Gender $tudies – Can We Afford the Cost?

By Laura Howden

*Trigger Warnings: this article contains a brief mention of rape and sexual assault. Reader discretion is advised if sensitive to content of this nature.*

Two undergraduate students at the April 18 rally on UQ’s St Lucia campus, preparing to lead the march. (Photo captured by Laura Howden.)

Two undergraduate students at the April 18 rally on UQ’s St Lucia campus, preparing to lead the march. (Photo captured by Laura Howden.)

“When Gender Studies is under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!” The chant ripples through the crowd as we march across the St Lucia campus of The University of Queensland (UQ); a formidable assembly of staff and students armed with megaphones, banners and copies of an online petition that amassed some 836 signatures of support. Our final destination is the UQ senate meeting, at which representatives from UQ’s Gender Studies Teaching Committee hope to present evidence against the institution’s decision to abolish the major. Close to a dozen police officers await our arrival at the foot of the building. Requests to allow a delegation from our ranks to enter the senate are refused but, at the last, they allow a copy of the petition and two other documents to be handed through the line of officers and tabled by the board. When we finally disperse the protestors’ anger and frustration is palpable, and it is clear that this issue is a long way away from reaching any kind of resolution.

The April 18 rally was organised in response to an announcement by the university’s Executive Arts Dean, Fred D’Agostino, that as of 2014 Gender Studies would no longer be offered as a choice of major for undergraduate students (with existing students given the option to continue on until 2018). One week prior to the protest event, Mr D’Agostino was quoted in The Australian newspaper as saying he “was not aware” of any complaints from undergraduate students – this in spite of the vocal ‘Save Gender Studies’ student collective on campus, which held its first meeting of the year on March 11.

But it has not just been local students standing up and speaking out against the cuts. Director of Gender Studies at Melbourne University, Professor Jeanette Hoorn, spoke both at the rally and at an earlier forum alongside members of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). She noted in each of her talks that UQ would now be the only GO8 university in Australia not to offer a gender or women’s studies program, and urged UQ administrators to recognise its significance beyond the classroom. “I believe you cannot do any gender studies in Iran these days,” Professor Hoorn said at the rally. “It’s a shame you can’t do much in Queensland either.”

Continue reading


“A Silent Struggle for Women” – Women and Sexism in Parliament

Here’s a much awaited copy of Izzy Manfield and Hannah Tilling’s speech (UQWC, represent!) from the UQ Social Justice forum held back in April this year. Our topic was “Women in Parliament” :) 

Hi everyone! I’m Izzy…

And I’m Hannah…

And we are here tonight to discuss women in Parliament, and how our perception of women and our reluctance to grant them power has prevented and is preventing equality in the Australian Parliament.

Let’s cut to the chase with some stats. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, women comprise approximately half of Australia’s total population. However, women are less than one-third of all parliamentarians in Australian parliaments. Considering Australian women only achieved the vote in 1902, you might say this will only take a matter of time and us women shouldn’t be so pushy. But is time all it will take to achieve equality in Australian Parliament?

We are here to tell you that we need more than time. We need a complete renovation of our female stereotypes in all walks of life and in all professions and situations. We need to investigate the role of women and the sexism they face to combat this discrimination. It’s a difficult issue to overcome. While this speech may not change the world straight up, we are hoping it will give you food for thought that all of you, both male and female and anything else, can and should take this information into your own workplaces and your own careers.

Sexism is difficult because it’s rarely out in the open. It’s covert, it’s hidden, it’s a silent pressure and a silent struggle for women. It’s hard to detect and even harder to prevent.

When a woman is in Parliament, no one is going to blatantly disclaim they are uncertain of her leadership capabilities because she is a woman. They disguise their uncertainties by dragging attention to her manner of dress, her intimate relationships or family or lack thereof or any other factors that have traditionally been applied to women to keep them out of power and in the household.

How can this be changed? What are we doing about the issue now, today, so we can have a better tomorrow? What will we see when we ‘look towards the future’?

In the past half decade, all appears to be looking up for women in Parliament in Australia. With Anna Bligh, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, there seems to be a lot of recent firsts for women in Australian politics. But is this enough?

