Australia’s demographic make-up is changing rapidly. AAP Image/Dean Lewins

By Bob Birrell, Researcher at Monash University

One of the sharpest divides in attitudes to Australia Day celebrations is between those who think of Australia as a nation of migrants and those who regard Australians as a unique people and culture.

For those who see Australia as a nation of migrants, evidence of growth in the numbers and diversity of the overseas-born is a cause for celebration. They can claim Australia is becoming an even more exciting multicultural mix. On the other hand, those who think of the Australian identity as a unique outcome of generations of settlers’ encounters with the land are likely to see migration as a challenge.

The latter group are typically proud of the egalitarian value set, down-to-earth lifestyle and sense of place that they believe is the outcome of this experience. For them, the challenge is to use Australia Day to articulate this heritage, in the hope of persuading migrants to embrace it as their own.

The changing face of Australia

Australia’s population has grown rapidly from migration over the past decade. This partly reflects the economic buoyancy triggered by the resources boom and the decisions of successive Australian governments to encourage employers to source their permanent and temporary worker needs from migrants. It has also been driven by the influx of overseas students, almost all coming from Asia. They have been responsible for around a third of the growth in net overseas migration during the past decade.

The result,  according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates, is that the share of Australia’s population born overseas has grown from 23% in 2000 to 26.8% in 2010. Australia is the developed-world champion in this regard, with our nearest rivals being Canada with 21.3% of its population overseas-born in 2010, Sweden with 14.1% and the USA with 13.5%.

In terms of diversity, the outcome is even more striking. Again, according to the ABS, 58% of the migrants who arrived in Australia over the decade 2000 to 2010, who were still here in 2010, were born in Asia, North Africa and the Middle East. As a consequence,  the share of Australia’s total population born in these regions as a percentage of Australia’s total population has grown from 6.7% in 2000 to 10.6% in 2010.

This is a remarkable transformation, considering how controversial Asian migration was in the 1980s. At that time, suggestions from critics that 5% or more of the population might be born in Asia by the early 21st century were regarded as outlandish.

A tale of two cities

A further relevant demographic outcome is that the surge in Asian, North African and Middle Eastern migration has primarily affected Sydney and Melbourne, since most choose to live in these two cities. This is largely because that is where the main communities from these countries are established.

We await the results of the 2011 Census for up-to-date estimates of settlement patterns. But according to the 2006 Census, 77% of mainland-China-born migrants still in Australia who arrived between 2001 and 2006 were living in Sydney and Melbourne; 75% of the India-born, and 91% of the Lebanon-born. There are still large numbers of UK and New Zealand migrants coming to Australia, but their destinations are largely Perth and South-East Queensland respectively.

Australia is now two nations as regards ethnic diversity. Sydney and Melbourne sharply differ from non-metropolitan Australia and from the other state capitals.

There is only a dim awareness of the magnitude of these demographic changes within the wider community. Nevertheless, such is the scale of the Asian, North African and Middle Eastern presence in Sydney and Melbourne that there can be few residents who have not noticed changes in the ethnic make-up of their community.

A nation divided

The celebration of Australia Day 2012 will reflect the divide in attitudes towards diversity and national identity outline above. For those who embrace the nation-of-migrants perspective, recent demographic developments are an occasion to highlight Australia’s distinctive diversity.

For those who believe a unique, shared culture and way of life has been forged here, an emphasis on diversity may generate a sense of unease and even loss. They would prefer to see their heritage venerated.

I’m afraid demography is against them.

Liked it? Find more articles like this at The Conversation

Miss us? After a short summer hiatus, fastBREAK is back for 2012.

We’re having an underground launch for the new year by taking an evening to look back at how it all began. Every beginning has new challenges, set-backs and fist-bumps to honour first achievements.

fastBREAK: Beginnings
9:00pm – 10:00pm
Thursday 9th February
Surry Hills Library
405 Crown St, Surry Hills
Cost: Free (catering provided)
Bookings: phone Surry Hills Library on 8374 6230 to book your spot!

 So has our crippling desire for “more” actually left us with much “less”?

