Content Warning Rape Culture

I've very carefully been avoiding reading any detail about the pro-rape Return of Kings hate group.  I'm sure there are lots of other people doing the same.  Too hard, too awful, too difficult to do while being functional in daily life.  So what I have to offer is probably not as useful or considered as many of the other excellent pieces of writing I've been turning away from.

What I want to mention is how when something like this sparkles and shines above the normally opaque surface of rape culture, above the grime and darkness of everyday attitudes toward women that enable most rape, and sexism, we go for it instantly, dispose of it vigorously and then, for some, rest, reassured that we did our bit.

It's good that we respond to these overt threats, that we call them out as unacceptable.  We should do that.  I'm particularly heartened to see men strongly rejecting pro-rape views, alongside many of marginalised genders.   There are peaceful anti-misogyny rallies happening in Auckland and Wellington this weekend, for a public show of opposition, and it is great to see these continue in broader rejection of rape culture now that the Return of Kings public meet-ups have been cancelled.

The very idea of anyone being "pro-rape" reminded me of the (probably apocryphal but nonetheless) chilling jus primae noctis or Right of the First Night.  For those not keen to follow the link (which is a Wikipedia article) the general idea is that the feudal lord gets to rape new brides on their wedding night, before the marriage can actually be consummated with the new husband.  This has come up as a practice in Game of Thrones, and appears not to have been an actual codified right as such, but it does seem very aligned with long standing views of women as the property of men, and the exercise of power over other men by damaging or claiming such property.

Think, if you will, of modern cults in which the leader is entitled to rape any girl or woman they wish, and it is to be seen as an honour by the victim and her family.    Consider the practice of slut-shaming, and how women are valued by their sexual attractiveness while simultaneously judged for enjoying sex, particularly sex outside the bounds of holy monogamous matrimony, as if sex were something not just for men.  Reflect on the threats of rape directed at women who speak out online, or do not comply with instructions from men in their lives; for me the most terrifying moment of the whole of Firefly/Serenity is when Jubal Early threatens to rape Kaylee (note, he then goes on to use a threat to rape Kaylee to gain power over a male character too).

Imagine what it is to live your everyday life knowing that someone you interact with holds the view that you are available to be raped by them at any time.  That shouldn't be too hard for many people, as it is not a million miles from the Schrodinger's Rapist reality for pretty much anyone of a marginalised gender and/or sexuality.

So as we oppose Return of Kings, their hate and their wrongness and their fear, let us also look beyond them in their shiny coat of misogyny to the darkness behind.  That darkness is harder to see, harder to make visible to everyone else, harder to clean away, but still we should scrub at it.  It is built of years and years of rape culture based on the inferiority of women, of pretty much anyone who isn't in the traditionally powerful demographic of a society.  Layers are created from rape jokes, specks added by #EverydaySexism such as "male nurse" and "lady driver", larger blobs slathered on by discrimination that still keeps many out of the professions they would seek on the basis of their genitalia.

We chip off the sparkle of Return of Kings, and we keep chipping, keep scrubbing, keep cleaning, until it is all gone.

Afraid of the darkness

Content warning:  This is about violence against women.

Tonight as I left work someone said to me to take care, and I knew what she meant.  She meant take care because it is dark.

But it's not the dark that hurts us.  It's not the dark that killed Blessie.

It's the darkness; the hate of women, the drive to possess us, to control us.  The dehumanising of women, who are, after all, just other people, to the point where killing us, hurting us is somehow justifiable.

The vast vast majority of people who are murdered in Aotearoa New Zealand are killed by people they know.  For women the most dangerous person in their life, statistically, is a male partner.  There is no data on this, but I imagine most of those killings happen in light, artificial or natural.

Blessie didn't die because she caught the bus, she didn't die because she was out alone at night; both of those things are normal ordinary things to do, things most men can do without question, things we all should be able to do without fear and without a bad outcome.  Blessie died because someone killed her.  

We can fear the dark, and what's in the dark, but it won't keep us safe to do so.

The fundamentally anti-women notion at the heart of anti-abortion campaigns laid bare

Content warning:  This is a post about the tactics of an anti-abortion campaign currently underway, the arguments they make, and as such will include some unpleasantness.  I'm just going to turn off comments on my posts about abortion at the moment because I don't have time to monitor a comment thread and some people won't respect the rules.  If you want to tell me something in particular as a result of this post then you can email us or tweet me @juliefairey.

