He tells me that he is taking me off the roster “effective immediately” for starting a “bitch fest” because I told another co-worker that I wasn’t happy with six hours of work a week.

I immediately found out who had told him. A girl who I considered to be friendly or an acquaintance with. After I lodged a complaint to Fair Work for unfair dismissal, this same girl, alongside her friend, attempted to tell the owner things about me in order to conspire a case against me. How could I have the audacity to win, right?

Did you legally take a two hour break in the office scattered across a 12.75 hour shift while watching the cameras so you could still attend to customers? You are the epitome of evil. Not happy about how many hours your work gives you? Well, that makes you bitchy. They were embarrassingly reaching.

Whilst the misogyny embodied by the owner was strikingly apparent (which I sued him lol), I was surprised that women who I had gone out with nights prior seemed so eager to get me fired. My employment in a casual position was never going to cost them their job or position. There was no way you could move up in this business. These were the same women who would constantly complain about men. I would hear ‘I hate men’ or ‘my boyfriend is pissing me off.’

Yet, paradoxically, at their ripe age, they jumped with child-like joy at the opportunity to join in on making me look hysterical and unjustified in front of the owner and his young son. Validation from any man, whether it be a boyfriend or an authority figure, must have been worth it to them. There was certainly nothing more validating to them than talking crap about a woman younger than them with any man.

An inconvenient contradiction led me to note a trend; where women align themselves with feminist or misandrist qualities - not to genuinely confront inequalities, stereotypes or systematic violence, but as a miserable reaction to their loser boyfriend’s low effort behaviour. This alignment can become an act of male centeredness.

I often see this on Tik Tok or instagram reels, where women will say that a man breaking their heart led them to becoming a ‘man-hater’ all whilst continuing to post relationship-based content. “How to make a man obsessed with you” is one I see often. I even saw another Tik Toker who has posted man-hating content talk about dying her hair blonde because men are apparently preferring blonde women - and no one in the hundreds of comments said ‘girl you don’t have to dye your hair for men.’ That was enough Tik Tok for one day.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with wanting love and it is a human desire, I do ask - are you actually a man-hater, or do you just want your boyfriend to love you back and hope that you will find the exception?

When you only align misandrist qualities and criticisms of men with your failed relationships, you are contributing to a perception that feminism or misandry intends to tackle failed relationships, when these movements are about critically questioning and confronting the intersecting systems that oppress women. This behaviour often manifests itself as a product of white feminism - where privileged women perceive low-effort boyfriends as the biggest issue they face (even though they are still at risk of violence, less leadership opportunities etc). But because women are socialised to value men and whether or not they are desired by men, privileged women can often overlook their own risks, threatened rights or limited opportunities.

And of course feminism should play an important role in criticising relationships, identifying patriarchal dynamics in relationships and asking for more than the bare minimum in relationships, but it also intends to do so much more.

And making posts that complain about men in the dating scene all whilst going back to a man the minute they reappear in your dm’s, or suppressing your ‘morals or values’ in front of a man as an attempt to be liked by one the minute they give you attention, is not a diversion from patriarchal norms.

Instead, it is an act of employing the defining quality of activism - defiance - as a guise for the fact that you attribute considerable weight to having a romantic relationship with men.

When I have scrolled through Hinge as a woman (would not recommend doing this btw), most men often say they are ‘figuring out their dating goals’ or are looking for a ‘short-term relationship.’ It is a place of lust.

My friend told me she made a fake account to look through the women on the app - she said that most of them said they were looking for a long-term relationship. Yet, why are we staying on an app for men who only want sex and validation? Men who are figuring out their goals only put that in their profile simply to lead you on and find a rebound, and they do this because they know some women are likely to fall for it and engage at the prospect of there maybe being a chance at a relationship.

It is sadly a part of girlhood to have a friend who you thought had similar values to you ditch them the second she enters into a relationship because she doesn’t want to lose him.

This is where the issue lies. As said, the issue is not wanting love. The issue is that women are still centring themselves around having a boyfriend - and when you centre something, you are likely to ditch your time, morals and values for it. That is also where I ask another question: Is it truly love you are looking for, or validation in a world that is constantly creating new insecurities for women all whilst placing men on a pedestal?

I often asked myself, if women are still willing to ditch their values for a low-effort man, why hide it? Some women don’t hide behind feminism and they are usually conservative. Others do it because they know men suck, and to hide behind a performance and statements that don’t mean much to you, is easier than to truly believe it and practice feminism in your daily life.

I did not want to write this article. I hate writing content that criticises women, because men are to primarily blame when it comes to the patriarchy. All forms of media, alongside the historic formation of marriage, have instilled the need for a partner within women for both social and economic reasons. And there are much bigger problems than imperfect feminism - espcially when society always wants to hold women to higher standards than men. However, my target here is not men; it is women, intending to educate them; this piece intends to help you identify red flags and new ways you may continue to conform to the patriachy - which collective unity and micro-feminism can have a bigger impact in shaping societal perceptions than we may think. Because you are so much more than being beneath a man.

As we no longer need men financially, we can change the way we approach social situations. When we act like we hate men and then give in to shitty men, not only does it divert away from what feminism or misandry is truely about but it provides evidence of a common belief by men that feminism is all talk. That feminism is something they shouldn’t be threatened of. That feminism is something that shouldn’t invite them to re-evaluate how they treat women, even in romantic relationships. Because the shittiest men, will pull a woman who claims to be a feminist, and he will think he has ‘conquered’ her. What a boost to his fragile ego. To him, feminism is just her initially playing hard to get.

A perfect example below of a man devaluing feminism altogether.

If a man is boasting about ‘conquering’ you whilst you conform to expected power dynamics, he does not appreciate the qualities you supposedly had, instead you are proof to his ego that he can pull anyone.

There are so many feminists who do amazing work, however, there are a lot of women who are complicit. Unless in cases of violence or abuse, most of us in the Western world have the power to choose what we accept from men; we don’t need them for financial security anymore. We have the power to choose what is a priority in our lives and when a movement that is built for women becomes catered to boyfriend-centred content, it limits the value of a movement. Put simply, practice what you preach.

You probably know their faces too. Their photos have been pulled from match day galleries and placed across headlines and social media feeds around the country.

We know who they are, where they play, what their coach has said about their futures and what their absence could mean for the Swans’ finals campaign.

But the woman who reported an alleged sexual assault to the police is described with one word: “the woman.”

Victoria Police are investigating a report of an alleged sexual assault at the Pullman Hotel in East Melbourne where the Swans were staying after a win over Essendon. Five players were linked to the police investigation but none have been arrested or charged, and it has not been suggested that any of the five have been accused of sexual assault.

The club has stood Riley Bice, Nick Blakey, Isaac Heeney, James Jordon and Chad Warner down for the rest of the 2026 season. The Swans have also stressed that the sanctions relate to breaches of club standards and are separate from the police investigation.

AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon and the AFL Players’ Association said that the woman who reported the matter to police is entitled to privacy, respect and care.

While this is the right sentiment, it’s the last we hear of her in most of this coverage. From that point on, the story is about the players’ consequences and chances of playing again.

When the five players spoke publicly, they apologised for having “let down” their partners and families, with no mention of the women involved in the alleged incident.

Chairman Andrew Pridham and chief executive Matthew Pavlich said in a joint community letter the following afternoon, “our thoughts remain with everyone affected, particularly the women involved. All women deserve to feel safe and respected.”

That came after the club had already declined to act on them at the press conference where the sanctions were announced the day before, where Pavlich confirmed the club had not contacted the women and called it “a police matter”.

The standard practice of not naming alleged victims of sexual assault comes from decades of evidence about what can happen when their identities are public.

The Kobe Bryant case in the US is a prime example of this. The woman who accused Bryant had her name and details of her sexual history released accidentally, and this information became part of the court case and media coverage.

The public scrutiny she faced led to sexual assault advocates warning that this could discourage other women from reporting assaults.

Every news outlet publishing the Swans story, where one side becomes part of a public record and the other doesn’t exist unless they’re linked to the report, is nothing short of unbalanced.

This isn’t new to the AFL, which is part of why it deserves more scrutiny.

In 2004, a woman who alleged she’d been raped by three AFL players, including one from the Swans, received a $20,000 settlement after criminal charges against two of the men were dropped.

More than two decades later, AFL clubs are responding by taking action within 48 hours and standing players down for the rest of the season instead of settling, but the coverage still focuses on the players’ careers and the game’s finals, or what happens next.

Performance and Sports Psychologist and General Manager of Condor Performance David Barracosa has worked with hundreds of athletes across all levels of sport and says children of professional athletes in team sports undeniably enjoy benefits.

“It is very prominent that having a successful mother or father in a sporting context can provide a younger athlete as a consequence of that,” Barracosa said.

“You notice it more in a team sport because there is more subjectivity towards selections and who gets playing times.”

Whilst research regarding nepotism in sport in Australia is limited, a study by USA today found that 16 of the NFL’s 32 owners inherited their teams from family.

21 year old cricket player Ben who chose to remain anonymous, says he has first hand experience of nepotism.