This is what proponents of ‘collaborative consumption’ believe. Collaborative consumption is about communities sharing resources so that we purchase less goods and therefore produce less waste. It is the notion that we should ‘borrow’ rather than ‘buy’ and ‘share’ rather than ‘own’.

Collaborative consumption is emerging, not only a new sector of the market, but as an entire culture. In fact, last year TIME magazine named it one of the “10 ideas that will change the world”. Entrepreneurs have been quick to recognise the popularity of this growing trend and have developed business models which facilitate the sharing of everything from cars to cakes, fashion to food and even houses.

 In Sydney, where there is an ever increasing number people to borrow from, and a rapidly shrinking amount of space to store things, the collaborative consumption business model is a perfect fit. Lisa Fox, co founder of Sydney based collaborative consumption business Open Shed spoke to Vibewire about how Open Shed is facilitating this new practice  in Australia.

“There is a real movement away from hyper-consumption. People are becoming more aware of all this “stuff” that they have”

Open Shed is a peer to peer rental site which connects those people with ‘stuff’ that they rarely use to the people who want to use it. Owners can list their an item on Open Shed and set the terms of rent. They choose a daily or weekly rental rate and the bond the renter must provide.  Renters log on and search in their area for the item they’re after. Once they find it, they can communicate with the owner to organize when to pick up the item. Like online auction giant Ebay, Open Shed utilizes profiles and feedback to provide greater assurance for both renters and owners. In addition to this, a secret code must be transferred from the renter to the owner for the owner to access their payment. This acts as a ‘virtual handshake’ and ensures that both parties have come to agreement before any payment or transfer of items is made. Items available for rent include everything from golf clubs, bread makers, cameras, suitcases and even an Ipad which is available for rent at $2 a day

Lisa believes that one of the biggest challenges for Open Shed  is shifting people’s habits from ‘owning’ to ‘sharing’. But it seems that Australians have been quick to catch on.

“One guy in Melbourne had put his entire shed on there after we had been online for 3 days”

Open Shed and collaborative consumption is also gaining recognition amongst the business community. After being online for just 7 weeks, Open Shed recently won the Nokia’s In Hindsight competition. This saw them walking away with a prize of $10, 000 and a mentorship program with the CEO of the iconic sports brand, Skins.

 So what does Lisa think is the secret to Open Shed’s success?

Want to make a bit of cash? Have stuff in your garage/cupboard/basement that you never seem to use but think that someone else might need?  Find out what collaborative consumption is all about by visiting www.openshed.com.au and listing your item. But first, check out Open Shed’s ‘How to’ video below. 

 Know any cool businesses based on collaborative consumption? Let us know in the comments section below!

The Occupy movement, began four weeks ago in New York, where protesters occupied Wall Street to protest against the 1% in society who thrive on corporate riches while the other 99% are faced with financial and environmental uncertainty and equality. To date there are now 1600 occupations globally.

I first went to inspect the Occupy Sydney movement, last Tuesday and was met with less than 50 people camping out in the upper part of Martin Place, appropriately placed outside the Reserve Bank of Australia. With a few lack lustre police officers standing around, it certainly didn’t demonstrate the same passion and emotion I had witnessed of other global occupations. Attending yesterday’s raid showed quite the opposite, with around 400 people in attendance, it was a lively affair.

In saying that, it certainly wasn’t the thousands people that I expected at the campaign against capitalist greed. It felt like there was a definite core group of passionate protesters who were heavily involved in the democratic proceedings of the general assembly and then a whole load of half hearted spectators and other people using the event as a way to make money, selling t-shirts and pamphlets for unrelated causes (become a Marxist anyone?) Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a stuffy right wing conservative, I fully support the Occupy Sydney movement and all that it stands for, which is an equal society through a fair and true democracy. I felt the other people there were detracting from the whole event and from an outside perspective, made the whole place seem disorganised.

Arriving at the rally, I was met with lively Latin music, with hundreds of people dancing and cavorting around, enjoying a sausage sizzle – it certainly wasn’t what I was expecting of a rally. About half an hour in, the General Assembly got under way and as mentioned before, only a third of the assembled crowd appeared to be involved in the decisions. Whilst a little disorganised, it was great to see so many people out there who are passionate and care so much about the society they live in. Watching the General Assembly communicate via hand signals and pass motions in a wholly democratic way was inspired. There were an array of speakers, and I think this is what is so unique about the Occupy movement; that people from so many parts of society, and so many industry sectors have come together to speak out against the same issues. There were Economic Professors, representatives from various teachers associations, and speakers from another protest happening at the same time, The Chilean Solidarity Movement – who are protesting for the right for free education in Chile.