A lack of women in Parliament isn’t simply going to solve itself by us pumping BULK female members into seats. The issue is how society perceives women in daily roles and the public’s perception of ideal leadership qualities. The lack of women in Parliament starts with who you think is most worthy of your vote. If there are a man and a woman with equal capabilities and they are equally level-headed policy makers and both are excellent organisers and public speakers, who are you going to vote for?

And it’s not even that. Do we really have a society that makes it socially acceptable for a woman to be interested in politics? And once a woman is involved, is she actively encouraged to be as engaged with the debate and can she actually take control of the meeting room without receiving increasing criticism from her peers?

I know you’ve heard it all before. The stereotypical qualities of a man include being responsible, protective, capable, and in control. When a man is assertive, he is perceived as in control; while for a woman, she is instead aggressive and abrupt. Even if a woman is assertive, we disguise this quality by applying these feminine qualities (such as bitchiness) which all have negative connotations. The way we can accept women into positions with power is to redistribute the adjectives we use to describe them. Masculine words are seen for the most part as gender neutral, while feminine words are explicitly engineered for women alone. We think Nicki Minaj sums this up quite nicely in her infamous ‘Bossed Up’ clip.

Since a woman is seen to be aggressive if she’s assertive, therefore a woman is conveyed as quite manipulative, secretive and passive aggressive: none of these qualities are desirable for leadership positions and hence make acquiring such positions as a woman all the more difficult. These qualities are more than just a stereotype, they are expected behaviours that are covertly enforced.

A woman can never win when it comes to leadership in this climate. Even if she isn’t manipulative or secretive, she is just thought to be cunning enough to hide her true character; instead being branded as fake and a liar. Take Julia Gillard for example. Her appointment as Prime Minister was entirely justified under the Australian political system, and yet her entire reign has been poisoned with her fellow Australians calling her a liar; a cheat; a back-stabbing bitch. Just imagine if Kevin Rudd’s and Julia Gillard’s positions had been switched with Gillard running for office in the election and Rudd then taking over shortly afterwards, how different the public reaction would have been.

Leadership qualities should be encouraged in all women, not just those who seek a political career. We can’t keep pretending all women are naturally submissive and family-orientated except for the rare, outstanding few ‘career women’ who are different. ‘Career women’ are not some aspirational, testosterone-pumped, genetically variant breed of female who are just men disguised in a woman’s body. All women have the potential to grasp and maintain power through a successful career; only in our current culture, it is seen as too difficult. I mean, the ideal woman is a fashion model for goodness sake! Yes, there is this painful idea that a woman can exist as an entity known as the ‘career woman’. This creature first appeared in the fossil record circa the second world war, but the species really began to thrive in populace during the seventies. The ‘career woman’ is, simply put, a mutant female specimen who has sacrificed her womanhood for her career. She is not expected to care for a family, and if she does she is encouraged to sacrifice her career; or vice versa. But of course, career and family cannot be combined by any female, not even this new ‘career woman’ type. Of course, family is only a lovely pasttime for a man, as opposed to a full-time job for a woman. Women who choose career over a family life are doomed to a lonely existence as a spinster and are missing a key organ that is a key characteristic of the ordinary female: the heart. If these career women don’t have an interest in fashion or a particular interest in how she presents herself, she is never going to get very far. Accordingly, the process of natural selection acts to remove such women from the gene pool through discrimination and criticism. The reality is, labelling women in power as ‘career women’ is demeaning and just goes to show how shocking a woman in power still is to the public eye.

It’s not just an annoying social dilemma with a bit of ‘shock factor’ to boot. Sexism in parliament is a form of harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace. Somehow there is still a covert kind of status quo that appears to rank women incapable when it comes to making decisions and executing them.

Instead of sweeping this under the table, we need to recognise it for what it is. Sexism. In the words of Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her internationally acclaimed Misogynist speech – ‘Sexism should always be unacceptable’. Why should we take the opportunity to disregard women in politics, such as Gillard herself, and cast off our negativity simply as political banter. Women should be encouraged to speak out and be passionate about social justice issues; to be honest and assertive, not be afraid to have leadership qualities and to be empowered. Looking forward to the future, I think that our country and the global community have a huge potential for equality in Parliament.

Instead of looking to others and waiting for this thing we call society to pick up its game, you, the people sitting in this room right now, need to recognise you are a part of this society and what you say, do and – even more importantly – think really impacts on even big things like equality for women in Parliament.