He says that his teammates whose fathers were successful and heavily involved in his local club were moved up a grade while he was left behind despite scoring higher results.

“There are many times where I scored higher runs and wickets than other players, yet those players often get promotions,” said Ben.

“Their fathers always seem to be involved in the club or have a long-lasting legacy at the club.”

Barracosa says that this advantage has generated doubt and demotivation amongst junior athletes whose parents are not successful or known in the industry.

“Social hierarchy and comparison are such a massive thing,” said Barracosa.

“I think you do see people start to react to the politics of sport and start to question what they are going to be capable of, what opportunities they are going to be given and if it is worth it for them.”

Ben fears that he may never play for the Australian National Cricket Team as his club’s prioritisation of players with familial connections interferes with the short-lasting biological nature of peaking as an athlete.

“You can only get older, you can’t play forever,” he said.

Baracossa says that through his work with athletes, he has witnessed many athletes in team sports quit altogether due to poor mental health when their efforts are disregarded because of nepotism.

“They want to quit their sport because they just feel that it has lost its joy,” he said.

“A lot of the time it will result in someone suffering in silence.”

According to a study by Parents together, 70% of kids quit their sport within their teen years.

“We do things we find rewarding as people, and if all of a sudden, it’s like, this is something I train three or four times a week for, I have a nutrition plan, I make sacrifices for, I don’t really have much of a social and then I’m not really getting the rewards for it, it starts to lose purpose,” Barracosa said.

Barracosa also recommended ways athletes can combat demotivation.

“The biggest advice I can give is recognition of what is in our control versus what is out of our control,” he said.

“How we judge ourselves independent of things that a coach can influence is super important, if someone else has the ultimate decision-making power.”

Despite noticing the prominence of nepotism, Barracosa continues to have faith that genuine talent can, at times, override familial connections in the sporting industry and urges disheartened athletes to keep this in mind.

“At some point, your talent should be the thing that you’re judged on, not who you are or what your resume looks like,” he said.

“If you are 14,15,16, this isn’t the end road for you that you didn’t get picked in the squad.”

Nepotism and the importance of prioritising athletic talent gained media discourse back in 2023, when Somali sports official Khadio Aden Dahir was suspended after selecting a non-experienced runner, Nasro Abukar Ali in a 100 metre sprint at the World University Games in China.

The runner finished more than ten seconds after the winner, with CNN finding that there was a nepotic link between Dahir and Abukar.

However, Barracosa urges that nepotism must continue to be called out in Australia.

“Discussions around nepotism must continue otherwise talent will be lost,” he said.

Disclaimer: To be clear, I know that there are many activists, people who protest and run organisations, and there will always be. Here, I am referring to my own observations of the general public in Australia.

This might seem easy for me to say as I want to pursue a career in politics, but not enough people seem to truly care about political issues.

Activism doesn’t always have to be a grand gesture nor require you to be the smartest person in the room. Whilst yes, protesting and speaking is one of the most effective forms - I acknowledge this can come with risks, and it is not the end or be all of activism.

We can exude activism in our public and private interactions by allowing our values or understandings that we have taken the time to learn seep into our use of language, who we choose to support, the standards we hold or how we choose to frame our experiences.

Because these are ways we internalise stereotypical norms during the initial stages of socialisation. If we can learn how to have a somewhat hold over what we internalise, we have the power to change the narrative.

Yet I fear this is lacking and I wonder: if we can’t even impede activism into our subtle interactions, what does that mean for protesting on a wider scale?

Because whether you like it or not - politics is everywhere - and your ignorance is political.

Social media posts from news organisations regarding politics seem to garner a lot of mutual likes. Yet, I hardly see these same people practice politics. Every time I open my mouth, I feel like I am met with silence by people around me who wouldn’t do the same. Or I am outwardly disliked, with people who want to see me fall.

The other day I wrote a feature article for a paper addressing concerns regarding the censorship of Palestinian activism. Queensland, a state in Australia, has banned the phrase ‘from the river to the sea Palestine will be free,’ constituting it as hate speech, with users facing up to two years imprisonment. I decided to include the historical context that explained the origin of the phrase, to support expert commentary as to why the phrase is not inherently anti-semitic.

I was told by an editor that this was too biased and I had to delete the historical context as this is a risky topic.

Whilst I do not want to criticise the editor as I know she is pro-Palestine, I was very much prompted to ask myself, why did she feel the need to delete this?

What made her feel like I couldn’t address the truth - that the phrase was originally coined to liberate Palestinians from occupation and murder, and not annihilate people of the Jewish faith? And that protestors shouldn’t be imprisoned for condemning colonisation and genocide. What societal norm or experiences inflicted a knee-jerk reponse to limit the strength and prominence of factual events in my article? This covered an event that occurred over a month ago, and was not a news piece.

It felt like a bummer, because I wanted the article that I wrote as a volunteer (without pay) to address a wider issue rather than cite the news, especially after I was given great quotes from the interviewee.

Because I know that there are Palestinian journalists or foreign correspondents who risk their lives everyday to report the hard and truthful events. I know that there are not many still alive. I know that in the state of Queensland right next to mine, people could be imprisoned for writing about

the phrase. I know that we do have Australian figures, like Antoinette Lattouf, who have challenged institutional systems about Palestinian censorship - and have won.

So whilst I have the privilege and opportunity, why not use it to inform people why we shouldn’t ban the phrase in my own state?

Yet I also don’t want to come across as morally superior, as I fear that politics has become about that in some situations. There are even times myself where I fear the response to my words, where sometimes I want to post three TikTok rants in a day, and then I think, wait, I don’t want people to think I am crazy.

Because censorship is an institutional norm. It is expected, and is enforced onto minorities in ways that are overlooked - because when something is a norm, its recurrence makes it deeply ingrained into facets of society, to which it becomes difficult to identify. For example, I was fired from a casual job without warning for starting a ‘bitch fest’ because I told another co-worker I wasn’t happy with one shift a week. The person who fired me thought he could relay a misogynistic comment/reason - and expected me to accept it, apologise, and return my keys. (Which I did not, but I signed an NDA lol)

Whilst I understood immediately how his comment was riddled with sexist implications, I was afraid that another girl younger than me, who may work there in the future and who may not be engaged with feminism, would face the same termination and walk away with the burden of subconsciously neglecting her concerns and opinions throughout her life to prevent being disliked or seen as ‘bitchy.’ A burden that is a cage.

My ex boss told me that I should “reflect on my professionalism” - why would I limit my private concerns about my financial situation just to ensure that the fragility of the male ego isn’t disrupted? Women are not robots that you can shut off when you wish.

Yet what was also strange was some of the other women co-workers who went out of their way to help get me fired and conspire a case against me after the fact. Women who I thought I got along with. Women who complimented my outfits days beforehand. Women who would pretend to be man haters, yet succumb to the first opportunity to make me look bad in front of a middle-aged man. That’s where I drew the line between performatively being a ‘man-hating feminist’ because your shitty boyfriend pissed you off, and truthfully being a feminist in practice.

Whilst these are small situations, the point is that mentioning Palestinian historical context would have added an educational viewpoint for readers, or sticking up for me or not relaying information about me to the boss in an attempt to perpetuate patriarchal norms would have been a far better option. What we choose to give attention too can be a form of activism - obviously it is not going to single-handedly change the world, but it sets the tone for our own environment and can sometimes influence the people around us.

On a mass scale, social media has given me insight into how much people care. It has shown me that people will like a Tik Tok video yet only watch the first ten seconds. It has shown me that people will only read the teaser slides of an instagram post instead of reading the full article because they have the attention span of an iPad kid. It has shown me that people are still hesitant to say Israel is committing genocide, despite a UN Commission and organisations factually confirming this a while ago. Despite countless videos of starved Palestinian children on my for you page.

Because too many people are overly content in their privilege to fight for change and too desensitised by social media to have adequate empathy. We are also distracted by constantly changing algorithms, capitalism and beauty standards.

Trump supporters were willing to storm the White House for an unclear cause whilst their rights were not even close to threatened.

Yet I question whether we would see this kind of unity and determination nor recurring protests amongst leftists, for causes they seem to care so deeply about. Treating politics as a moral sword strays people away, leads to a lack of unity and can extract the genuinity from the movement itself - that is where it becomes a performance.

And historically, from women’s rights to civil rights, unity and determination is what led to change and overpowered fears of consequences. And yes this is not always utopic.

For some people, If political events are not directly affecting them it doesn’t matter. I have seen rich people complain about the gas prices, whilst never donating a cent to families in Palestine or Lebanon, or complain about why billionaires like Trump, Musk and many more do not pay tax, nor question what they do with their money.

Maybe there is an element of despair. That nothing we do has an impact. But one protest of 300,000 people across the harbour bridge symbolised collective unity that led to something (an acknowledgment of a two state solution in Palestine) but it was not enough, it needs to become a regular occurrence, people must turn up with a set and specific goal. Governments and institutions thrive on despair.

And even the small acts, like taking action against unfair dismissal for a reason beyond employment law itself, involves a confrontation of institutional systems.

