: Jenni Judd (CQU), James A. Smith (Flinders), Helen Simpson (UOW), Bronwyn Fredericks (UQ), Amohia Boulton (Whakauae Research Services), Yvette Roe (CDU), Janaya Pender (Lowitja Institute), Sophie Kerrigan (UOW), Anna Temby (UOW), Melissa Opozda (Flinders) and Margaret Cargo (Flinders).

Summer May Finlay periodically consults to government on policy. She has received funding from the NHMRC. She is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Indigenous programs cost billions – but we know surprisingly little about what works – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-programs-cost-billions-but-we-know-surprisingly-little-about-what-works-241680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Fleming, Associate Professor in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney University

Not long ago, a relative of mine told me he had been working so hard in the yard that he’d “literally thrown up”. He didn’t offer this as a health update, or to warn me about overexertion. It was, oddly enough, a boast.

We are familiar with this type of thing. Elon Musk once claimed “nobody ever changed the world on 40 hours a week”, apparently unaware that people from Archimedes to Nobel laureate Sir Alexander Fleming managed just fine on a normal schedule

If Musk turned overwork into public theatre (he even said he slept on Tesla’s factory floor), the biographies of Microsoft founder Bill Gates had already given us a prototype. Gates would stretch out under his terminal like a secular Buddha, waiting not for enlightenment, but for executable code.

Whether you find these stories inspiring or slightly deranged, the point is the same: today, overwork is one of the few politically neutral ways to show virtue. We don’t just work to live; we work to prove we deserve to.

These values aren’t written in the stars, or in our DNA, or in the logic of history. So why do they carry such moral weight? Why is work treated, strangely enough, as if it were next to godliness?

One of the sharper answers came from German sociologist Max Weber. His book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) has become a classic – though we need to be careful about what “classic” means here. Like the Bible or Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, The Protestant Ethic is widely bought, regularly invoked, and rarely read.

Weber’s book is not quite a history of economics, nor is it what we would label “religious history”. It borrows from both, but is stranger than either. The Protestant Ethic is a study of how religious ideas, especially Calvinism, helped shape the mindset upon which modern capitalism thrives.

Weber argued that a certain kind of Protestantism didn’t just shift what people believed; it changed who they became. Anxious about their prospects for salvation, Protestants looked for signs of divine favour in worldly success. That anxious looking, Weber thought, helped to create – and then helped to reinforce – the disciplined, work-and-future-oriented modern subject that capitalism depends on.

The book is neither a lament nor a celebration, even if, by the end of the book, a tone of despondency creeps into the text. It was one of Weber’s key ideas, and not just in this book, that modernity had lost previous ages’ sense of spiritual meaning, which left behind a mere husk – the grim compulsion to work.

The spirit was gone, Weber thought, even if the ethic lived on, and even if the modern world risked becoming what he called an “iron cage”.

What did Weber actually argue?

Weber kept circling around the same deceptively simple question: why did modern capitalism take root in the West rather than somewhere else?

There are different ways of answering such questions. These days, thinkers like historian Jared Diamond might try to explain such things in terms of geography or the location of resources. Marxists might explain the same thing in terms of class struggle and shifts in the “modes of production”.

Weber would not have denied that such factors played a role, but he was interested in the role of culture, especially those moral and psychological habits that grew out of the Reformation. He argued that they didn’t just fit capitalism in some abstract sense; they helped form exactly the kind of person capitalism came to rely on.

First, it helps to understand what Weber meant by Geist des Kapitalismus – “the spirit of capitalism”. But it is also useful to know what he didn’t mean. He wasn’t referring to the emergence of markets or profit-seeking, as such; those had been around for centuries.

What was new, Weber thought, was the moral stance: that working hard, living frugally and accumulating wealth weren’t just practical skills for succeeding, but inherently virtuous forms of behaviour. Profit, for some, was more than a merely desirable personal outcome; it was a duty.

Weber traced this “Geist” to a particular strain of Protestantism, originating in the work of theologian John Calvin (1509-1564).

Calvinists believed in predestination. This is the idea that God has already decided who is saved and who isn’t, long before any merely human act could modify this outcome.

Some historians – and Calvin himself – thought that the purpose of the doctrine was to underline human helplessness. In practice, it bred deep anxiety. For if salvation could not be earned here on earth, how could anyone be sure of their fate?

The result was a kind of compensatory behaviour. Believers began looking for signs of God’s favour. Success in one’s calling – or “Beruf”, a word that means both “job” and “vocation” – became such a sign. Working hard, avoiding luxury, reinvesting profits: these weren’t just sound habits. They might be clues that one was among the elect.

Weber called this “inner-worldly asceticism”: religious energy channelled not into monasteries or seclusion, but into ordinary life. You did not retreat from the world to find God. You showed your worth through worldly discipline.