For if not now, when? If not here, where? If not you, who? This change starts with you and it starts when you assess your own behaviours and realise that sexism is everywhere – even in your own subconscious mind.

We hope this short speech has perhaps opened your mind to the possibilities for women. Imagine a world where women were given equal opportunity to participate in politics at a Parliamentary level, and imagine a world where the new glasses of a female Prime Minister didn’t make frontpage headline news.

So good evening. We hope you’ve learnt something new and we hope you can question your own thinking enough to see more women in power, and thus more women in Parliament. Achieving this will open the window of opportunity for Australian women, which make up 50% of the population, to have equal representation in decision making for the country.

Casual Sexism: Myths, Debunked

Trigger warning for misogynist, homophobic language, discussion of sexual assault.

“Grow some balls!”/”That takes balls.” 

Having balls is a compliment or an insult, depending on how it’s used, but it comes back to the idea that being courageous/brave/forward is a male thing. I’m sure no one doubts that these traits are certainly present in women as well, however the problem here is linking such traits with cis-male genitalia. There’s also a bit of an irony to this saying. Testicles seem to be the most sensitive part on a male body. And yet, ironically, they’ve come to represent toughness.

So far, there’s no problem, really. Where’s the sexism?

The problem is when it’s used to describe a woman. And there are two issues with this. First, cis-women don’t have balls. So substitute balls for ovaries? It doesn’t quite have the same ring. We don’t even have a colloquial word for ovaries in english (in common usage, anyway, Urban Dictionary informs me that the kids are calling them “Os” these days), and yet I can think of numerous slang words for testicles off the top of my head. Balls, nuts, bollocks, crown jewels.

The second problem with this saying is when someone says to a woman “grow some balls”. Meaning get some nerve/drive/courage. It’s reductive because, in light of the fact that women don’t have them, it implies that courage/nerve/the go-getting attitude is A Male Thing. This insult’s close relative, calling someone a “pussy”, perfectly compliments this idea by saying that if you don’t have these things, you are female genitalia.

Finally, this is pretty trans* phobic language. The expression totally adheres to the gender binary, and in doing so, defines internal gender characteristics by reference to physical (external) gender. In this way, gender is represented as a dichotomy rather than a spectrum, and physical and mental manifestations of gender are wrongly conflated.

“You’re such a girl!”

Being a girl in this context is synonymous with being weak, submissive, and crying easily. Of course these traits are feminine, and therefore negative (according to this insult’s logic). The female gender is reduced to an insult. Like it’s the last thing anyone would want to be.

I’ve also noticed people employing this gender essentialist language to describe themselves or others in a positive way. Well in a retro-sexist positive way. Take this for example. “I just love crocheting and baking sponge cakes, I’m such a girl” or this, “my boyfriend eats soo much, he’s such a boy”. In other words “I do [insert gender-essential trait here], therefore I’m such a [insert gender here]“.

Like the “you’re such a girl” line, these expressions reek of gender essentialism. In the world of these expressions all girls wear pink dresses with little bows and like to knit or flower-arrange in their spare time. Likewise, the “boys” don’t show any sort of complex emotion, like “big” things like cars and trucks, and of course have enormous appetites.

“Take it as a compliment!”/”Have a sense of humour”/”Don’t be so serious.”

You know that person who says you look cute when you get angry, or that person who says they’re a feminist and then proceeds to completely objectify you (by being overtly sexual, asking you for naked photos – true story!)? This is one of their favourites.

People like to pull this one out when someone makes a sexist/homophobic joke and you don’t let it slide. If only you’d just stop being such a humourless feminist and appreciate some good old humour! Go on, take those sleazy construction worker catcalls as a compliment! You should like receiving that attention; it means you’re attractive, right?

Just no.

The idea of someone who “wears the pants” in a relationship.

This saying manages to be astoundingly heteronormative, with a generous helping of tired gender roles and gender essentialism.

Re: gender essentialism, first. It’s underscored by the idea that the person who wears the pants is a man (even though women wear pants. Indeed, I’m wearing pants right now). And that this pants-wearing man is the one who wields the power and authority in a relationship. It’s premised on the idea that it’s not fathomable that two people in a relationship, irrespective of their gender, could simply be equal, and that there may actually not be either particular person calling the shots. To think that someone has to be “the one in charge” is just really…weird and paternalistic.