And for others, we are afraid. Afraid of how we might be seen. But that need to be liked and seen as ‘unproblematic’ by people infiltrated with privilege is something that we must let go of. Because not caring is indeed very problematic.

Politics is not black and white. There is no reason why Iranians cannot express approval of the death of an oppressive tyrannical figure, who upheld and perpetuated a theocratic regime, leading to censorship and death, aswell as a poor economy primarily due to International sanctions.

However, online discourse from diaspora Iranians and non-Iranians have framed Trump and Netanyahu’s interference as a symbol of heroism, as Trump claims that he will help the Iranian people “take back their country”.

Yet, I fear many are overlooking Trump’s facade - that this is the exact propaganda that preys on the oppressed, and invites global complicity and worshipping of political figures with impure intentions - which will lead to consequences.

From the privilege of being outside Iran, many are overlooking that a US-Israel strike hit a girls school, killing at least 165 people, including children. Trump has also announced that there will likely be more US service members killed in the conflict, because “that’s the way it is”.

Appraisal towards figures like Trump also signifies a lack of historical knowledge. Iraq is a prime example where US intervention led to consequences - where the unfolding of US influence in Iran is currently sharing many similarities with Iraq. Because history repeats itself.

Research has shown that the lead up to the Iraq war in 2003 was justified through lies, all of which were created and vocalised by the Bush administration. This was achieved through claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed a weapon of mass destruction, and that he was the leader of Al Qaeda: a group who is responsible for 911. Academic scholars have claimed that this was because the American military, the US Congress and the intelligence community were reluctant to engage in war with Iraq.

As Trump has now claimed that his intervention is part of a”massive and ongoing” regime change, he has stated that Iran has somehow presumed their nuclear program despite claiming to have “obliterated” it last year.

According to the UN’S International Atomic Agency, as of February 18th, they have detected no indication that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.

Once again, these are the same lies that fed into public support of the Iraq war.

It is also important to examine the long-term consequences of the Iraq war - as it renownedly did not bring peace to Iraq - an objective that Trump is inadvertently trying to claim in relation to Iran. After US intervention and a regime collapse, sectarian violence broke out, leading to the displacement of 4.4 million Iraqi’s by 2015. The interruption of the war also affected Iraq’s economy tremendously, due to their inability to manage their oil system.

After Bush’s comments which promoted support of a US intervention in Iraq were found to be false, many International Relations scholars have long speculated what motivated Bush’s intervention.

A study conducted by an Associate Professor at George Mason university explored how scholars have argued that the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration was an act of re-asserting American dominance and superiority globally, after the presence of 9-11 and its subsequent threats. Therefore, Bush needed a quick victory - and Iraq happened to be the perfect fit for Bush in a post 9/11 world of religious divisiveness.

As a western, it is clear Trump is capitalising from the unstable state of Iran - but more so for a personal gain. In this context, where Iran poses no imminent threat, the attack on Iran comes after the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s tariffs on foreign imports were illegal, as well as the ICE and Epstein controversy, which the capability of the Epstein controversy to lead to consequences is evident by the arrest of Prince Andrew in the UK just two weeks ago. Not to mention, Iran has also supported Hamas - in which the attacks significantly benefit Netanyahu who happens to have an upcoming election later this year.

As those part of the council and involved in Iran’s government promise to continue Khamenei’s legacy, it is unlikely that his death alone will result in a regime collapse. Therefore the future of the US’s role in Iran remains unclear, but history, circumstances and context tells us their intervention does not warrant peace. It is important to remember that post-war is not utopic - economies deteriorate and countless lives are lost in the midst of war.

It is important to not get lost in the divisiveness of politics and the pressure to pick a side, as this notion diminishes morality and helps serve complacency.

First, why are pornography and OnlyFans an issue?

Launched in 2016 by Tim Stokley, OnlyFans has invited further capitalisation of exclusive and sexual content. Stemming from a patriarchal society and shaped by pornography that portrays sex in ways that are submissive and degrading toward women, it is no surprise that 84% of OnlyFans creators are female.

Within radical feminist discourse, which rejects “choice feminism,” it is often argued that partaking in this industry perpetuates patriarchal ideas, created by men, that harm women – and we couldn’t agree more.

The inherent issue with OnlyFans and the porn industry is that it fuels a fantasy about women to appeal to men’s desires. Models are favoured by men based on certain characteristics; the shy nerd with freckles and glasses, the cheerleader with pigtails, the secretary wearing a pencil skirt and a tight blouse. These features, symbolic of innocence or intelligence, are transformed into a sexual accessory – women cannot ‘just’ be smart.

Because for a large variety of men, a woman’s existence is a sexual performance.

Yes, a woman might profit from it, but at the cost of being seen as an object. When there are women in third world countries with no access to education, it is often a choice in the western world to participate in this destructive industry. In turn, selling these platforms to men reinforces overly sexualised perceptions of women.

When AI enters the picture

The OnlyFans industry is harmful alone. Throwing AI into the mix creates a whole new layer of destruction.

Entrepreneurs have established a business model where OnlyFans creators are encouraged to protect their privacy and identity through the system of AI. The risks of stalking, doxxing and negative public perception are major for creators looking to sell explicit images and videos of themselves to subscribers.

That’s where an OnlyFans management agency comes in hand, helping models conceal their identity through an AI avatar. It’s essentially a version of you with a different face, pose and background generated through an AI platform.

Yet this notion of heroic ‘protection’ is merely a guise.

The irony is stark – OnlyFans creators work with these agencies to protect their identities, but in doing so, they are deepening harmful societal views of women.

The implications of AI mixed with Onlyfans

When I discovered that a 20-year-old man I was seeing ran an OnlyFans management agency, and there was much more to the vague “marketing company” he owned, it completely stunned me. How did I spend my time with someone who saw women as objects to profit off?

I ultimately knew that women were viewed this way by the men in our society, but something about experiencing it first-hand set off a trigger. That a young, attractive man coming from a rich family could choose any career pathway and went down the route of exploiting women says a lot about not just the person he is, but how these ideas about women have become so normalised.

It also reveals a male desire to dehumanise women to new extremes. To find new ways to satisfy a desire for dominance and control – qualities that men have been conditioned to strive for in a patriarchal and capitalist society.

At the control of your fingertips, you can make your avatar do anything by writing a detailed prompt.

In this context, a figure of a woman’s body and face are made to do practically anything like a puppet, where a man often seems to hold the strings. This is because 99% of explicit deepfake imagery depicts women, and men are statically more likely to be perpetuators.

Take for example @petitecutee2007, an Instagram account launched in June 2025, who posts on average six times a day. She has big boobs, a flat and toned stomach, and large thighs – appealing to standards that are unattainable for many women.

Her content involves her wearing revealing clothing and dancing up close to the camera, in which her boobs and thighs jiggle near the viewer.

However, what really stood out to us was the username ‘petite’ and the year 2007, implying that this girl is freshly eighteen. The baby-like features the model embodies, such as her small nose and slightly chubby cheeks, demonstrates how men’s idealisations are rooted in paedophilia.

The most concerning aspect is the number of people who are falling for it. It is no secret that the line between AI and reality can at times be difficult to identify, especially when there is no disclaimer to indicate that the content is AI-generated.

In the case of @petitecutee2007 – to us as the writers – the use of AI is obvious.

Yet the amount of support in the comments, by mainly middle-aged to elderly men with children, suggests they can’t see this line – or they do, and don’t care.

Like pornography, the male consumption of adult content creates further social idealisations of what a woman should look like or how they should behave in sexual settings. Altered by AI, they are even more void of human qualities – the idea that women are void of humanity and controllable is the same one that invites gender-based violence.

Is this being done illegally?

If men can create explicit deep fake images of women as a form of harassment, what is stopping them from profiting from it?

And this is where the allowance of AI OnlyFans may create this risk, and could easily lead to the overlooking of non-consensual situations.

In Australia, under 2024 legislation, it is illegal to create or distribute explicit deepfakes of an individual without their consent.

However, with the rapidly advancing nature of AI, there is more room for illegality and grey areas.

For example, when we were researching how to create an AI Model, one of the requirements many sites specified was to use at least one reference photo. This means that AI is mimicking the features of real women.

Some AI-generated software often uses real people to train the ‘AI.’ However, a model needs to be trained on a massive dataset of existing images – that doesn’t just include people but also the environment and animals.

This allows AI to recognise elements of the world and how they interact, necessary for it to respond to unique user input. Elements like the facial structure or nose of an individual are often mimicked.

As deep fakes are also common, it is harder to tell if a model is catering to an individual person or was created by a batch of existing material. However, whilst deepfakes require advanced algorithms and tools, it is likely that using a real person’s content is rather preferable to ensure that the model appears increasingly realistic – as opposed to @petitecutee2007, who is likely trained by a massive batch of existing material.

In comparison, we came across other models, who appeared somewhat realistic.

And when it is privatised on a monetarily exclusive platform, it poses the question of how unaware potential victims may be.

Because if AI advances and is combined with heavily supported platforms like OnlyFans, more women may be placed at risk or have images stolen from their public social media’s without ever knowing.