Over time, these behaviours detached from their religious roots. You didn’t need to believe in predestination to feel the drive to work endlessly, or to prove your value through success. The idea of a “calling” lingered on, but hollowed out. Eventually, it looked less like a vocation than an obligation.

So Weber’s point was not that Protestants invented capitalism. It was that Protestant ideas helped shape a certain kind of personality – disciplined, anxious, goal-oriented – that meshed perfectly with the new economic system.

He also thought the world had been stripped of transcendence. But, as theologian William Cavanaugh has argued, modern life is not disenchanted, so much as re-enchanted under new forms.

Capitalism didn’t erase worship; it redirected it. Our liturgies now involve tap-and-go offerings, algorithmic fate, and daily rituals of market devotion. The moral weight Weber saw in the Protestant calling has not vanished. It has been reborn: now it answers to dopamine hits and brand loyalty. We no longer justify our work in relation to God’s glory, but we still work as if something eternal depends on it.

The surprising bit

At first, The Protestant Ethic reads like an origin story for capitalism. Keep going, and it starts to feel more like a ghost story. Weber certainly wasn’t celebrating what he described. He was, instead, trying to document the moment when a spiritual or theological project hardened into something far more mechanical, compulsive and inescapable.

In this purview, a vocational calling contracts into a mere job and sacred duty. It becomes, over time, indistinguishable from base economic necessity.

One of the most quoted lines in the book comes near the end, where Weber declares that modern capitalism leaves us “with a casing as hard as steel” (“ein stahlhartes Gehäuse”). This was translated dramatically (and decisively) into English by Talcott Parson as the “iron cage”.

Weber’s point was that the moral energy that once drove the Protestant ethic has drained away. What remains are mere behavioural patterns, which have become reflexes. People still work obsessively; they still chase success as if it had ultimate meaning. The difference is that now they’re unsure why.

Australian philosopher Michael Symonds has argued that this tragic logic, where the terror of predestination drives believers into a compulsive ethic of work, produces a world where meaning itself becomes hard to grasp. The result is not just what sociologists – also following Weber – call “disenchantment”, but a deeper void. It is a world where suffering no longer automatically invites compassion and where love begins to look like inefficiency.

Labour becomes the only reliable reassurance available to us. “Waste of time,” Weber wrote, “is the first and in principle the deadliest of sins.” In this world, leisure is guilty until proven innocent.

This is one of Weber’s most unsettling points: a system designed to prove spiritual worth ends up building a world whose very operating logic seems to deny that any such worth exists. In chasing this particular kind of meaning, we have built structures that erode our ability to believe that anything means much at all. Modern capitalism is both a consequence of Protestantism and its betrayal.

Why it still matters

Clearly, one doesn’t need to know about Calvinism to inhabit the world Weber described. And yet, if anything, the patterns he traced have only deepened. It’s true of much of the way culture works more generally – the religious fingerprints are still there, though we rarely notice them.

It only takes a moment to realise that the word “secular” is itself derived from Christian theology and tradition. In the end, Weber suggested, capitalism didn’t kill religion; it merely embalmed it. It kept the ethic’s shell, while draining its transcendence.

Take the fixation with self-optimisation. The language of “vocation” is everywhere, but it has been flattened into a lifestyle brand. Work isn’t just work anymore; it is supposed to be passion, purpose, identity. You’re not just employed, you’re “doing what you love”. This idea is tempting, but it quickly turns into a trap, because if work is meaning, then failure or exhaustion start to look like moral flaws.

That logic – moralising productivity, pathologising rest – feels deeply Protestant, even if no one would put it that way. You hear it in career coaching, education reform, wellness talk. Everyone is encouraged to act like a miniature firm: building your brand, investing in “human capital”, squeezing returns from every hour.

But the anxiety has shifted. For early Protestants, work was a way of reassuring yourself that you might be saved. For many today, work is a way of proving you’re not disposable. The panic hasn’t gone, but the stakes have changed. It isn’t quite heaven or hell anymore. It is something smaller, if no less pressing: relevance.

And the ethic keeps working on us. We feel the pull to be useful, to produce, to stay busy – even when the rewards are uncertain, or vanish altogether. You can see it in people working long hours in precarious jobs, or feeling guilty when they take a break, or struggling to explain what they’re “doing” if it isn’t obviously productive.

That, roughly speaking, was Weber’s warning. He wasn’t just telling a story about religion and economics. He was tracing how ideas shape habits, and how habits, once institutionalised, keep working long after the ideas themselves fade.

Deposit on a cage

So even though The Protestant Ethic looks like an old book about theology and early capitalism, it still slices into modern life with surprising force. It explains why Elon Musk’s factory-floor sleepovers are admired instead of pitied, why “burnout” is treated like a rite of passage.