Moving on to the heteronormativity of this. Just…wow. If the saying is based on the idea that one person in a relationship must either be or resemble a man, then what of a relationship where there are no men, more than one party is a man, neither party is a cis-gendered man?

It also assumes that everyone is in a monogamous relationship between two people.

The thing about this saying is that it’s usually aimed at relationships that don’t, or appear not to conform to narrow conceptions of how gender roles should be. Lesbian relationships are frequently targeted by absolutely hilar observers with these sorts of sayings. But even heterosexual relationships, where the female party might be noticeably forward or self-assured, can be targeted. Observers will wryly note, “well she really wears the pants in that relationship”.

“That sucks dick”/”Go suck a dick”.

This saying seems to be underpinned by the conception that fellatio is fundamentally degrading/debasing. Like “sucking a dick” is a really crappy thing to do and should only be reserved for crappy people. Which confuses me because receiving fellatio is like proof that someone’s A Real Man, or just generally awesome. So…it’s a shit thing to do, but if you get it you’re awesome?

Raping/being raped by things.

I’m going to keep writing about this until rape stops being funny to people. But first, let’s go back to a definition of rape, shall we? So (my non-dictionary) definition of rape is non-consensual sexual activity with someone. But it’s more than that. It’s an expression of power over someone, enacted by sexual means.

Rape isn’t just having sex with someone when they weren’t really into it. It goes far deeper than that. So, again, that really difficult exam? That long day at work? That nauseating hangover? That person hacking into your facebook and changing your status? Not rape. Next time you think about using ‘rape’ to describe any of those things, (or basically anything that isn’t non-consensual sexual activity with someone) think about all those sexual assault survivors whose experiences you’re dismissing.


~ Rosie Cuppaidge

News Roundup – April 2013

Spiffing Sports

Over 100 of Australia’s best and brightest sportswomen have converged on the nation’s capital for a one day conference, to celebrate Canberra’s centenary and recognise The Canberra Times’s award for ”Best Coverage of Women in Sport in 2012” by the Australian Sporting Commission. The conference will wrap up with a list of Australia’s top 100 female athletes: among those to be honoured, star swimmer Dawn Fraser and sprinter, Cathy Freeman.

A five-stage Tour of Britain for female cyclists is in the final stages of planning, to take place in the spring of 2014. Race director, Mick Bennett, confirmed the decision to European media and outlined the need for an increase in publicity within the arena of women’s competitive cycling. “It seems an obvious and logical step forward given the strength of women’s cycling in this country and the enthusiasm for the sport generally… It’s a great sport and all that is needed is more opportunity for the women to race.”

The first ever round of the Tasmanian Women’s Motocross Championship was held on March 23rd, and saw 14 women compete in this typically male-dominated sport for the first place title. Sarah Knee, a local racer from Launceston, currently competes in both co-ed and women’s only races and was delighted with the opening of the women’s championship to support the increase in female participants. …

They Said What?!

Alex Bilmes, editor of British Esquire magazine, has defended his publication’s “honest” portrayal of women with a few particularly unenlightened statements at a 2013 London panel discussion on ‘Feminism in the Media.’ Sifting through his quotes was an ordeal unto itself; the following comments are perhaps the most cringe worthy offerings. “I could lie to you and say we’re interested in their brains as well, but on the whole, we’re not. They’re there to be beautiful objects. They’re objectified.”

We’re at least, or possibly more, ethnically diverse [than other magazines]. More shape-diverse. We also have older women. Not really old, but in their 40s… Cameron Diaz was on the cover three issues ago. She’s in her 40s.

Brazil’s human rights boss has warned that gender equality could undermine the classic maternal roles of women and turn society, quote unquote, ‘gay’. The following comments are excerpts from Marco Feliciano’s recently published book. ‘When you stimulate a woman to have the same rights as men…. her part of being mother starts getting diminished… I see a subtle way how this affects the family, when you stimulate people to release and liberate their instincts.’ Feliciano has been slammed by Brazilian Feminists for his views. Economics professor Hildete Pereira de Melo, from the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, has labeled the statements as ‘delusional, misogynistic and homophobic.’ Which just about sums it up, really!