--

I blogged last week about the paradox of Choose Life, a new campaign (launched for Lent donchaknow) aimed at pressuring and intimidating people seeking an abortion (but it's your choice, honest), and ultimately wanting to have forced pregnancies, rather than allow anyone to terminate.

Well today we have the people who are supporting this contradiction positively bragging about enabling someone to harass their pregnant partner, who was seeking an abortion at a clinic in Auckland, to the point where the police were called twice.

Let's be clear; this example shows us precisely what the opposition to abortion are all about: denying those with uteruses power over their own bodies, and encouraging those who aren't pregnant to hold sway over those who are.  Most of the time that is going to be a woman disempowered, harassed, upset, abused, and a man taking power, harassing, hectoring, abusing.  And that is fundamentally anti-women.

The 40 Days For Life crew have the gall to argue, in the above linked  post, that:

• Men should step up and speak out about abortion, especially "post-abortive men".  First up you need to understand that "post-abortive men" are not chaps who were going to mail a letter but then decided not to.  Then you need to ignore the fact that the Go To Anti Abortion Media Commentariat in our country are (both) male (Ken Orr and Bob McCroskrie for those following along at home). Finally please do deny the really rather undeniable biological fact that if men get to decide about abortions then that would mean that in most cases the actual pregnant person doesn't get to decide about continuing their own pregnancy.  And I rather suspect that those who are anti-abortion aren't keen on giving men who do get pregnant a say either.
• Abortion allows the objectification of women, and no doubt without it we would all be living in a feminist paradise in which women ate chocolates constantly while men served their every whim, in recognition of their divine role as wombs, or something.  I rather doubt the feminist commitment of a group whose main campaign is in favour of forced pregnancy.
• They helped a "distraught father."  To harass a distraught, and pregnant, mother, if you follow their line of argument.  Oh good, that'll help everybody involved, except that it won't.  How about instead of saying "think about the father, think about the baby!!11!!" it was "think about that pregnant person, that human being who is likely in a tricky spot and deserves some compassion and some respect."

In the specific instance linked we don't know a whole lot about the circumstances, and what we do is based on a rather subjective source.  But statistics tell us that at least half of all terminations each year are the result of contraceptive failure.  Chances are that the harasser in this situation had sex not intending to have a child as a result, and was possibly actively involved in undertaking contraceptive efforts to ensure that.  

Even if that weren't the case he doesn't have a right to force someone else to continue a pregnancy, give birth, become a parent or expand their family further.  The conversation seems to go "If you want to go through with this pregnancy then you can do it yourself" followed by "I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't, but you should".  No one should be able to force someone to continue a pregnancy they don't want to continue; no one.  The only person who can ultimately decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the person who is pregnant.  They can seek advice from anyone they like, but it should be their decision.

In a culture that shames women for having sex, having bodies, having abortions, using contraception, being sexy, not being sexy, and much much more, anti-abortion campaigners actively increase the possibility that pregnancy can cause distress and mental ill health.  By praying outside clinics, displaying anti-abortion signs, encouraging people opposed to abortion (either in general or in a specific case) to pressure others, Choose Life and their ilk are intimidating and harming people who are already vulnerable.  It's hateful and cruel and I wish they would stop.

"Choose Life" is not about choice; it's about force

There's a new campaign by one of my least favourite lobby groups (Family First in case you were wondering), which is encouraging people to wear special pink and blue ribbons to say "Choose Life," by which they mean don't have abortions.

The use of the word "choose" implies that Family First is asking people to make a choice.  But in fact what they actually want to do is take away the very choice they are supposedly promoting.

Confused?

Me too.

It's like this.

Family First are anti-abortion.  The code they most commonly use for this is something along the lines of supporting the rights of the unborn child, but no make no bones about it, they are opposed to abortion.

Family First are asking people to wear dinky ribbons in boringly gender-referenced colours (never mind that some people aren't girls or boys, or that pink ribbons are already very widely associated with breast cancer support).  Everybody say "awwwwww", cute widdle ribbons in baby colours!