And it reminds us that systems don’t need belief to keep running. At base, they only need compliance.

Weber’s point wasn’t just that, once upon a time, religion fatefully shaped economics. It was that a certain kind of theology, and the specifically religious anxiety to which it gave rise, engendered a system that outlived its theology and hardened into something else entirely.

The religious energy that once drove productive labour aimed at glorifying God was stripped of transcendence. Where people once worked to glimpse signs of salvation, we now work to prove we still matter at all. The world has been disenchanted, but the demands that preceded the disenchantment remain.

There are evident paradoxes here. The ethic meant to reveal God’s grace ends up, in Weber’s account, eroding the very idea that the world has meaning at all. Even if it no longer speaks, the world still functions.

Weber’s tone at the end is not prescriptive or revolutionary, but mildly tragic. He offers no remedy and no call to arms. He asks only that we come to see how we got to where we are – how a certain religious tradition helped us build a machine that now runs on our labour without our belief.

In describing how capitalism arose, Weber was also probing how we became the kind of people ready and willing to live inside it. Although his tone is tragic, one thing remains clear: the world he describes is not determined by the stars or “human nature”. And although he is often set against reformers like Marx, Marxists can use him too, for Weber was willing to ask how it is that we came to see a cage not only as tolerable, but as something we’d put a deposit on.

Before his retirement, I worked alongside Michael Symonds at Western Sydney University. I also know William Cavanaugh. I’m happy to erase those names or parts of the article if citing them is seen as … I’m not even quite sure … nepotistic?

– ref. Why do we think hard work is virtuous? Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic gives a sharp answer – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-think-hard-work-is-virtuous-max-webers-protestant-ethic-gives-a-sharp-answer-257826

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCL

In announcing that Prince Andrew would no longer use his title or honours, Buckingham Palace hoped to shift the spotlight away from his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the accusations of sexual abuse he has faced (and denied).

The media were encouraged to focus instead on King Charles’s visit to the Vatican, and the royal family’s good works. But this strategy has failed. Revelations about Prince Andrew’s living arrangements and finances have whetted the appetite for more.

One such revelation is his royal residence. Andrew has a 75-year lease from the crown estate on Royal Lodge, a large house in Windsor Great Park. The Times published the lease, revealing that he paid £1 million for it plus a minimum of £7.5 million in refurbishments. In return for this very large upfront cost, Andrew pays an annual rent of “one peppercorn (if demanded)”.

The crown estate is a statutory corporation operating under the Crown Estate Act 1961 (as amended in 2025), which manages a huge property portfolio including Regent Street in London and most of the foreshore around the coast, generating a big income from wind farms.

Its net revenue profit – which in 2023-24 amounted to £1.1 billion – is paid to the Treasury. The government uses 12% of the profits to fund the sovereign grant, which provides financial support for the monarchy.

Read more:
Why Prince Andrew is still a prince – and how his remaining titles could be removed

Since 2019, when he ceased to be a working royal, Prince Andrew no longer receives any public funding from the sovereign grant. Mysteries about his sources of income may be hard for the palace to dispel without being more transparent about the royal finances more generally.

One particular area of interest is the Duchy of Lancaster, which last year provided King Charles with £27 million of his income. The palace website states that this is “a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the sovereign. Its main purpose is to provide an independent source of income, and is used mainly to pay for official expenditure not met by the Sovereign Grant (primarily to meet expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family).”

Prior to the sovereign grant, the monarchy was funded through the civil list. This was an annual sum of money voted by parliament, which included the annuities received by other members of the royal family.

Since the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, those annuities are no longer published. The Duchy of Lancaster’s annual report and accounts gives lots of detail about the Duchy’s income, but none about its expenditure.

The Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey MP has called for a select committee inquiry to “properly scrutinise” the crown estate, and Baroness (Margaret) Hodge, former chair of the public accounts committee, has called for greater transparency about the royal finances.

What next for Andrew?

The nine commissioners who manage the crown estate’s holdings are property experts who operate independently of government and the crown. They cannot simply terminate Prince Andrew’s lease, but there is mounting pressure on him to relinquish the lease voluntarily.

When it comes to his remaining titles, both the palace and UK government will be desperate to close the story down and move on. The government took the line that it was all a matter for the king and the palace.

Sir Alan Campbell, leader of the House of Commons, said: “The question of [Andrew’s] titles is primarily a question for His Majesty. I know there has been speculation about legislation, but the palace has been clear it recognises that there are other matters this House needs to be getting on with, and we are guided in this by the palace.”

In practice, the palace will also be guided by the government, which will be keen to avoid legislation if at all possible. Short of legislation, there is little more the palace can do.