Women of Words

(Trigger Warning: this news segment contains a brief mention of sexual assault and rape.)

Melbourne writer and Herald Sun contributor, Alice Clarke, has responded to the recent trend of celebrities such as Lady Gaga and Katy Perry rejecting Feminist labels. “It’s OK, I guess, not to be a feminist,” she writes in a recent column. “We all get to have our own opinions and that’s great (though if you don’t believe in equality, you have some issues to work out).” Her article tackles the current problems of gender stereotypes and victim blaming in cases of sexual assault – the message to women being, don’t invite rape, instead of a much needed educational standard that teaches people not to commit rape. She ends by imploring men and women to embrace Feminism, to understand that the fight for gender equality in Western society is not null and void but an absolute necessity.

Jackie C. Horne, a writer, independent scholar and author of the site Romance Novels for Feminists, has come out in celebration of a modern wave of romantic literature that moves beyond the “bodice ripper” genre popular during the 1970s. She recognizes these authors as taking ideas that were once novel or provocative – the idea of powerful, self possessed heroines – to be givens. Houston author Delphine Dryden is very much aligned with Horne’s views but still sees problems for women in the world of erotic literature, noting that some writers are too quick to fall back on tropes of slut-shaming and female helplessness. She posits the presence of heroines who can make choices as a critical starting point for Feminist authors – a woman who acts, rather than being “acted upon.”

SAVE Gender Studies at UQ!

The proposed eradication of the Gender Studies major at UQ – part of a wider scaling back of humanities subjects across the country – has sparked fierce opposition from UQ students and members of the UQ Women’s Collective. The first meeting of the counter campaign, ‘Save Gender Studies at UQ,’ attracted over 30 students and staff on the Great Court at St Lucia. An educational forum is planned for Thursday, April 11th, to precede a larger rally in opposition of the university’s cutback. Members of the Women’s Collective will be handling a social media campaign through the creation of a video, informing viewers on the importance of gender studies at a tertiary level.

If you consider yourself a bit of a tech head/actor extraordinaire/directorial genius and like to get involved in the video (or in any other aspect of the campaign) check out the Facebook page online or express your interest within the UQWC Facebook group!

~ Laura Howden

Continue reading

Slut: A Myth

This article will be featured in Wom*news 9: Myths

Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault.

You are fifteen and dislike your crush’s girlfriend. You call her a slut. You are eighteen and about to go out clubbing for the first time. Your mother looks you up and down and says she didn’t raise a slut. You are twenty and the boy you are fucking calls you a slut the one night you refuse to have sex.

Everyone knows that the word “slut” has power, whether we agree with it or not.
It is used to shame and degrade women and, more importantly, to put them in a box with a label that says “you’re not human here” and to make sure they stay there. Whilst there are many different variables in the slut-shaming game, the objective remains the same: to ensure women’s behaviour is deemed “acceptable” by societal terms, and to make sex a source of shame and not power. In a culture that is so concerned with labels and definitions, one has to pose the question: what is a slut? After years of being called a slut, of hearing my friends being called sluts I can only assume that a slut is a woman who doesn’t adhere to every societal expectation heaped upon her. Continue reading

Call For Submissions: Wom*news #9 “Myths”!

Wom*news, the UQ Women’s Collective’s magazine, is calling for submissions for our 9th issue, with the theme of “myths”!

We accept short stories, opinion pieces, research articles, lists, interviews, poems, photographs, song lyrics, illustrations, paintings, collages…and anything else creative you can think of…
on the subject of myths relating to women, feminism, female identities, gender and sexuality
from members and allies of the UQ Women’s Collective.
Submissions are open on March 1st, 10am
and close March 26, 5pm.



We are also looking for cover art for this issue relating to the theme of myths.

Your work will be featured both in the hard copy of our zine, the pdf version and as a post here at the wom*news website.


Emma, Lorelei and Rosie
The Wom*news Team

PS. You can find full pdf versions of our past zine issues here.

An Open Letter to Female Chauvinist Pigs

An Open Letter to Female Chaunivist Pigs
by Isobel Harris

Warning: The following is a rant.