Family First's ribbons are worn as a symbol that you want people to not have abortions.

Family First want to remove the current (flawed, fettered, and not autonomous) right to choose an abortion.

Family First want to take away any ability to "choose life" and instead are keen to force people to continue pregnancies when they don't want to.

In effect what they want to do is force you to choose life.  Not much of a choice is it?



Edited to add:  I've turned off and hidden comments.  I don't have time to moderate these posts and while there are some good comments the bad ones are annoying and I just can't be bothered.  If you particularly want me to know something then you can easily find me on email, twitter or Facebook.

Growing boys, not roast busters

Trigger warning: explicit discussion of rape culture.  I understand in a week with so much victim-blaming littering our media, any mention of sexual violence may be too much, so please be careful.

John Key's response to the gang rape club in Auckland (they call themselves "roast busters") is on the money:

"These young guys should just grow up," Key said this afternoon.

That is the point of this horrific glimpse into the misogyny and sexualising of power over and complete disregard for the personhood of the young women these men have raped - how are our young men growing up?

Let's be clear about this - these young men are bragging about girls as young as 13, about using alcohol to ensure the young women are unable to resist, about knowing the girls are not into what is happening.

They are bragging about raping. 

They are bragging about - and sharing with others - the ways they deliberately, in premeditated ways, over-ride the capacity of others to consent (that's when those others are legally able to consent).

The victim-blaming that has accompanied this - from the New Zealand Police choosing not to act when a 13 year old complained of rape TWO YEARS AGO to the vile commentary from an ill-informed, steeped in rape culture media - illustrates exactly why this gang rape club can exist.

We expect it.  We excuse it.  We tell young men - from the Prime Minister down - that boys will be boys, and if they are behaving badly, maybe we tell them to "grow up".

Well, I don't buy this.  I don't buy the inevitability of "boys being boys".  I don't buy the inevitability of growing boys into men who have no empathy, and no respect, and who prove their masculinity by exerting violence, including sexual violence over others.  I don't buy the inevitability of rape culture.

So Mr Key, to help grow boys into men who do not hurt women or anyone else, let's try getting them early.  Teaching little boys about empathy, teach them to try and imagine, by reading to them and talking to them, how other people feel.  All the time, about everything.  So when they are starting to explore being sexual with other people, that's in their kete of skills.

Let's stop telling little boys, big boys and men to "harden up."  Last week I was playing in my vegetable garden, and the next door neighbour's children were hanging out with me, weeding.  The three year old boy was heaving on some tall weeds, and fell on his bum, face crumpling up.  I asked him if he was ok.  His six year old sister said "Yeah, he's tough."

I said "I think you can be tough, and things can still hurt.  Are you ok?"  And he had a little cry and a little hand squeeze with me, then jumped up to do some more weeding and talk about favourite biscuits (his: tim tams; mine, on that day: toffee pops).

If we encourage boys to express all of the feelings they have - including vulnerability and sadness and sometimes just not knowing - we will grow men who have a range of emotional options available to them, not just anger.  And that will help them navigate the tricky waters of life, where anger being your default expression seldom leads to great relationships.

Let's start telling little boys about what great caring men they can be, and about what great women there are, and about the many and fabulous ways they can express their gender.  The less oppositional this is, the better.  There are no boys and girls toys, just toys.  There are no boys and girls colours, just colours.  There are no boys and girls games, just games.  Pointing out the rules some people have around these things is part of teaching gender literacy, part of making gender norms visible, but it shouldn't be a bible our beautiful children should have to follow.

Let's respect little boys autonomy with their body.  If they are scared and don't want to climb a tree, they don't have to.  How can we expect boys to learn respect around bodies when we too often teach them the exact opposite?

Let's teach boys about consent in everything we do, so by the time they want to be sexual, they know what it means, they know what the absence of it means, and they know how to negotiate with other people.  Let's make sure teaching consent is part of the ways we teach sex education - as opposed to sexist education.

And finally, let's teach little boys to stand up to oppression.  Whether that's their friends bullying other children, or their teacher saying racist things in class, or their sports coach ridiculing queer people, let's teach little boys to say "I don't think that's ok".  Because if one single thing could change rape cultures, it would be men standing up to other men.