It is important to remember that AI OnlyFans agencies do not care about women – when every major agency we looked at, coincidentally have men as the CEOs. All it takes is a Google search to find this.

For example, the link in @petitecutee2007’s bio leads to her OnlyFans profile where the user is prompted to pay $50 per month in exchange for exclusive (and explicit) content. Let’s say only 5% of her 43,200 followers subscribe. That’s $108,000 a month someone is making by selling a fake image of a woman – one that’s created with barely any consideration for the societal consequences behind it.

Instead, men are profiting from and growing platforms like OnlyFans that appeal to male desires, adhering to their idealisations of dominance in new and advanced ways.

These systems that dehumanise women shouldn’t be ‘tamed’ or criminalised – if illegal, creators with nothing else to fall back on will end up jobless. The problem rather lies in the culture and economy which perpetuates these platforms and where women feel like they need to adhere to it.

PHOTO SOURCES:

Instagram: @petitecutee2007 & grincess_Lera

The United States has come to learn that the system in which they pay taxes too and that dictates their laws are run by predatory pedophiles - and if members of the US government weren’t actively involved, there is a chance that they knew and decided to remain friends with these people or keep quiet.

The acts outlined in emails, victim statements and photos which make up the Epstein files are some of the worst crimes known to mankind - involving the torture, rape and murder of children - and what has dominated internet discourse, has been references to cannibalism in emails, as well as a claim of consumption of human feces, and from a main who allegedly saw babies being ‘dismembered’. Epstein compared babies to ‘cream cheese’ in an email. However, none of these allegations are yet apart of testimonies or physical evidence.

For the ordinary and sane individual, these acts are completely unfathomable - it has left people confused as to how Trump could possibly remain president after the files documented tips received by the FBI, claiming that Trump had auctioned, fingered and raped children as young as 13-14. A victim, whose name was redacted in the files, claimed that a sex trafficking ring took place at Trump’s golf course in Palos Verdes California, during 1995-1996.

Some known names in the files include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Elon Musk, Robert Shapiro and many more. Even former Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, is briefly mentioned via an email from Epstein to his assistant Leslie Groff regarding a potential lunch, mentioning that Kevin Rudd would be attending.

Code names were also prominent in the Epstein Files. The word ‘pizza’ was used almost 900 times throughout ‘invitation’ emails, with many believing it symbolised ‘little girls’. This makes total sense considering following emails, where Epstein refers to little girls as ‘sharks’ with idealisations of removing their heads.

Why have they been released now? And why has Trump not been held accountable?

The release of 3 million files last week has left people wondering - why now? Some people on Tik Tok speculate that the release is a distraction from something far bigger coming.

The release has confused people as Republicans (Trump’s party) make up a far greater portion of The US Congress than Democrats. The US Congress passed the Epstein Transparency Act in November of 2025, legalising the US Justice Department to publicly release the Epstein files. The date of release was set to December 19th, however was delayed due to a need to protect and redact the identities of victims. It is no secret that the congress works closely with the president. It has left many wondering - if Trump had such a big part to play in the Epstein files, why did the congress release them?

Under The US Constitution, The Congress has the power to launch investigations and impeach officials for high crimes (including the president). Yet despite Trump’s misdemeanours in the Epstein files, the congress has so far taken no action. The release would surely serve as a sign of resistance against Trump, however it feels futile and contradictory followed by no action, even if an impeachment would be chaotic.

Online discourse - is the US government testing the world?

Potentially. The Epstein files outwardly assert the level of power and dominance held by wealthy figures, namely men. The act of eating and torturing children is unfathomable to the average person. Yet wealthy billionaires with a strong capitalist mindset, are constantly unsatisfied - with nothing else to strive for. Instead of donating or helping the poor, they maintain and exemplify the system they built. They adhere to new levels of extremity, such as idealisations of individual power, violence and dominance, which they have been conditioned to value over morality. They have already reached a high financial status that asserts their need for dominance, yet this comes with a void - so they turn to the most extreme and disgusting acts for amusement, targeting members of society who represent vulnerability and innocence.

Every individual has free will and an ability to recognise morals. The above is no justification, but an explanation on the human greed associated with power and dominance - because the acts named in the Epstein files have been around since the dawn of humanity - slavery is an example of this.

They want you to be complicit:

Unfortunately, I don’t have an ear in the US congress. However, it is possible that the release of the files is a way of testing the world. It is no secret that the release of the files have been used as a threat between Democrats and Republicans to gain voters for a while. Releasing them may be a way to soften the blow - without public consequence - proven by the time of the release.

We are currently living in a divisive political age where a singular algorithm can be filled with a mass scale of content. We see injured children who have copped the brunt of bombs - and then just a scroll away - is an ad for a labubu. We become desensitised to violence, because we see it almost everyday; it becomes an online norm. We also know how much Trump loves Artificial Intelligence. If further photos get released, Trump falling back on Ai would not surprise me.

The rise in AI has also led to a media literacy crisis, with many distrusting the algorithms - and are unable to determine what is true or false. However, it is important to remember that these are compiled and reviewed evidence by the FBI, with claims of cannibalism existing since the 2000s - Mexican model, Gabriela Rico Jimenez, is an example of this, who was subsequently taken to a psychiatric hospital.

The point is that feeling powerless is what the elites want - because they thrive on power. The release of the files as a means to assert ‘who is truly in power’ in the midst of ICE, Israel and an expired nuclear deal between the US and Russia wouldn’t surprise me, especially when there are emails in the files that insinuate a potential relationship with Epstein and the CIA (Epstein had scheduled emails with the CIA director). That even despite a public release, we feel as if we can do nothing. They want us to distrust an overload of extreme information and feel ‘crazy’.

Epstein proves this when he often uses the term Goyim which means ‘cattle’ and is used to refer to non-Jews. Epstein legitimately thought that he was better than the rest of the world, that he belonged at the top of a hierarchy.

What can we do?

As an Australian watching the US barley act is frustrating. It should not be about Democrats v. Republicans - the pedophile ring extends to almost every facet of politics - and the elites want the general population to fight each other. The world needs to be angrier as a collective - make posts, share every post, research, join a socialist party, tell your friends and family, protest against the elites, advocate for an impeachment - and don’t stop talking about it. At this point, the only way to even slightly dismantle the current state of vile elitism would be a civil war or a revolution. As the US is influential, this type of resistance will influence support from other countries.

But recently, lace has taken on new forms. Instead of solely seeing lace partially or fully define an entire piece or exist as items kept for the bedroom or Victoria’s Secret runways - lace has taken the form of sheer skirts, dresses, sleeves, belts, scarves, and socks, often used for layering.

Image credit: Instagram.com/addisonraee Image credit: Instagram.com/garniertaylorcouture

Bright colours will be all the rage in 2026, so lace accessories will strongly contrast this colour palette. Addison Rae, whose brand is defined by a neon and retro party girl aesthetic, has recently embraced this dichotomy at Wildlands Festival in Perth as she pairs an explicit Aussie poncho with a lace knee high sock. As the boldness of retro colours rebels against the historical restrictions of women’s style, maintaining lace but altering its form, is a clever way to redefine its meaning.

Fashion content creator Millie Holmes layers a lace skirt over jeans. Image credit: Instagram.com/immillieholmes

From emerging in a timeline where western women were restricted and lacked rights, the fact that lace can now exist as or alongside bold colours, over a pair of jeans, or as long sleeves under a basic tee, serves as a reminder of the past - and the freedom women now hold.

Image credit: Instagram.com/rachelzegler

Lace continues to take the form of lingerie, but in a way that is expressive and no longer just for the bedroom. Instead of simply existing in bras, lace plays a role in bralettes and crop tops. Just look at Rachel Zegler’s fishnet dress by Elie Saab.

Embroidered outlines of lace underwear, stockings and bras can now be seen poking out of jeans, tanks or crop tops. This fashion choice worn by Kaia Gerber has been claimed by an entire wave of Gen-Z women. This trend has become increasingly notable on TikTok and Pinterest, as well as Sydney fashion markets. As lace lingerie in magazines and films have often catered to men’s pleasure, this trend symbolises sexual freedom. The detailed nature of lace alongside the sheer spaces, invites women to embrace a hint of detail and intrigue in their outfits without mass shame.

Image credit: Instagram.com/luisa

Chappell Roan has even gone a step further at the 2026 Grammy’s, embracing a tattoo of lace embroidery alongside a rebellious revealing dress.

Image credit: Instagram.com/chappelroanfandemonium

Lace has also entered the whimsical realm of fashion and I couldn’t think of a better match. The lightness of this fabric is perfect in creating a flowy effect amongst flared jeans, pants, coats, dresses and long sleeve tops. The embroidery of lace often creates a picture of flora - nature that is symbolic of life, beauty and freedom. Yet every time I put on a whimsical piece, its uniqueness and light effect makes me feel free, like I am listening to a Stevie Nicks song in the wild. This trend aligns femininity with freedom and individuality.

This trend is truly one of creativity, catering to both casual and formal wear. The best part is the individuality lace invites - if you want to add further personality into your style but don’t like lace in one form, you can try another - and it can be as subtle as you like.