Hello Ladeez,

I have had the supreme pleasure of engaging with you during my journey through the production lines that are high school, university and hospitality based employment. Whilst I am a deconstructionist, or a post-modernist, to the highest degree and consequently do have the capacity to recognise, with at least SOME objectivity, that your attitudes, values and beliefs are manifestations of your societal conditioning and cultural indoctrination, I must admit that I do react with some disquiet when I am exposed to some of your more loveable articulations. Some of you seem to have the idea that being a feminist is icky, and that feminism is a platform for ‘Giant, freakishly strong, aggressive bull dykes,’ or ‘girls who can’t get boyfriends,’ (because I, like you, only seem have one goal: to land a manbeast) and, which is possibly worse, that you are part of a sub-group within women: The ‘Good’ Girls. You are the girls that all the boys want, and that all the girls want to be, am I right? And, like my cat when I first brought my other cat home, you must let us all know that you are the top dog (or cat) by pissing on everything. Pissing with words. Words that smell like ammonia and friskies. Can I just say, being discriminatory, slanderous and, well, catty, towards your fellow lady things is not cool. It does not make you better Man Bait, it does not make you a good person. It makes you a misogynist, a chauvinist and a pig. Yes, you can be a girl and a misogynist, just like you can be black and racist. So, I have decided to give you a taste of the things that you say that makes me want to buy 550 cats like that lady in Israel and go and live on a farm somewhere. Here are my two favourite things that FCPs say:

‘I totally have more guy friends than girl friends. Girls are so emotional and whiny, I can’t stand it.’

I mean, this is just awful. Who are you ladies talking to when you regurgitate this little gem? Are you talking to a boy? A boy you might possibly like? Regardless of your target audience, your intent here is clear: you are trying to distance yourself from ‘girls’.  You aren’t like them, because they are emotional (have emotions?) and you can’t stand it when people are emotional (have emotions?). You much prefer boys, and if we are to believe you when you say you have ‘totally more guy friends than girl friends,’ they really quite like you too. If you ARE talking to a boy, you’re telling him that you don’t like  women because of a culturally perpetuated behavioural trait that they have, that you don’t have, and he should include you in the oh so exclusive ‘brotherhood’ in which you can discuss boobs and talk about the porn without those emotional, whiny ‘girls’ getting in the way. If, goddess forbid, you have just uttered this to one of those emotional girls, well firstly I hope you have some tissues ready, but secondly you are telling her that, not only is she emotional and whiny, but that if you do attain her coveted friendship, she too must be special, she too must be above other girls. Well you’re not, we are all resplendently female. But you’re a bit of a butthead. And I hope the girl to whom you were talking stole your tissues and ran away.

‘I’m not a feminist, I think feminism is stupid.’

Really? You should probably drop out of uni then. And stop voting. And, if you are over the age of 25, start panicking because the men, well they like ‘em young you see. If you cross the big 3-0 without catching one, you’re screwed. Without stupid feminism, you wouldn’t be allowed to go to uni. Without stupid feminism, your entire personal worth would be calculated based on your beef casserole, and your ability to land a man. And once you did get him (SCORE), it wouldn’t be like when Carrie and Big bought that super cool apartment, you would be his property. As you weren’t allowed to go to uni (or possibly even finish high school), and you’re not allowed to vote, your scope for influence is very small.  Your primary objectives are to have children, cook and clean. And maybe do some gardening and blow jobs in the interim. Your opinions, desires, wants and needs are irrelevant, as you are effectively an anthropomorphised fleshlight duct-taped to a vacuum cleaner and/or microwave oven. Yay! Now, this is not to say that being a home maker is not a valid, fulfilling and wonderful thing to do with your life. But with the help of stupid feminists everywhere, it has become an OPTION, now you can do whatever you want, be it astronaut, retail assistant or slightly bored, procrastinating post grad student! You have the power of choice now, thanks to our foremothers.

So please, ladeez, open your minds. It is your FEMINIST GIVEN right to speak freely and be a valid participant in social discourse (unless you live in Georgia. I got 99 problems, but Chemical Endangerment Legislation ain’t one.) If you hate us so much, how must you feel about yourself?


Isobel ‘Giant, freakishly strong, aggressive bull dyke’ Harris

P.S. I live with my boyfriend. So ha! Now we can dance until we have six babies and a house!

~ Isobel Harris