I understand how hopeless this gang rape club situation is making people feel about the enormity of rape culture and how steadfastly it is growing in our public institutions, still.  I hope people are taking real care as they negotiate the media this week.  I'm thrilled to see there are protests springing up, all over the country because quite frankly the responses to the gang rape club are truly, truly horrifying.

But in all this, let's not forget - rape is something people learn is ok.  We can unlearn this.  Most people do unlearn this.  To end rape culture we need to grow different rules around masculinity.  We need our young guys to grow up alright - to be men who respect women and other people.

Grrrrrrr!

Anger, oh how often you have visited me lately, let me count some of the ways:

• The frequently women-hating reaction to Labour daring to suggest that they make take some deliberate, transparent and necessary structural steps towards lifting their number of women MPs.  
• Trevor Mallard baiting another MP in the House by calling him "cougar bait."
• People who don't lay out their arguments properly and then don't come to the meeting to discuss the issue so you never really know where they stand before you make the decision.
• Changing a law because some state agencies broke it and the solution to that problem is somehow to make it legal, with the consequence that a whole heap of people who should have privacy no longer will.
• Promulgation by supposed lefties of the antiquated idea that women are precious flowers who should not be sullied by the putrid compost of politics and the stale water of being politicians or something like that, this metaphor is tortured enough already without actually trying to get it to make sense.
• Reflecting on how unfair and wrong and conservative New Zealand's abortion laws and provision actually are, yet again.
• Cancer.  Always.  
• The increasingly dirty SkyCity pokies for convention centre deal.  
• Doctors who want to be GPs but don't want to prescribe contraception.  It's your JOB, yo.

Ok, enough ragey bullet points from me - what's angrifying you?

WAM - Guide to reporting gender-based hate speech to Facebook

A while back I shared the result of Women, Action and Media, the Everyday Sexism Project and author Soraya Chemaly's activist coalition to change gender-based hate speech on Facebook.

And now there are some guidelines for us, courtesy of Women, Action and Media:___

For content that glorifies, promotes or makes light of gendered violence:

• First, report it to Facebook using their standard reporting system.
• If the content has been reported and Facebook has declined to remove it, email WAM, and we’ll take further action. Please include any information you have about when and how you reported the content, and what response(s) you’ve received from Facebook.

For content that sexualizes women’s naked bodies, or for content that has been removed that depicts non-sexualized images of women’s breasts:

•  Send your examples to WAM, along with all the information you can provide about when and if you reported the content, and what response(s) you’ve received from Facebook. We won’t be taking further action on these examples immediately, but will be collecting them to show to Facebook as we engage them on this issue of their hypocrisy.

I'd be interested to hear from any Hand Mirror readers that try this out, especially on homegrown misogyny.  WAM's website makes it very clear they are interested in challenging gendered violence, rape and domestic violence apologists - and not at all interested in content promoting consensual BDSM.

Guestie: Babe of the Day

Thanks to Maus for writing and submitting this. Readers may also be interested in an alternative set up just last night:"NZ Misogynist of the Day.".

In the past month or so there have been several ‘Babe of the Day’ facebook pages popping up. The worst offenders seem to be the universities, although some of the more questionable pages such as ‘New Zealand Pair of the day’ and ‘WINZ babe of the day’ have their authors and affiliations hidden. I was recently approached by TV3’s nightline for a feminist opinion on these pages, and although I gave a fairly lengthy and detailed report of the problems associated with the pages, it was boiled down to ‘Angry feminists are killjoys’, and I was subsequently told across various social mediums that I didn’t like them because I was ugly. Of course.

The biggest problem is the lack of consent. These pages are created without the subjects consent; in fact on many of them, you are unable to nominate yourself. So we have pictures of girls, taken from their private facebook pages, and posted for all to see, and for all to ‘appreciate’. In fact, on the most recent ‘New Zealand Pair of the day’ page, out of the eight pictures posted, four have the subjects asking the pictures to be taken down, something the moderators ignored. When I posted under these comments telling the girls that although facebook doesn’t care about sexual harassment, you could report the image as your intellectual property and they would remove it fairly promptly, my comments were deleted and I was banned from posting further. There was even a picture of a woman holding her newborn child on one of the groups pages, which violates several peoples consent.