In a world that wants women to lack individuality and where rights are threatened internationally, these play ons with a historical fabric redefine femininity as a symbol of freedom and resilience.

Image credit: Instagram.com/thrifted.skins

And frankly, it is unoriginal and boring.

When I hear the ‘I’m just not ready’ line, I make the choice to walk away because I have seen what convincing yourself that you are ‘ok’ with casual does to a woman. I have watched my friends, some of the most beautiful and intelligent women I know, destroy their self esteem for a man that offers absolutely nothing other than fragmented moments of attention and sex.

They often say they are okay with it, yet the second low effort becomes noticeable or the prospect of their ‘situationship’ looking elsewhere arises - rightfully, they begin to complain about him or compare themselves to another woman. (Just because this piece is about casual dating, that doesn’t mean that low effort doesn’t seep into the label of ‘officiality’ as well).

This is because he controls the narrative - a narrative that makes her feel like shit.

I often ask myself why this is the case. Why does a man often benefit from hookup culture, but a woman is less likely too? Whilst the patriarchy is the obvious root of the cause, the way its effect on dating has changed over time is complex.

Platforms like porn reinforce the perception of women as sexual objects. Men’s identities are likely to be protected, whilst captions define women as ‘slut’s, ‘fuck toys’ or ‘whores’ with ‘big tits’ all whilst exposing their face - which is sold to men. This transforms intimacy into something non-emotional and degrading.

It is no surprise that with the rise of pornographic platforms and social media which promotes ‘options’, hook up culture has risen.

Although this isn’t to say that women can’t be avoidants and enjoy casual sex. But it is unlikely, as we are not socially wired this way. Playing games can be fun at first - but once you realise there is no end in sight it can become exhausting, particularly when it invites men to uphold patriarchal notions in heterosexual relations.

Because alternatively for women, romance novels, plays and films are instead sold to us. Once women began to gain financial rights, particularly in the 20th century, marriage was no longer a transaction and necessity for survival.

So, how did they lure us back into submissive relations and marriages? They increasingly reinforced the concept of ‘love’ that was ‘coincidentally’ always accompanied by a patriarchal power dynamic - and when you look at the timing, I do believe this goes back to Disney.

Disney film covers are defined by female characters, fashion and sparkles, strategically luring us in. Yet ironically, the contents of the story are undeniably male-centred, involving a woman who dreams of true love and finds a man who would do anything for her. We rarely see the opposite.

Rom-coms today continue to reinforce this but in repackaged ways - the latest is The People We Meet on Vacation, where the main character finds herself more content by being with a man than her current job. Rachel Zeglers heinous backlash for criticising the original Snow White proves that we are not past this rhetoric. And I am tired of the same narrative when women have so much more to offer.

Women are trained to prioritise love, and are trained to believe this will happen to them. So, once you already value connection, it is easier to become attached and glaze over flaws - and to fall into a trap of waiting for someone. Particularly, when that person acts like they really like you in person; men will perform romantic gestures to pull you in.

And men assume that women will remain on the side - either consciously or subconsciously - which is why they will do this and continue to keep in contact with you.

Men continuously prove this every time they become subject to the contradictions of their own self-entitlement and privilege. It is why they become oddly confused or resentful if you stop speaking to them in response. They cannot fathom that a woman would be okay and thrive without attention from any man in their life.

Usually men will tell me that ‘I will find someone’ as if that is my mission in life? Which is not true, but if I found someone I really liked, why wouldn’t I pursue it? Especially if it is rare for me. Because i know a relationship would only be an extension of my life, and not my entire life.

But if you are waiting for someone - whilst they fuck other people - they likely will never commit to you. And if they do, it’s because you’re accessible and convenient. That is the truth women must confront.

A lot of the time they are lustful and simply don’t like you enough - sexual attention from high numbers of women is a boost to their embarrassingly high ego.

However, this does not mean they are detached. There are times where they uplift a system whilst engaging in self destruction, by trying to seem nonchalant as they adhere to illusions of masculinity. They will throw away something meaningful directly or through non-commitment because they think they aren’t good enough for you - so they will reject you before you can. Which only speaks to their own internal struggles and is not yours to fix.

And to be completely honest, this is just a brief prediction, because I simply can’t understand why men make certain decisions - and I am glad I don’t. Attempting to analyse the mindset of a man who doesn’t want you is exhausting and a waste of your time.

I also want to be clear that valuing connection isn’t a bad thing. It is beautiful. I love that part about myself - as opposed to chasing dopamine hits for validation. We just need to be mindful about which connections we value.

But remember wanting to keep you on the side only makes them content and you miserable. It can be hard to walk away at first, but that feeling of long lasting freedom and independence outweighs being a pawn in his bubble of power.

Don’t let them play games - if they want to have access to you, they should face the ‘uncomfortability’ of being forward and genuine. A confession, which requires vulnerability, should be the only way to tap into a woman’s heart.

However, women should not wait for this. Because a lot of men do not seem to have that type of strength.

If we truly want to work to dismantle power dynamics, verbally criticising men to our friends isn’t just going to cut it. We should prioritise ourselves and stop giving in to low effort.

This claim was made by national-security affairs professor, Tim Nichols, on ABC News Daily last November. The murder of Alex Jeffrey Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis on Saturday morning is the most recent incident to prove this.

Pretti was shot 10 times in the back as ICE restrained him. The federal police declared that Pretti, a 37 year old ICU nurse, was an American citizen with no criminal history.

It comes just weeks after ICE fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year old mother and US citizen, and have killed countless other innocent civilians.

ICE has been in the Minneapolis area for weeks to detain immigration violators. But the regime to shut down ‘crime and fraud’ has an ulterior objective: to frighten the enemy into silence and obedience.

Both Pretti and Good (unforcefully) resisted ICE, classifying them as opponents to get rid of.

And just like Good’s murder, Republicans have justified the ICE agent’s actions on Saturday morning as ‘self defence’.

A statement on X by Homeland Security says ICE agents were conducting a targeted operation against an “illegal alien” when they were approached by an individual “with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun”.

“Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots.”

They claim the individual intended to inflict “maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Pretti was quickly labelled an “domestic terrorist” by the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem.

Meanwhile, videos of the shooting taken by bystanders contradict these narratives pushed by Trump’s administration. Footage shows Pretti holding a phone in one hand - while his other hand is empty - shielding a woman that ICE was pepper spraying.

Source: X (Ryan S @DiscsAndDogs)

Two witnesses to the death of Alex Pretti have said in sworn testimony that Pretti was not holding a weapon when he approached ICE agents.

A statement put out by Alex Pretti’s family calls out the “sickening lies” the Trump Administration is spreading.

“His last thought and act was to protect a woman… Please get the truth out about our son. He was a good man.”

Using political blame

The Trump administration’s baseless justifications show their view of people through the polarities of “us” or “them”. They will go to any length to sharpen these distinctions and legitimise their brutality.

Trump has used Pretti’s murder as an opportunity to slam the Democrats, blaming them for the death. Trump’s post to Truth Social condemned Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, and Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, for “inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric”.

Similarly, senior republican Tom Emmer said, “The governor and local leaders’ rhetoric has empowered criminals and put federal law enforcement’s lives at risk.”

Minnesota ICE raids have targeted immigrant neighbourhoods, known to lean democratically in the polls. Eliminating ‘enemy’ voters progresses Trump’s authoritarian regime.

A national uproar

The American people will not let the gutless killing of Pretti deter them from speaking out. Anger has ignited into anti-ICE demonstrations across the country.

The New York Times reported over a thousand protesters gathered in a Minneapolis neighbourhood for a vigil in honouring Alex Pretti. Businesses remained closed in solidarity. Thousands protested in cities across California and about 500 people marched in Washington D.C to protest the ICE regime - more chilling than the below freezing temperatures they braved.

A photo by the Associated Press in The Age shows one protester wearing a hi-vis vest printed with, “peaceful observer: don’t shoot” across it. This speaks to how imminent death is when displaying any form of resistance. Regardless, people are showing up - the very thing Trump’s administration wants to shut down.

Source: The Age via AP

Innocent lives should never be slain in political crossfire and innocent lives should never be slain for resistance.

We can’t ever be scared in to silence.

He claims that he will do something “whether they like it or not”.

Where does Denmark fit into this?

Nordic presence in Greenland traces back to the 10th century. In 1721, a Norwegian priest, focused on converting Norse settlers from Catholicism to Christianity. In colonising the land, Norwegian/Danish people had to compete with the Dutch.

Eventually, the Inuit people, who are the Indigenous people of Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Siberia were subject to colonisation and were converted to Christianity after the Norse Settlers. Greenland was tied to both Denmark and Norway; this monarchy broke in 1814, which Denmark kept Greenland.

Greenland was part of Denmark as a colony up until 1979. However, after pressure from the UN and a referendum, the Danish parliament adopted the Home Rule Act, which enabled the formation of a Greenlandic parliament by transferring legislative and administrative powers. However, Denmark still had control over defence, foreign policy, security, monetary policy and natural resources.

