So many interesting benefits from the lockdown. Spending more time with children definitely seems like a positive thing to me. Apparently, a lot of workplaces found productivity to be higher working from home as well. Less expenditure, from not being in the office. Why would we ever revert back?

I'm not sure I expected this number to be quite so high, but I audible went "whaaaaaaaat?" reading that.

What is stopping everyone from doing this I wonder.

This seems like a positive thing to me.

This was sort of baffling to me at the time, but only in a way where I had not considered just how much some people rely on childcare. Particularly, single income parents.

This is an interesting observation about the COVID-19 lockdown that I hadn't considered. Shame the gendered norms and practices bounced back after we were no longer in lockdown, though.

Surely everybody has experienced the frantic mother cleaning before people come over just in case their house looks lived in. In every single one of these scenarios, what does the male figure do? Cleaning was largely a woman's job in my childhood home, as my mum didn't work and my father worked shift work in the mines. Even still, if my father did any chores, my mother would nearly always comment on the "quality" of the clean. In my own personal experience, I have lived with partners who have for example, washed the dishes in the evening after cooking a meal - but not wiping down the benches. And that was never something that seemed like it should have been done. But to me, that's very important. There's food spills! There's mess. Ya gotta wipe the bench too. It's part of the job! But apparently not deemed important enough.

This has always baffled me, living with male partners. I recall an instance where a boyfriend had asked me if I were going to thank him for doing the dishes. You live here! Why would I thank you? I do this all the time! Why is this the case? Who is teaching men they can only do things if they get a reward?

Of course it is slow. I recently read an article about women "gatekeeping" certain household chores - believing it easier to simply give in and do them themselves. The man would claim he can't do as good of a job, or the woman is better at it. Who teaches men how to do anything? Their mothers. Household chores and the gender revolution starts with little boys, being impressionable and seeing how the dynamics of their own family play out.

I can understand how this would be detrimental to the mental health of people of colour understanding their queerness during their formative years. How do you support them? It baffles me that there isn't more studies including queer people of colour, considering the level of isolation felt. Seems like it would lead to depressions, particularly in pubescent years where you already don't feel as if you belong anywhere.

A whole new level of identity guilt added to a new layer, in addition to the queerness. How can one validate their own queerness in these types of relationships I wonder.

I can sort of understand this isolation. It must be very difficult to be a part of a culture that you cannot speak the language for. It has been lost as the generations go on, and this isolation definitely comes across when you're a) nonbinary and passing as one way, but not feeling at one with the identity in which you present. and b) a bisexual person dating someone who you would "pass" for being in a heterosexual relationship with. It is disorientating to be queer and in a relationship with someone without losing touch with that part of yourself. I can only imagine how it feels to feel as if you've lost touch with a cultural part of yourself as well.

I think it is very interesting to note the experience of sex work as a make vs a female. It was so transactional, almost like she knew she was uncomfortable in her body. Now it os about so much more.

While I am pleased Majesty discovered The Wall, as it obviously helped her learn a few things about herself. It is interesting to me that such a colonial backdrop was chosen as her "safe space". The acceptance of the city vs the isolation of the hometown has truly done numbers for Majesty and her sense of worth.

I feel like just having that space to interact with other queer people is so important when you're trying to figure these things out. Especially if you're having a lot of internalised shame about your sexuality, brought on by your family's perspective and views. The Wall seems like an integral part of Majesty discovering her identity.

This is heart breaking to me. Inconsistent education, constantly moving around, being "flogged" as a kid. Everything in her life has broken her down. There isn't even a part that thinks she can break out of the cycle.

This just reflects the class inequality in Australia for me. How are these women meant to go about their lives and break the cycle when the vast majority of them have only ever known violence from their parents at a young age? How are they supposed to break the cycle? In all likelihood, they've become accustomed to the violence from their parents, and since they were children, believe this to be normal in a relationship, therefore seeking it out in their partners. How does anyone truly break this cycle?

I also find it curious that not only is Emily a lesbian, but she is also the only non-white main character. Maya, was also one of the only characters I can think of at this time who was not white that was killed. The subtle implications of this speak volumes.

It also should be noted that it is eventually revealed that Allison used Emily for things like practicing kissing, she ultimately led her on to manipulate her knowing her sexuality before Emily had even realised. Again, kinda messed up.

Of all of these shows discussed, this is the only one I have seen. I find it interesting that it wasn't mentioned that there is a plot point where she is being blackmailed with photos of her kissing her then friend Maya (before they commence dating) and her sexuality is framed in a way that is negative, something to be ashamed of, something that A must torment her with. She is visibly angry when she receives the photos and the blackmail from A, and lashes out at Toby whom she believes placed them in her notebook. In contrast, Aria, who was a minor dating her teacher in this series, and ultimately winds up marrying him, I do not like how this is portrayed. There is another character, Charles/CeCe Drake who turned out to be the A villian, who was Allison's older brother who none of them knew existed - because they had transitioned into CeCe Drake. It is heavily implied that this trauma and jealousy of her sister Allison lead to the ultimate torment of her and her friends. Again, instilling the trauma and queerness link.

I'm making this after my other annotation for context. I just find it so interesting, that as a woman, in sexual education classes when I was younger we were literally told about abstinence. Condoms are given out for free vs tampons, because condoms and having sex are deemed more of a necessity than a woman's period (which she does not get a say in) but people choose to have sex. Perhaps again a bit of a hot take, but in this reading I am struggling to form sympathy for this cause. I can sit here and say I certainly would not like my bodily autonomy to be taken away from me, but in this instance people are not dying because they were circumcised. Women are dying because they are denied healthcare - such as abortions. I apologise if I offend anyone with this, but "impedes my sexual relationships" makes me feel some type of way. Anger. Sorry. I know there will be men that read this.

Perhaps a little on the nose, but I find this to be almost ironic. I know this is an international journal, but in particular if we are to look at it from an American scope in regards to some of the abortion laws that have come into affect. Certainly, I do not intend to take away from this issue, as I am firmly against other people making these sorts of choices for infants when they have no capacity to defend or form their own opinions. But alas, the irony cannot be escaped.

This to me can only be achieved by increased exposure. People need to ask the questions now, understand that the heteronormative narrative is no longer going to be sustainable. As a previous reading "Queer Theory and Gender Norms" stated, the policy needs to be changed to reflect all genders and challenge the norm. Only once this is achieved, will people be able to speak openly about queer families without being bombarded with six million questions about how things work.

Challenge heteronormativity! It is no longer "the norm".

Make up is not inherently a feminine product. It is not specifically for women. Anyone can use makeup.

I find this interesting compared with Judith Butler's views about gender being a performance.

I wonder what has to happen for these Queer theorists to be taken seriously. They've done the work, and the study, just like everybody else. Heteronormativity is deeply instilled in our society, and it simply doesn't fit the gender binary anymore. Not only is heteronormativity traumatising for young people who deviate from this, but there is still a lot of individuals whose rights are not deemed as important as those of a heterosexual person. It is so essential to policy, particularly medical policy and government issued identification. According to TransHub, in order to legally change your gender on your birth certificate, you must have undergone some kind of "Sex affirmation procedure" which is very much reinforcing the belief that your sex is biological and assigned at birth. Similarly, I believe that if we are truly to progress as a society something as simply as writing M or F on a birth certificate needs to come to an end.

https://www.transhub.org.au/changing-your-gender-marker