NOTE:: TVNZ, after interviewing me and listening to me talk about lack of consent, used several images from these pages, WITHOUT GAINING THE GIRLS CONSENT.

There are of course other problems with these pages. The university ones are full of comments like ‘who cares what she studies, shes bangin’, and although some of them have men featured, the sexisim is very apparent; for starters, mostly the guys are ‘Blokes of the Day’, not babes, and the accompanying text reads like a dating profile; ‘Bloke is a great guy, loves puppies and kittens and volunteers at homeless shelter’, and other such harmless banalities. Another interesting thing is that there seems to be a semblance of ethnic diversity in the ‘blokes’, you have many from many races, and the photos are typical headshots. In direct contrast, the women are uniform in their race, invariably skinny, and all wearing not much at all in the full body shots (I want to stress there is nothing wrong with being white and skinny, or dressing however you like. I just wanted to point out the standards of beauty are surprising given the diverse populations of universities).

There are enough reasons to have body image problems, and it is difficult to succeed as a woman in a academic world without being judged solely on how you supposedly look in a bathing costume. The response to my ten second sound bite was enough to show the reactions you get for speaking out from a feminist viewpoint. And I’m sick of it. There are hundreds of articles about there about why we don’t need to be judged for our looks, about the issues we face in the workforce and academic worlds.

I really feel like we should have come further than this, that I shouldn’t have to be typing this, I shouldn’t have to say something as simple as gaining a womans consent before encouraging hundreds of people to jack off to her picture is not a hard or wrong thing. And I certainly shouldn’t be abused for it, or told that I am ugly and therefore worthless. Wake the fuck up people. Consent isn’t hard, and I’m sick of having to shout ‘Yes means Yes’.

nope, not all of this is a backlash

i was directed to this article at slate by someone on twitter, who was lauding it as a good defence of successful women.  i was pretty hopeful, but having read the thing, it pretty much leaves me seething.  there's this:

Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

and then there's this:

Think of Lena Dunham and the outsized rage she has attracted for her large book advance, for attracting huge amounts of attention with her show. These could be greeted as welcome signs of success for a woman in the largely male world of comedy, but instead she too is attacked for “not being like us.” She too is expected to create a mini utopia on the set of her show. She is attacked for not hiring minorities, or not representing people without college educations. In one cranky piece in Slate, Amanda Hess complains: “so far Dunham hasn’t appeared to use her position to give a leg up to less-privileged voices.” To which one can only wonder, “Is  she supposed to run a home for starving comedy writers of other races?”

and that last line pretty much had me ready to scream: "way to completely miss the point!!!"

reading the piece as a whole, i get what the writer is trying to say: that we should be supporting successful women, and that successful women get judged in a way that successful men don't.  particularly women in the business world, and particularly when they challenge notions of how women are supposed to be ie always in angst between their roles as caregivers and as ambitious working women; always supposed to feel guilty for not doing enough and/or not suffering enough for their families.  men, on the other hand, don't need to have any angst and are allowed to have it all - successful job and family with kids - without any questions about whether or not they should be trying to have it all.


but this piece in slate?  reads less like a defence of successful women and more like a defence of privilege.  the privileges of class and colour in the 2 paragraphs i've quoted above. and all it makes a case for is that those who don't have those privileges should shut up and stop complaining, should be unquestioning cheerleaders of these women who have finally MADE IT, cos weren't you all complaining that there weren't enough  women CEO's anyway?  b*tches are never happy, are you?

it's somewhat like the republican defence of sarah palin: here you go, we've given you a woman in a position of power, shut up and support her.  if her policy positions are anti-women, well so what?  any criticism of her means you women don't really want women in positions of power do you?

which is pretty stupid, because yes, we want more women in positions of power.  but just because they get there doesn't mean they suddenly become immune to criticism.  it doesn't mean they get some special status that prevents then from being called out, and especially when they do things againsts the interests of the majority of other women.  having them there serves a great purpose - it breaks down barriers when we become accustomed to seeing women in such positions.

but we are allowed to expect more.  we allowed to expect that once women get into these positions, that they actually do what they can, in that position, to improve the lives of others.  and we expect this because very often the women who have MADE it, they have direct experience of discrimination and the difficulties involved in trying to succeed in a system that has been designed for people who are not like them.