The king could issue letters patent declaring that Prince Andrew is no longer His Royal Highness. He could also give an undertaking that Andrew would never be called upon to serve as a counsellor of state, deputising for the monarch in his absence.

If public anger remained unabated, and legislation was deemed unavoidable, a short bill could be prepared to strip Andrew of his peerage titles and remove him as a counsellor of state. It could be passed relatively quickly: the Counsellors of State Act 2022, which added Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list of potential counsellors of state, went through all its Commons stages in a single day.

The finances are trickier. The Commons public accounts committee may hold a single evidence session just on Andrew’s finances, or launch a wider inquiry.

It may be hard to avoid the latter. Having made public the lease on Royal Lodge, the crown estate may find it difficult to refuse to disclose the leases on other properties occupied by the royal family, or other information about its finances.

If parliament decides to launch a wider inquiry, the payments to other members of the royal family funded by the Duchy of Lancaster would be an obvious place to start.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

Robert Hazell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Prince Andrew’s ‘one peppercorn’ lease exposes how little is known about royal finances – https://theconversation.com/prince-andrews-one-peppercorn-lease-exposes-how-little-is-known-about-royal-finances-268528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Baker, Research Scientist, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading

Hurricane Melissa is tearing through the Caribbean, bringing record-breaking wind and torrential rain to Jamaica – the island’s first ever category 5 landfall. What makes Melissa so alarming isn’t just its size and strength, but the speed with which it became so powerful. In a single day, it exploded from a moderate storm into a major hurricane with 170mph winds.

Scientists call this “rapid intensification”. As the planet warms, this violent strengthening is becoming more common. These storms are especially dangerous as they often catch people off guard. That’s because forecasting rapid intensification, although improving, remains a huge challenge.

Better forecasting will depend on more detailed monitoring of a hurricane’s inner core – especially close to the eyewall, where the strongest winds occur – and on higher-resolution computer models that can better capture a storm’s complex structure. New machine learning (AI) techniques may help but are largely untested.

As things stand, rapidly intensifying storms mean that communities are often provided little warning to evacuate, and government agencies may have little time to make preparations, such as opening evacuation shelters or preparing critical infrastructure.

That’s what happened with Hurricane Otis in Mexico in 2023 and Typhoon Rai in the Philippines in 2021. Both rapidly intensified shortly before landfall, and hundreds of people died because they were unable to reach safety.

Fortunately, the chance of Melissa reaching a category 5 hurricane was forecast sometime before it made landfall, helped by the storm moving very slowly towards Jamaica.

Read more:
How hurricanes will change as the Earth warms

Perfect storms

A particular set of conditions are required to fuel rapid intensification: high humidity in the atmosphere, low wind shear (the change in wind speed with height), and warm sea-surface temperatures. Recent research suggests that since the early 1980s, warmer seas and a more moist atmosphere means these conditions are becoming more common. These trends can’t be explained by natural variability. It seems human-caused climate change is significantly increasing the probability of rapid intensification.

In the case of Melissa, the fingerprints of climate change are visible on many of the factors that made it such a devastating storm. Sea-surface temperatures in the region are currently more than a degree above normal – conditions that may be 500 to 800 times more likely due to climate change. Warmer seas provide extra energy for a storm’s intensification. Rising sea levels also mean storm surges and coastal flooding are more severe.

Scientists are confident that rainfall is increasing as a result of climate change, because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, a trend evident in the North Atlantic. Melissa is travelling slowly, which leads to higher rainfall totals over land. Forecasts predicted mountainous regions of Jamaica could receive up to a metre of rainfall, raising the risk of severe flooding and landslides.

Some studies even suggest climate change is slowing down the speed of cyclones themselves (the rate at which the whole storm moves). This would mean they linger over land and dump more rain. Simulations by a colleague of ours at the University of Reading confirmed that past hurricanes striking Jamaica would produce more rainfall in today’s warmer climate.

The growing tendency for storms to rapidly intensify is helping more of them to reach the strongest categories, and that can be deadly when this surge in strength is not well forecasted. As the planet warms, this risk will only grow. That makes it crucial for scientists to improve hurricane monitoring and forecast models, as well as for emergency responders to prepare for the scenario of an intense hurricane arriving with little time to prepare.

Hurricane Melissa has brought the risks into sharp focus: storms are intensifying faster, hitting harder and giving people less time to escape.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Alexander Baker receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council.

Liz Stephens also works for the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre as the Science Lead. She receives funding from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the International Development Research Centre in Canada, as part of the CLARE (CLimate Adaptation and REsilience) research programme.

– ref. Hurricane Melissa is a warning – why violent storms are increasingly catching the world off guard – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-melissa-is-a-warning-why-violent-storms-are-increasingly-catching-the-world-off-guard-268604