In 2009, after a referendum and legislative approval, the Self-Government Act was implemented. The act led to the self-determination of Greenlanders (Inuit) under international law, in which Greenlandic (Kalaallisut) was considered an official language, and control over natural resources was granted.

However, Denmark still controls Greenlands foreign and monetary policy, defense and citizenship. This is why Greenland is considered an ‘autonomous territory’.

Does Greenland want full Independence?

The polls have shown that Greenlanders are aware that this comes with a risk. Since Greenland is a large region with a harsh climate and a tiny population, the Greenlandic parliament still relies on Denmark for funding.

Why does Trump want Greenland and what are his intentions?

After the US and Denmark became allies through Nato, the US tracked Russian Missiles in Greenland during the cold war, using it as a military outpost, controlled by Washington.

This has fueled Trump’s entitlement to Greenland.

At a white house meeting yesterday, Trump claimed that if he doesn’t own Greenland, China or Russia will. However, there are no reported threats by China or Russia to seize Greenland.

Trump has also said that Greenland is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships. However, Nordic diplomats who have access to NATO intelligence have confirmed there is no evidence of this. Chinese ships sail to and from Russia with raw materials; Russian vessels sail around the Norwegian coast, near the Kola Peninsula which is a militarised base.

The US Geological survey approximates that Greenland is home to 1.5 million metric tonnes of rare earth reserves. Rare minerals make up 17 elements that are used in the formation of items such as smartphones and missiles. As China is home to 70% of rare earth mining, Trump believes that acquiring these elements in Greenland would combat China’s dominance.

A journalist asked Trump at the meeting why it was so important to own Greenland when the US already has a military presence there that could be expanded.

He simply responded, “because when we own it, we defend it. You don’t defend leases the same way, you own it”.

Why is this problematic?

The White House has threatened to use military force to acquire Greenland. A forced invasion of Greenland, and as seen by Trump’s attack on Venezuela and the capturing of their president Nicolas Maduro, would undermine state sovereignty, constituting as a breach of International law under article 2 of the UN Charter.

His attacks on Venezuela have shown that Trump’s threats are not futile, and he is willing to execute them.

In the historicity of imperialism, Trump’s takeover of Greenland would likely limit Greenlandic independence, in which the ABC news reported that Greenlanders do not want the US to own it. It would break a NATO alliance that has served the US well for years.

While his justification that he needs Greenland for ‘national security’ is untrue, Trump’s intentions are fueled by greed.

Trump serving his own interests:

As giant US tech companies have profited off artificial intelligence, Greenlands rare minerals are suitable in expanding these companies. Big tech billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have invested in KoBold metals - a company that holds mining rights in Western Greenland and has secured half a billion dollars in funding during Trump’s second term.

Trump acquiring Greenland would be strategic. As Greenland has imposed strict mining laws and suspended oil operations due to climate change, licenses are required for all activities. However, if Trump were to acquire Greenland, these restrictions would not apply to him. These interests would coincide with Trump’s slogan ‘drill baby drill’.

As an alternative option, Trump has proposed paying out Greenlanders - an option that seems incredibly expensive when everyday Americans can barely afford healthcare.

Trump’s efforts once again breach international law and operate for his own economic gain, whilst serving billionaires and massive corporations around him and elevating his status of domination in the Northern Hemisphere.

How are world leaders responding? Could this lead to conflict?

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that any US move to take Greenland would result in the end of an 80 year NATO alliance.

Under a 1952 defense agreement, Denmark has a right to defend Greenland in the event of an invasion, and to call in allies.

Frederiksen said in a Facebook post that “we are ready to defend our values - wherever it is necessary - also in the Arctic. We believe in international law”.

Former Danish UN Security Council adviser and Intelligence advisor Jacob Kaarsbo told substack writer Dean Blundell that “if US forces invade Greenland, the first 1,000 American soldiers will be sent home in body bags”.

According to The Arctic, France has been working on a plan to respond if the United States were to capture Greenland.

Trump issued a statement on X claiming that the officer was responding as “self defence” as the woman “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ice officer”.

As seen in the video taken by Cook’s neighbour which can be found on ‘X’, Goods Honda is situated in the middle of the street. As she drives away, she is shot down by an officer who appears completely uninjured, as he is able to conduct the shooting and continue moving.

A statement by ICE defined Cook’s actions as ‘domestic terrorism’. White press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded by condemning “attacks” on ICE agents. However, it is not apparent that Cook ran over the ICE officer, nor that shooting her would save his life.

This was a spiteful act, fueled by supremacy and entitlement.

Good was shot as ICE agents raided a neighbourhood with a large Somali Community, targeting individuals who received deportation orders last year.

Despite this, Good was a white US citizen.

This shows that ICE is a dictatorial regime that no one is safe from - even a white woman (who is not subject to racial discrimination) showing a subtle sense of resistance such as blocking a street - will be met with death.

The murder of Good serves as a reminder of how hateful and racist rhetorics create political chaos and play into fascist regimes.

Protests and marches have since taken place in Minnesota, calling for the abolishment of ICE.

Emulating qualities of terrorism?

Trump’s authorisation of ICE suggests he is employing qualities of terrorism.

The New York Times reported that in the last four months, nine people have been subject to gun shots by ICE agents.

The article, titled ‘Deadly Minneapolis Encounter is the 9th ICE shooting since September’ questioned how each shooting was not a confirmed act of self-defence.

The FBI defines ‘domestic terrorism’ as ‘violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.’

ICE’s use of physical force and violence against a targeted demographic aligns with this definition. Individuals with no criminal records make up the largest group in ICE detention.

Now his study plan has been altered due to Macquarie’s recent decision to scrap this option and merge ancient history as one in four compulsory areas of study into a ‘Bachelor of History.’

The change means he will have to study subjects that he claims he is not “as interested in” such as modern history, and will now complete fewer and less specialised subjects within his desired major.

Jon fears that he will fall victim to the brunt of disengagement.

“Down the line it may be harder to work in those fields and expand them meaningfully,” he said. It [is] difficult to maintain interest or engagement with a subject I have no passion about.”

However, Jon has noticed that subjects which substantiate progressive perspectives have been subject to the most defunding.

“There is a constant focus to consider the wider effects of events and to have an interdisciplinary view to bring in new perspectives [which makes] ancient history better and more valuable”, he said.

Macquarie is not the only university to defund the arts, as restrictions also follow decisions from ANU, UTS, Western Sydney University, the University of Tasmania and the University of Wollongong to significantly reduce specified majors in strings of study, threatening over 1,000 jobs across these institutions.

At Macquarie, over 50% of staff who specialise in politics and international relations, sociology, creative arts and ancient history will be cut, with 11 of 14 academics in sociology alone slated for redundancy.

A spokesperson for Macquarie University told the Guardian that the motive for the cuts was to meet student demand and to focus on employability.

However similar to Jon, Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at Macquarie, Penny Van Bergen also believes there are other intertwining factors also at play.

“There is a public narrative about woke universities and those tend to be subjects that are sort of on the chopping block,” she said.

“There are political cycles where one government wants to do one thing, one wants to do another.”

Political forces were legislated in 2021 when former Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party Scott Morrison implemented the Job-ready Graduates package (JRG), which increased the costs of arts degrees to encourage students to pursue areas such as STEM.

Concerns regarding a political motive to censor progressive values have been extenuated by prior evidence that proves humanity subjects are employable.

According to 2025 research by Torrens University, 26 out of 78 ministers in government have degrees in humanities majors, with 71% of political science majors as ministers for the Labor party.

“If you look at the employment prospects, art graduates do get snapped up and there’s a lot of companies that say, look, we need people who can think, we need people who can critically analyse,” Bergen said.

Year 12 Cromer Campus student Stella Morrison, who aspires to pursue either an arts or communications degree, says that her choice of future study and career path reflects her personal beliefs.

“I can get really passionate about political subjects and a communications degree is a good pathway to express my opinions and analysis,” she said.

As Stella is certain that she wouldn’t pursue STEM even as a backup, she values the importance of pursuing individual passion.

“If you hate what you do, then you’re not going to be happy,” she said.

Bergen also says that the prioritisation of attaining a degree for solely employment prospects rather than for enjoyment and the “sharing of knowledge” could lead to students pursuing other subjects that they aren’t fully engaged in, which may affect the quality of academic research.

“You can’t learn without engagement. It’s just impossible,” Bergen said. “You can skim through, but you can’t embed yourself in something properly.”

She also reveals that a lack of engagement with content often leads to students “skipping classes [and] not watching lectures”.

Alternatively, Stella says that she would be extremely upset if she was unable to access her dream degree but would try and “find a way around it”.

However, while some students may have offers from various universities, this is not the case for all students, particularly for those who live in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.

Bergen noticed that the universities subject to the most cuts are universities in regional areas and that require lower ATAR and entry requirements.

This means that students who are subject to schooling with decreased funding and do not attain a high ATAR may face restrictions in their freedom to study humanities subjects.

While the University of Tasmania (UTAS) has proposed over a dozen staff cuts and limited the range of majors offered, students may have to move to the mainland to study their desired major.

However, Bergen says this could pose financial strains on students who can’t afford to live away from home.