While all these speakers were excellent and all did an amazing job of articulating the thoughts and feelings of so many, one speaker whose anger and frustration really resonated with me was Warren Smith from the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). He discussed how important it was for the MUA to be with the protesters as it showed a sign of solidarity since they (the MUA) believe in the principals of the movement. He was there to speak out against corporate greed to stop the consistent attacks on working men and women. He addressed some really interesting facts about fuel powerhouse Shell, who have been criticised for employing people to work for cheap labour despite the company earning $35, 000 in profit. Per minute. He mentioned that nothing comes without a struggle, but it would all be worth it. He was the only speaker who I could truly say captured the entire crowds attention and really raised the morale.

The Occupy Sydney movement, won’t be in Martin Place tonight as the future direction of the movement hangs in the balance. The eight days that Sydney was occupied, despite in small numbers, did show in incalcuable ways how much the 99% are defiant that things must change and now. Or simply put it’s time for us to ‘unfuck the world’.

For many years Bert and Ernie have been entertaining children all over the world on the iconic children’s show Sesame Street. In addition to entertaining children they have been having playful arguments, sharing a bedroom, eating cookies in bed, making clay sculptures of each other and doing lots of other things that ‘normal’, most definitely ‘not homosexual’ Muppets do in their spare time. Considering the unique relationship that Bert and Ernie have it’s not hard to see why there have been rumours around their sexual orientation since the characters came into existence. However not everyone is inclined to agree with or acknowledge the homosexual undertones of their relationship, which is fine, after all anyone who has ever lived in a share house would understand that you can live with someone and not have a relationship with them. While the nature of Bert and Ernie’s relationship has been under speculation for years, the recent legalisation of gay marriage in New York has spurred a movement to have the couple get hitched, which as you can imagine doesn’t go down to well with the Tea Party and co. Strung up in-between political movements and simple kids entertainment Bert and Ernie have become a hot topic for a much wider audience than simply the kiddies.

In June New York became the largest state to legalise same sex marriage, and with it a petition was started to get the two long standing Muppet room mates down the aisle too. But not everyone is so keen on this idea. The Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell has said ‘they are not gay, they are not straight, they are puppets they don’t exist below the waist’ and Sydney Morning Herald columnist Ros Marsden asked ‘has anyone noticed Bert and Ernie are puppets? They’re constructed of cotton, wire and acrylic hair’. Marsden and Knell seem to be under the impression that people have been watching Sesame Street and thinking it was real. What Ros Marsden? They’re puppets you say? I had no idea! I am glad you have pointed out that they are constructed from wire and cotton because usually when I see bright yellow and orange furry creatures on TV I think they are real. I mean seriously, give the audience a bit of credit. It is all very logical to point out that Bert and Ernie are puppets, but they are also prominent characters of one of the worlds largest and most influential kids TV shows, one that plays a big role in shaping children’s views. This attaches a whole lot more power than a simply being a puppet and any adult should be able to see that.

If they are Puppets not humans then why do Miss Piggy and Kermit have a relationship? If they are puppets why to they interact, why do they talk, why do they eat, drink, have fun and experience feelings of being happy or sad? If they are puppets not humans how can Ernie and Bert be ‘good friends’? If the characters can be male or female, it makes sense that they can have a sexual orientation. What is interesting is that Sesame Street has been pretty progressive in the past and has included people of minorities in it’s show. So why haven’t they included any gay characters yet? Why not change that now?

In a sense I can understand why some people don’t want Bert and Ernie getting married, I thought they were something closer to brothers when I watched the show as a child. Whether it is Bert and Ernie that getting hitched or introducing a new character into the show, the gay population should be represented and children should know about these issues from a young age. Because if they do not become familiar with these issues when they are young the implicit Otherness that comes with learning about ‘taboo’ subjects cannot be avoided, and at the end of the day being homosexual should not be a taboo, it should be as normal as Miss Piggy and Kermit going on a date.

Many people have been vocally apposed to the idea of Bert and Ernie getting married for a variety of reasons. One reason is the old ‘slippery slope’ argument that is popular among many conservatives seen in the NYDaily News article saying ‘Why stop there? Why not march Yogi Bear and Boo Boo down the aisle, too?’ Well obviously not, the idea of having a gay couple on the show is so it can accurately represent the different people that make up our society. Despite what people who subscribe to the the ‘slippery slope’ augment may think, just because two same sex characters get married on Sesame Street doesn’t mean that the Grouch and Elmo, Tin Tin and Captain Haddock or Gumby and Pokey are going to be walking down the isle. And really, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume this. At the end of the day the gay community need to be represented, just like any other group within society. Sesame Street has represented a variety of characters that stretch beyond the usual straight-white-male template, there are Mexican, Jewish, African American and female characters. So why not represent the gay community?

The NYDaily News article then goes on to say ‘the years from two to four, must be walled off from the passions of adults.’ What is this ‘passion from adults’? We seem to be obsessed with this idea of protecting children’s innocence, but what does that even mean? Is a mother and father living together a ‘passion’, is an old married couple a ‘passion of adults’? If that’s the case you may as well hide children away in a place where they will never encounter anyone in a healthy monogamous relationship. Yes, then our children will be safe with their innocence preserved…and they will have Absolutely. No. Idea.

Other critics say that they don’t want their kids TV shows to be loaded with political agendas.Which makes me wonder, have these people ever watched a Disney movie? Here’s a political agenda for your child, that of a white male. Cinderella saved by a Prince, ignored colonialism in Pocahontas, Belle and Ariel suffering as a result of their intellectual curiosity, we could read into the patriarchal tendencies of Disney movies but that would get us no where. The point is there is no such thing as an ideology free zone, there is no such thing as pure entertainment and while we like to think that kids really like watching Elmo get tickled we can’t deny that TV shows like Sesame Street help to shape a children’s view of what is normal. And in our modern world, I really hope that sometime soon we can start calling same sex marriage normal.

Being together, in any way you wish to interpret it, with your friends, family, lover or community is better. Whilst being alone is important for personal development, we find ourselves becoming increasingly disconnected from society, bordering on apathetic. It’s important for us to learn to be together again.

Not having many years of age under my belt, it is difficult for me to comment on what it was like ‘back in the day’, however it is noticeable that society, in general is becoming insular. Someone says hello to you in the street and you run a mile because you think they are a paedophile. Neighbours are not given a little understanding, and they certainly don’t become your friends; you’re more likely to leave an abusive note on their windscreen than have them over for tea, and don’t get me started on the height of rudeness amongst people on public transport. The verdict is in: People care less and less about one another.

The recent London Riots have highlighted the dismal attitude that many, particularly the youth have towards society and their community. Whilst the rioters may have been working together to loot and destroy whole London suburbs, it’s generally considered a feeling of isolation from society at large and a dissatisfaction with the government that sparked the riots in the first place. Rioting of course, is not a new phenomenon. People have been rioting for hundreds of years to demonstrate their unhappiness, usually because of the government or those in authority. Of all the images we have seen of the riots the most poignant of them all would have to be the callous mugging of Malaysian student, Ashraf Haziq, who thought he was being helped by a group of youths, only to later realise he was being mugged by them. It unfortunately encapsulates the attitudes and lack of moral compass of all those people involved in the riots. While for days it felt like whole communities were destroying each other, it was nice to see the concept of togetherness still existed in the form of groups of Londoners who bandied together with their brooms and rubber gloves to help clean up the mess caused by the riots and to show a sign of solidarity.

Whilst the London riots were so much about the youth, the recent phone hacking scandal that brought News Corporation to its knees also highlight society’s top tier’s disregard of togetherness. A newspaper hacking the voicemail of a murdered girl certainly does not celebrate or respect society. If we lived in a society that cared about each other, rather than making money at the expense of each other, we wouldn’t be dealing with situations such as these. It’s becoming harder and harder to be a member of this global community and accept that practices and behaviour of recent events is an OK way for society to conduct itself. Perhaps we have spent so long now on our own we no longer know how to behave with each other?