“I think it’s going to narrow and restrict the options available to regional and rural students, more so than it will to students in metro areas.”

Stella believes the recent cuts are representative of preserving an economic and political status quo that will prevent change in our current climate.

“You need people who can use their education to enact change within society,” she said.

In subjects undergoing cuts such as Politics and International Relations, there is often criticism of Israel’s breach of international law in Gaza that adheres to a progressive standard that condemns government complicity and is conveyed in activism and online.

Bergen alluded to how engagement and critical thinking can contribute to society and translate into the workplace.

“We want people who are educated citizens who can interrogate what’s happening at a policy level, who can make informed decisions about where they put their vote and draw on history to understand what different countries might be doing in the future,” she said.

This is no clearer than at the Music Innovator Awards in November 2025, when Billie Eilish called out billionaires for hoarding their wealth. While many media users applauded Eilish’ activism, another side labelled her hypocritical and performative. Sky News host Rita Panahi called Eilish a “world class hypocrite out of touch with reality” on her segment “Leftie’s Losing It”. On a different Sky News show, Caleb Bond slammed Eilish, saying, “If you’re giving away 20 per cent of $US50 million, I don’t think you can tell me you’re such a wonderful, virtuous person, because why not give away 99 per cent of it”.

Chappell Roan is another example of a celebrity copping intense media backlash. The sincerity of her political stances have been lambasted, with one X user calling Roan “faux political … it’s a performance just like the drag makeup and the lesbianism.” Another X user tweeted “she’s just dumb and uninformed and talks without thinking.”

These commentators expect celebrities to be perfect citizens, otherwise their opinions are unwarranted. But they are missing the point - we can’t expect celebrities to have all the answers before they acknowledge there are major systematic issues in society. However we do need them to bring these issues into public consciousness.

And while it’s conducive to public discourse to hold celebrities accountable for their words and actions, when we are quick to berate them, we risk them choosing silence instead.

Jennifer Lawrence, who was politically outspoken during the first Trump administration, shared in a New York Times interview late last year that she’s hesitant to speak out now. “Celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for,” she said. “You have these actors who have had incredible careers …. then all of a sudden one half of the internet or country just can’t stand [them] anymore.”

When the rewards for political activism seem inconsequential, you can see why celebrities like Lawrence hang up their armour. Why risk the success they’ve built? It saddens me that celebrities are losing faith in their power to make change, because in our pop-culture obsessed society, they have the loudest microphone to amplify messages.

We must accept we won’t agree with everything they say, and accept it’s not their responsibility to educate us or get the facts right all the time. What we should expect is for celebrities to spotlight issues and spark discussion.

For those of you who still believe celebrities shouldn’t be politically outspoken, I’m here to prove you wrong.

Argument 1: Keep art and politics separate!

Distancing art from politics is like trying to split two sides of the same coin. All art is inherently political - it draws from the world, comments on and reflects it.

For example, The Hunger Games was inspired by the Vietnam War and society’s obsession with reality TV. Lawrence, who played Katniss, hoped people would take from the film how society becomes so numb to control, violence and trauma.

But as fans blur art and reality, Lawrence has been expected to be politically headstrong and rebellious like her character. So is it right to expect celebrities to speak out beyond their art?

Absolutely.

Why stop when the credits start rolling or the track ends? Celebrities should transform the attention they have into social good. Speaking out also clarifies their stance on political issues, rather than dealing with fan speculation.

For example, Taylor Swift has been a vocal Democrat since 2018, but fans are now suspicious she’s creeping up the “conservative pipeline”. Surely Swift - who’s been described as a lyricist akin to Shakespeare, and who’s cultivated a fan culture around finding “easter eggs” in her music - is aware of her latest album, The Life of a Showgirl’s, conservative undertones. But Swift has made no statement clarifying her political stance, instead letting her millions of listeners impose their own political interpretations. The lesson here is: people will find politics in art regardless of the artist’s intention, so celebrities might as well speak up.

Argument 2: Celebrities will alienate fans by speaking out

Lawrence said in her New York Times interview that she doesn’t want people’s dislike of her political opinions to discourage them from watching her films. “I want to protect my craft so that you can still get lost in what I’m doing.”

Swift also seems to be using this tactic. As said in The Guardian, she’s never been more popular commercially, so will be risking lots by speaking out. But the silence is uncanny coming from a singer whose political activism has contributed to her superstardom. Swift’s documentary “Miss Americana” followed her decision to break her political silence, a necessary step in humanising Swift and redefining her public image as someone wanting to be on the “right side of history.” It’s clear fans are drawn to an artist’s personal values just as much as their art - they want to know the celebrities they support align with their own values.

So if anything, stars garner loyal fan bases when they do speak out and display their values.

When Olivia Rodrigo fired back at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) for their use of her song “All American Bitch” in a reel promoting deportation, fans responded with admiration. Her comment received hundreds of likes within minutes. And being of Filipino descent herself, the public relied on Rodrigo to hold the government accountable on their behalf. Similarly, Sabrina Carpenter’s tweet slamming back at the same government agency for using her song “Juno” to promote their “inhumane agenda” earned fan’s applause.

By contrast, people have pointed fingers at the other “blonde lady” who has not resisted ICE’s use of her songs from her latest album in their social media posts. In today’s climate, being apolitical is a loud political (and PR) choice. Is trying to please the masses really worth making loyal fans think you don’t care? Swift has become proof that even the most prominent, previously vocal celebrities will subdue their political opinions to appease the masses. But either way, you win some and lose some, so might as well speak up.

Argument 3: Celebrities don’t have expertise

Celebrities may not have expertise, but they can bring political issues into the spotlight. When Billie Eilish called out billionaires when accepting her Music Innovator Award, she had the ears of the world’s richest people listening and the eyes of the media watching. Her message travelled further than any expert’s ever would.

We need celebrities like Eilish to translate their fame into political activism. They have the emotional leverage to motivate fans into political action. For example, in 2024, she paused her Atlanta concert to urge fans to “vote like your life depends on it.” Civic engagement researcher, Ashley Spillane, told the ABC that young voters are more willing to listen to celebrities over the ‘expertise’ of leaders and traditional news media because their relationship with fans feels more authentic and trustworthy.

Argument 4: What about celebrities with problematic views?

This one is tricky, because definitions of “problematic” vary. And if we create rules over who can and can’t speak, voices that should be heard will inevitably be silenced.

We should encourage celebrities to bring issues into public discussion, and we need a diversity of perspectives so the debate isn’t skewed. But ultimately, just because a celebrity has a view, doesn’t mean we have to believe them. We should make our own judgments. Their opinions should be linchpins for experts with well-founded views to speak up. After all, celebrities are an excuse for a topic to become ‘newsworthy’. The issue of ethical billionaires always bubbled under the surface, but didn’t erupt into public conversation until Eilish applied the pressure.

The bottom line

In today’s media age, anyone is entitled to an opinion, so we must accept that disagreements are inevitable, particularly with celebrities whose views are often amplified widest. But when we’re quick to shut them down, we risk them never speaking up.

Society needs celebrity star power to pressurise institutional change and motivate the public to take political action. We must take celebrities off the pedestal as being moral spokespeople and political educators. What we can rely on them for is bringing important issues into the spotlight and sparking discussion.

Dogmatism fosters security, acting as a protective reflex in an unequal society threatened by progressive movements.

Dogmatism in action

The idea, advocated by Kirk’s ‘Turning Point USA’ , that evangelical values or literal interpretations of the Bible must be believed by everyone and/or reflected in US education is a foundational element of dogmatism.

Attempts to legitimise biblical interpretations in support of Turning Point USA post Kirk’s death is evident in the recent University of Oklahoma Scandal, where 20 year old student Samantha Fulnecky received a 0/25 in a psychology essay where she used the bible to debunk key aspects of an academic study that explored how gender stereotypes affect mental health.

Fulnecky wrote that women “naturally want to do womanly things because God created us with those womanly desires in our heart.”

Outraged by her grade, Fulnecky accused psychology professor Mel Curth of religious discrimination. In response, the university’s administration has since placed Curth on leave, sparking online wars.

Curth argued that Fulnecky was given her grade as she did not follow the criteria of the assignment. The professor claimed that the junior was marked down as she debunked empirical and scientific evidence provided by the article, as well as fundamental aspects of course materials, such as failing to define what a ‘stereotype’ is.

While the rubric asked students to apply the article to their individual experiences and observations of other behaviours, I noticed Fulnecky only accommodated for her own ideological belief and emotions, using the bible as her only source. No analysis was conducted of other behaviours.

The rubric also asked students to link the findings of the article to other domains of development and academic readings, which was missing from Fulnecky’s response - she only referenced the Bible.

The removal of professor Curth by a major educational institution exposes how dogmatic thinking poses a threat to academia. This is not to say that religion should not be studied or explored, but for a major institution to resort to a claim of ‘Christian discrimination’ in an essay which devalued academic and scientific findings, which are heavily relied on in a subject like psychology, places Christianity at the top of the hierarchy of what is deemed credible.