Social media is a fantastic way of keeping in touch with your friends, not just your nearest and dearest though, your old school friends, your fourth cousin, and some random you bonded over a taco with one late Saturday night. Whilst social media like Facebook means you can keep in touch with people at any time, it also deters you from actual verbal communication. When you become used to texting, writing on walls and and chatting, it’s sometimes hard to forget how to have an actual conversation. In person. With someone.

While the world has become closer in terms of globalisation, we’ve never been further apart. Society needs to realise it’s better being together. It’s better learning about our differences than fighting each other because we don’t understand them. It’s better to tell someone you like what they’ve said rather than clicking an icon. It’s a hard pill to swallow when we realise that usually it takes a natural disaster or some horrific tragedy to bring communities together. Don’t get me wrong, there are countless of people and community initiatives out there who are taking on this notion of community spirit themselves and are trying improve their world, but there is also many of us, in some way, lack compassion and understanding for their community and society. Surely we should constantly be engaging in some from of togetherness with our communities? I’m not suggesting we all stand on mountain tops holding hands and singing, all I’m saying is that we should participate a little bit more in each other’s lives, no matter how small the gesture. As the saying goes, those that play together, stay together. So, who wants to play?

A healthy media industry is vital for a healthy democracy; it provides the information from which we form our opinions on how the country is run. Perhaps it is my growing older, (theoretically) wiser and definitely more cynical but I think the state of our media industry is far from adequate. I seem to have trouble distinguishing the difference between MX, Sydney Morning Herald and The Telegraph and headlines like ‘Pilot, stewardess sacked over cockpit sex‘ and ‘Former swimsuit model turns rodeo rider ‘, it’s not hard to see why. Media reporting like this should not become the norm, although sometimes it seems it already has.

Every adult in this country has to vote, and if they are taking headlines like that to the ballot box then what is the point? People should be able to pick up the paper and have access to simple, factual, information about politics, not what politicians had for breakfast, what they do in their evenings or anything to do with their private life. I’m all for being a voyeur but leave it to trashy reality TV shows not politics. You should not have to be some media studies student or journalist to be able to sift through the crap out there and figure out details about policies, government and how our country is being run. It is the media’s job to tell us this information, but paradoxically it is getting harder and harder to find mainstream media that provides this.

The lack of interest in politics from young people cannot simply be blamed on poor media reportage. With Tony Abbott’s childlike stubbornness and Julia Gillard coming across more like a character from Kath and Kim than a politician, it’s not hard to see why young people have become increasingly apathetic. These politicians have become so caricatured they’re not even really human enough to hate. They embody that repetitive, irritating quality of a neighbour’s dog that won’t shut up- you never really hate the dog you just become adept at blocking it out, much like young people with politics.

I am a person that is interested in politics, sure I am not going and volunteering at my party of choice but I feel like I have a responsibility to know what’s going on. Lately, keeping up to date with politics has become so painful if you asked me what I would prefer to do out of watching Q&A and repeatedly bashing my head against a brick wall I wouldn’t be able to answer you.

Australian politicians have gotten lazy. As the late, great David Foster Wallace explained in his article about the 2000 McCain trail, American politicians ‘cannot afford to have the politics get ugly and negative and have voters get so bored and cynical and disgusted with the whole thing that they don’t even bother to vote’. Unlike America, in Australia it is compulsory to vote, thus Gillard and Abbott don’t have to worry about this. They have treated their relationship with voters like someone who has gotten too safe and lazy in their relationship with their boyfriend/girlfriend, they whine too much, don’t write back to texts, don’t answer questions properly, stop being ‘nice’ and in extremely ugly scenarios go to the toilet with the door open. Yes politics has gotten ugly and negative and we are bored and cynical.

When we see politicians on our televisions there is an overwhelming lack of interest and a deep disengagement that is often a defence against pain, against bashing your head against a brick wall, again and again and again. Seeing topics that we care about, like climate change, refugees, interest rates or the GFC, repeatedly pummelled with words by politicians who we don’t care about is beyond irritation. It’s down right painful, to the point that it seems masochistic to even try and engage with these issues. Current Australian politics is a breeding ground for cynicism, bitterness and a wholly anti-democratic sentiment, which is scary. I want to care, I really do but when I pick up the paper and I read about Kristina Keneally’s hair extensions, an article by Andrew Bolt or spend an hour needling myself with frustration while watching Q&A, it seems silly not to shrug in apathy.