Now, let’s explore how Kirk vocalised a dogmatic pattern. Despite lengthy studies that prove climate change poses an existential threat, Kirk claims these studies are ‘garbage’ . He condemns these studies at a college level - a level where students get to choose what they study in-depth.

Kirk’s belief that choice should be limited and censored, proves how dogmatism emulates fascist-like thinking.

Fascist and dogmatic thinking further arise when interpretations of the bible are distorted to establish a deep power imbalance, exemplified when concerning gender.

After saying that transgender people are an ‘abomination of God’, Kirk correlated his deploration of transgender people to his disdain for the Civil Rights Act, suggesting that it allows men to enter women’s bathrooms, posing a safety threat.

This is simply not true. If women’s safety was such a concern for Kirk, or if Fulnecky truly cared about women’s mental health, they would have:

• Not despised abortion and acknowledged the physical and mental risk pregnancy poses by prioritising the personhood of women rather than the prospective life of a fetus whose sensory driven cortical activations, essential for consciousness, do not emerge until 29-32 weeks. This is not to say the fetus has no value, but value is rather prescribed based on the mothers individual personhood, which stems from their developed consciousness.

• Not said that the termination of these fetuses’ was worse than the holocaust: an event subject to the suffering of humans with developed consciousness’, agency or personhood.

• Not defined the withdrawal of consent in sexual relations as a ‘murky grey area’. This further perpetuates the notion that men are entitled to sex and women’s bodies.

• Not advocated for traditional wives by acknowledging the risk of submission to men in a patriarchal climate with high domestic violence rates, including financial dependence. In 2024, one in four women seeking homelessness in the US identified partner violence as a cause.

• Accounted for the voices of a range of different women, who believe they are happier without children and/or focusing on a career.

These examples showcase how Kirk’s beliefs are invalid and contradictory, rather voiced to enable the suffering of women, and uplift the power of men.

Christianity in the absence of dogma?

Whilst this article has primarily focused on how the dogma of church can be used to enforce extremism and conformity, it is important to consider how the entirety of Christianity is not necessarily synonymous with dogma.

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy - the belief that the Bible is without error, coincides with dogma. As someone who is non-religious, I found myself wondering how common Christian opposition to this doctrine is.

I came across a Medium article by Hans Nyman on ‘Biblical Inerrancy’, who argues that this doctrine poses a danger to Christian faith - he suggests approaching spirituality through inspiration:

“[We should] recognise that the bible is an ancient and diverse collection of texts that include the developing human awareness of God. The bible needs and deserves careful attention in order to come to sound conclusions about theological moral issues on a case by case basis.”

Nyman also says that it seems “spiritually unhealthy to promote [inerrancy] on utilitarian grounds - It is better to test all things.” This implies that questioning is linked to spirituality, by encompassing a search for meaning and interconnectedness.

After I read Nyman’s article, I came across a young girl on my TikTok for you page who seemed to practice exactly what Nyman suggested. In reading the Bible, she actively questioned and vocalised contradictions she found.

In the video, she references Corinthians 14:29 - “two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said,” implying the significance of equal contribution and undertaking an evaluation of prophetic messages to ensure they pose benefit.

Comparatively, she critiques the teaching that “women should remain silent in the churches and must be in submission as the law says”, portraying this as an unfair contradiction that “doesn’t sound like God”. The comments agree, suggesting that the men who wrote this manoeuvred it to fit their agenda.

Her questioning of these statements showcases a belief that true faith and her own spiritual connectedness can be built upon intellectual curiosity and honesty.

The future of Trumpism and dogma: Intellectualism is vital

As Kirk endorsed Trump and is renowned by some as a ‘martyr’, his death invites further opportunities for Trump to use Christian dogma to garner power and support in western nations – including Australia.

Trump’s voting turnout was accompanied by 72% of Protestants and 63% of Catholics, suggesting the inadequacy of beliefs that lay deep in Christian practice.

Trump’s Christian facade is evident when 27 people died at a Christian Camp in Texas in July, where deficiency in government policy was justified by religion. The Federal Emergency Management Agency was subject to defunding by the Trump administration, which Kerr County in Texas copped the brunt of, after failing to install an early-warning system due to an inability to secure state money. Warnings were not issued until the early hours of the morning; a time in which most were asleep.

Despite research that supports increased rainfall in the region due to warmer temperatures, the Trump administration has claimed this as a “once in a century event” and an “act of God” to avoid increasing funding or taking action on climate change altogether.

Instead, Trump’s monetary efforts are directed towards funding campaigns against congressional enemies, deploying troops for military service in US streets, tax cuts for major wealthy corporations while cutting billions of dollars for social services, including healthcare which sits at the centre of the dispute that prompted the US government shut down.

Trump will not dedicate costs to services and programs that benefit society and the working class that primarily make up the United States. Oppositely, his efforts are contradictory, operating to intensely uphold a capitalist and stratified system, where he himself, a white male with a criminal record, can sit safely at the top of the social and economic hierarchy as he hides under the guise of religion.

This is where debunking a state of mind that intersects dogma and extremism becomes important in the context of political activism and elections in regards to the future of humanity - people must be open to questioning, researching and learning, even if it challenges the norm. Not doing so is proof that it was never about spirituality.

There is no doubt that this attack was targeted directly towards the Jewish community, fuelled by the genocide occurring in Gaza. However, to commit such violence against innocent civilians, especially children, spreads a political message that is charged with pure hatred and violence.

The event is an attack on innocence, intended to breed further division in Australia.

Unfortunately, online division quickly arose.

When the news hit of a suspected shooting in Bondi, I was quick to jump on X, formerly known as Twitter, to find further information. I was confronted with an uncensored video showing three bodies lying lifeless on the grass, including a man who had blood leak from his head that was covered with a towel whilst paramedics performed CPR on other victims.

Since attacks like this are so foreign in a place like Australia, commentary was quick to surge on X.

Instead of only seeing tweets that condemned the event or mourned the graphic exposure of the victim’s deaths, X users had already jumped on a bandwagon of Islamophobia.

One of the first tweets I saw claimed that it was ‘insensitive’ that a journalist reporting on the tragedy - who was simply doing her job - happened to be wearing a hijab.

I then saw another tweet that had listed violent attacks worldwide committed by Muslims, ending with the statement “deport them.” Yet this user had cherry picked attacks that aligned with their argument that Muslims resort to violence, using them to reflect an entire faith whilst excluding many major massacres that had been committed by non-Muslims.

Commentary like this ignores that 43 year old Ahmed al-Ahmed, who tackled one of the shooters, is Muslim. Discourse on X has been quick to distort this fact, with some users trying to claim that Ahmed was Jewish. Yet outlets such as the ABC, who have spoken to Ahmed’s father, have confirmed that he is an Arab born Muslim from the city of Idlib in Syria.

Discourse like this exposes a clear intention to create division, when the heroic act of Ahmed serves as an opportunity to garner unity.

Divisive commentary has been encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has blamed the shooting on Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recognition of a two state solution between Israel and Palestine. This blame has also been reinforced by Australian leaders.

Opposition leader Sussan Ley, alluded that Free Palestine protests in Australia are a contributing cause of violent anti-semitic attacks. She used the 3rd of August protest where civilians marched across the Harbour Bridge in support of Palestine as an example, as it was accompanied by “terrorist flags.”

However, only two men out of the 300,000 that attended were reported to have waved a flag made by extremist organisations such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State (IS). Whilst the two men have not received charges for inciting others to engage in their organisation, a legal tolerance of these groups is part of a complex problem, particularly after the two shooters were found to have ties to ISIS. The Free Palestine movement is not part of this problem.

The acts of two men do not reflect an entire movement or faith, but are examples of various distortions and extreme interpretations of religion, which can occur in any faith.

For politicians to blame an anti-semitic attack on movements that demand an end to mass starvation and death is contradictory. Instead their efforts should be focused on condemning Islamic extremist organisations, anti-immigration protests that create division, as well as their own actions that perpetuate or assert complicity in Israel’s murder of over 70,000 civilians in Gaza. You can’t condemn an Islamic terrorist organisation whilst supporting the Israeli military.

Netanyahu’s use of Judaism, by using Biblical passages to justify exclusive control of Israel, which is then achieved by genocide, puts civilians who follow the Jewish faith at risk all over the world by extremists who act in retaliation.

He chooses to create a public perception that aligns Judaism with genocide, when these acts are a reflection of the Israeli government, not the Jewish faith.

Threatening acts that symbolise division have been quick to take effect, after a Muslim cemetery in South West Sydney had been desecrated with decapitated pig heads. The act showcases an intent to demonstrate disdain towards the Islamic faith.

Ten news have also reported that there are fears of a ‘Middle Eastern bashing day’ as revenge online. The media outlet has chosen not to publish details while the police investigate these claims.

These examples are proof that hateful rhetorics between the two groups achieve nothing but spark continual violence, causing innocent civilians to pay the price.

Why should innocent civilians pay the price for the actions of leaders and policies who enable or encourage this violence?

For politicians like Netanyahu to use such brutal and tragic deaths to suit a narrative that is already inhumane, exposes a lack of genuine care for humanity but rather a desire for political and economic power.

Subscribe now