It can be fun to look back at the likes of Churchill and Keating who were not only commanding, but downright hilarious (they were also assholes but who isn’t? Right?). They were not hilarious in the way that modern politicians are. Now we laugh at politicians, it’s a kind of gallows humour that stems from the political landscape being about as appealing and funny as a detention centre. Sure I know it’s easy to be nostalgic for the past and ignore the negatives but here is a classic Keating insult that definitely wouldn’t go astray today, “Hi Jim, Paul Keating here, just because you swallowed a f***ing dictionary when you were about fifteen doesn’t give you the right to pour a bucket of s*** over the rest of us.” I told you they were going to the toilet with the door open.

But what would happen if Gillard or Abbott let loose a Keating style slur today? More than likely it would be a media frenzy. News reports would label one sexist or elitist or any other ‘ist’ that makes a good headline. Within a day there would be hundreds of articles on the web debating the said slur, followed by groups springing up on facebook, then the politicians would go on talk shows defending whatever they said while audiences are back to the usual head-bashing-wall routine not to mention the extreme left/right wing trolling that would appear on comment boards. Maybe I am exaggerating, but the fact is that in our modern twenty-four hour news cycle, this wouldn’t be that uncommon. So can we really blame politicians for being so boring and vacuous when this is the kind of hyperbolic response that can blow up around them? It is the old chicken or the egg question. Have politicians been forced into vapid repetition in response to a gossip style twenty-four hour news cycle or is the media catering to political campaigns based on negativity and repetition? There is no simple answer, media and politics will always be intertwined and forever problematic, the real question here is whether we care about these problems. As the media churns out articles, Gillard repeats the word sustainable and Abbott yells liar, there is a nagging voice in the back of our minds that asks, why do you care at all?

The organic food industry is growing, I have seen it, you have seen it, we have all seen it and more than likely we have eaten it. But the question remains, why? And what does it all mean? The term ‘organic’ means that food is grown without synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetic modification, irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives. Basically it’s the normal, tried and tested way of doing things – seeds go in the ground and plant growth ensues, but many people seem to forget or realize this. Organic food is not grown in some sort of miracle soil and watered with the tears of Jesus Christ to bring you a high nutritional value tomato. It is a normal piece of food, that you, I, or anyone with a patch of dirt could grow. And we have been growing it, for thousands of years. Only in the 20th century did we start adding various chemical concoctions to the mix. Most scientific evidence shows there is not much difference in the makeup or taste of chemically grown food, however, chemicals have been responsible for a myriad of serious environmental problems. So even if you find all the preachy hippy stuff hard to handle, you have to admit, beneath the dreadlocks, patchouli oil, and wheat grass shots, they have a point.

But is caring for the environment the real reason that we have tuned back to older methods of farming? The way the general populace has responded to other environmental problems suggests otherwise (hint: global warming). Sure there is a percentage of people who genuinely care about the environment, people for whom the impending death of the planet is more then an abstraction. But then there are people who buy organic for novelty of it, people who watch MasterChef the night before then go to Coles and buy the first green packet they see, people who buy it to give them that warm fuzzy feeling inside that western people like to achieve through tokenistic gestures like buying recycled toilet paper or cute cards from Oxfam (see: McDonald’s takeaway cups for cute environmental frog or tuna cans that say ‘save the dolphins!’). Perhaps more than any of the above, the organic movement has hit a cultural nerve, it has become our response to being alienated from the products we consume. Don’t worry, I’m not going to delve too deep into the murky waters of Marxist theory. Even though he is old, beardy, Russian and very much dead, Marx’s Theory of Alienation still resonates with problems in our society today.

We seem to be stuck in a stalemate, a paradox that cannot exist. We are trying desperately to reconnect with what we consume, we want organic, home grown, slow roasted, home-style, we want all this but we want it now, and lots of it. The only way to provide all this with the speed and quantity that our capitalist appetite demands is to industrialize the production. So home-style cookies are baked in factories or better yet, you can by them from Betty Crocker, organic vegetables are not in your back yard or community gardens but vast expansive and industrialized farms, with factories, processing and packaging. So have we made the old new again? Where does this leave us? It seems we just as alienated from the products as we have always been but now they are a just shade of green. But hey, at the end of the day I would prefer a shade of green over a shade of grey, and if we don’t start considering the impact of our actions, the environment will be as grey as Marx’s beard.

Having been the chief football writer for The Age since 1999 and having won the AFL Players Association’s football writer of the year, the AFL Media Association’s most outstanding football writer and most outstanding feature writer, she has known no shortage of success. By breaking the mould and doing it with style, ease and journalistic prowess she has made headways for other women to break into male oriented sectors of society, both inside and outside journalism and AFL. Wilson’s writing is masterful, analytical and shows an in depth knowledge of the game. Critics will flaw her for never having played the game (a criticism saved for women in football), one rarely heard about the likes of Bruce McAvaney or Sandy Roberts. Growing up in an AFL family however, Wilson wouldn’t have had to play the game. She is ultra-capable with respect to understanding and engaging with AFL politics, which represents a large part of today’s game. Her father, Ian Wilson, was Richmond Football Club President between 1974 and 1985, so understanding the intricacies and dynamics of the game are second nature to her. Bright as a party strobe and sharp as a carving knife, Wilson appears as a panellist on Footy Classified and 3AWs pre match AFL discussion. Her commentary is enlightening and her confidence is supreme.

According to Rebecca Barr the former Sports Editor at WIN Television Townsville and current News Editor, “considering what Caroline Wilson has achieved in terms of respect as well as awards, there’s no doubt she has shown that women can do just as good a job as a man in a field that’s predominantly male oriented. I believe this is a trend that’s occurring not only in sports journalism but in many other occupations and in society in general. I believe, in the early stages of her career, it may have assisted Caroline to have a family history of involvement in AFL however her success stems from hard work, talent and making sure she knows her stuff!”

Barr goes on to say that sports journalism is still predominantly a male arena and that she doesn’t believe that perception will ever completely disappear. “If a male journalist makes an error it’s because he didn’t do his research… if a female journalist makes the same error it’s because she’s a woman!” declares Barr. “Having been a female working in this field I found that I had to prove I was serious about sport, loved sport, knew about sport and that I could also write about sport before I was truly accepted or taken seriously. I don’t believe a male would have had to endure the same initiation. Having said that, once I was considered one of ‘them’ it was like I’d been welcomed into ‘the family’. My favourite work of Caroline’s is to see her courageously letting fly with her opinions on the numerous footy panel shows she has been involved in, ” states Barr.

Whilst trying to promote Wilson for her courageous advances in the feminist arena it seems fickle and speculative to comment on appearance, which in the male arena does not make a difference. (Sorry Rex Hunt- I’m not looking at anyone in particular). That being said, the cameras do not favour the appearance of Wilson, in the same way as they do with her peers Samantha Lane or Christie Malthouse. However astonishingly, Wilson seems to have that extra ingredient which allows her to protrude this barrier. Also unlike her peers Wilson often sees it her role to actually put the boys back in their place. This is endearing of Wilson, in the same way it is of your mother, or mine. In many ways, this gives her an edge over the boys who at times seem to be quite intimidated by her prowess. Sam Newman favoured fondling a mannequin rather than actually confronting or conversing with his foe in a media spectacle which was aired on The Footy Show.

Some of Wilsons most infamous works including the reporting of the sordid Wayne Carey Affair, The Ricky Nixon scandal and breaking of news on The West Coast Eagles drug scandal combined with Ben Cousins related drama. Wilson always gives enough opinion to keep an article interesting whilst balancing facts with differing viewpoints. The results are invariably well researched, highly knowledgeable yarns which give outsiders, an insider standpoint. These allow readers to gain much coveted insights into the game she knows and loves.

Wilson continues to deliver quality content and commentary for the AFL, and will hopefully continue in this vein long into the future. She may never have played football, but unlike disgraced AFL player agent Ricky Nixon, Wilson rarely, if ever drops the ball. (Please, no pun intended.) She’s unreservedly feisty, talented, successful and paves the way for other women in a male dominated arena. What’s not to get turned on about? The affect Wilson has on me is one of love struck, star struck awe. Her very existence brings with it an uplifting notion that if the affectionately dubbed “Caro” can do it, maybe one day… someone like me could something like that too.

Have any of you ever had the ‘ultimate fail’ job interview? For me, it seems the string of nervous or awkward interviews occur so frequently, that when one goes well, it completely takes me by surprise. Though more often than not, an hour into a newly appointed position, I realise why the meeting went so well. Fair to say I haven’t had held down many good jobs. An outbound cold calling centre comes to mind. There wasn’t much of an interview. Basically, I was roped in off the street mid-banana-bite and thrown into a computer chair and headset before I was able to ask myself if I had even applied for the job in the first place. To the employer, I was suitable because I possessed a voice box. One that didn’t vocalise personal opinion or ask too many questions about the running of the company (let alone the professionalism of those drinking vodka and Ribena at their work desk.) I could read a script repetitively. And that’s all that counted.

Rationally, I wasn’t going to hang around in that place long enough to start asking questions anyway. Still, this is a depressing situation. So why is it that a lot of us succumb to such menial employment? We are after all, smart individuals-more than capable of fulfilling tasks. Unfortunately however, when we come across a potentially rewarding and suitable job advertised, we are left feeling insecure and inexperienced. And it’s in these moments of discovery that I simultaneously feel like swearing and screaming for joy. Let me expand.

When I come across a ‘perfect job’ advertised, my thought processes go a little along the lines of:

“Wow, this is beautiful. Perfect for me. Argh, wait, my resume. No! Why did I have to spend my time and energy in those crumby jobs?! I could have been pursuing the exact thing that would have mentally and physically prepared me for this position! Damn you rent! Damn you life! Okay. I’ve got this though, this is it, it’s gotta be fate. But how are they supposed to know that the job’s perfect for me? My resume looks I’ve picked my employment out of a lucky dip. It is literally built on a crappy mixed bag of random short-term jobs! Well, okay, I’ll re-write the resume. Make it look fancy. I’ve got a University degree underway in a similar field. That’s bound to help. It’s all I’ve really got. Maybe I’ll use a 28 size font for that piece of information, make the document appear fuller. Fat with relevant experience…”

And so a self-destroying mechanism ensues- ‘”No I don’t have that one year of Microsoft Excel experience!”, “Am I really that flexible and friendly?! I mean, I did get pretty angry this morning after realising I would have to succumb to toast instead of my usual muesli on account of there being no milk.” So, what happens when we don’t pass all the criteria necessary for application? Do we still send through a cover letter and resume that is based loosely around passion and interest? Is that enough to secure a position? Usually it’s not. Which leads me to my next thought.

Are the ‘dream-job’ positions filled only by pro-active, academic and energy-producing athletes? I’ve tried my hand at pursuing a regimented routine similar to that of a career Olympian. But, as much as the extra-curricular activities, volunteer roles and daily checklists are enjoyable, they are hard to keep up with. The reality of rent, study and stress often overrides such action.

Competition and expectations are steep within industry positions, steeper than they used to be that’s for sure. I remember being able to pick up my local newspaper and see my father’s pen marks circled around potential jobs. A number would be below the company name and all it took for him to secure a face-to-face meeting was a friendly phone manner and introduction.

Now, however, I find myself online at ridiculous hours of the morning, scanning desperately through employment ads. If i do perchance stumble across a potential position, the ad often has had something like 1000 page views. I think to myself, the poor bugger at the other end of the computer, opening up all those same sounding replies, written hopefully by tired job seekers. I don’t often apply in these cases.

It’s become a tough game that’s for sure, one that I am hardly prepared for. Still, we’ve all got to try. You never know when you might just get a call back. Literally you don’t-I got shortlisted for an interview 7 months after applying for a ‘cashier role’ online. As it turns out the place was a fast-food pizza joint that wanted me to dress up weekly in wigs and crazy socks. I politely declined the offer; but only after grabbing some of their company’s discount vouchers. Is that classified as a ‘professional’ attitude?