is it wrong to expect empathy?  i don't think so.  is it wrong to at least expect an absence of hostility towards the issues of importance of other women?  not at all.  so i don't see it in any way wrong to criticise marissa mayer's policy which prevents employees from working at home, particularly in a society where the larger part of the burden of caregiving work is still borne by women.  and i think it's perfectly valid to criticise lena dunham for being extremely dismissive of any concerns raised about the lack of women of colour in her shows.

but more than that, these are things that men would and have been criticised for - often and for a long time by feminists, by activitists, by people of colour.  i don't understand the position that men can be criticised for these things but women in the same position doing exactly the same thing can't.

where i draw the line is misogynist attacks against successful women, and i know that this blog and most other feminist blogs defended sarah palin against misogynistic attacks while continuing to denounce her destructive policy positions.  because it's absolutely very easy to do the latter without doing the former, and because doing the former is never acceptable.

so have people been unfairly hating on successful women? absolutely, and i would love to see a piece which details that.  but this slate piece wasn't it, not by a long shot. by conflating valid criticism with sexist putdowns, the article harms rather than helps these women.

Guest post: Abortion access being undermined in NZ

Reproduced from the November ALRANZ newsletter with permission from the really rather awesome author, Alison McCullough.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee’s annual report has been released. The report includes
the abortion stats previously released by Stats New Zealand in June (See ALRANZ’s August
Newsletter for a report on those, downloadable at www.alranz.org), plus a few extras and the ASC’s
commentary. A PDF of the report is available for download at www.alranz.org under “The Latest”
column.

As ALRANZ wrote on their blog, the impression the report gives is of a system that is increasingly unworkable, with fewer certifying consultants who, the ASC reports, are facing distressing amounts of harassment (as are patients and others associated with abortion care), and all this as timeliness of abortion care and uptake of early medical abortion are barely budging. No matter what the situation on the ground is for providers and women, though, you can be sure that Parliament will do nothing to fix any of it.

The ASC report addresses the harassment of certifying consultants and patients in general,
and of Invercargill staff in particular. Here’s what the report says:

 “We are … concerned about the impact of being known as a certifying consultant in some locations.  During the last year the Committee has heard distressing reports from certifying consultants where they, their families, patients and wider public have been the subject of harassment.  Particularly distressing are reports of women seeking fertility assistance who have been harassed when they were mistakenly thought to be seeking pregnancy termination.”
 

It’s important that the ASC is talking about this, though it’s pretty hard not to draw the
conclusion from that last sentence that it’s of less concern to the committee if women seeking
abortions are harassed than, say, women mistaken for those seeking abortion. Way to go to reinforce
abortion stigma ASC!

And here’s what the ASC had to say about Invercargill:

“It has also come to our attention that harassment of medical staff is taking place in Invercargill resulting from services now being offered at Southland Hospital. We are disappointed that this is occurring.”

“Disappointed”! Strong words. Not. And no mention of what the ASC intends to do about
this.

Readers will recall that the seven-year-long Right to Life v ASC case finally ended on 9
August of this year when the Supreme Court dismissed RTL’s appeal. In its decision, the Court ruled
that the ASC did not have the power to scrutinize individual doctors’ decisions regarding approval of
abortion but that the ASC could ask consultants how they were approaching their decision-making in
general. This report is the first comment we’ve had from the ASC on that case, and it writes:

“The Committee notes it already makes regular enquiries of all certifying consultants. At the time of annual reapplication consultants report on qualifications, continuing professional education, peer support, intended years of service and the nature of the practitioner’s practice. Other enquiries will continue to be made as issues arise.”

The ASC is not saying much here, but this seems to suggest that it thinks it’s already doing
what the court said it should do.

The ASC notes the continued downward trend in abortion numbers overall, and points
particularly to the sharpest decline being in child to teenage groups. It expresses concern that there is
no decline in abortions sought by women who have had two or more previous terminations:
“Key to reaching these women will be further increasing the availability of various forms of
long-term contraception as well as increasing access to publicly funded tubal ligation or ablation so
that unwanted pregnancies are avoided. It is concerning to note that the number of publicly funded
tubal ligations performed has been declining.”

Cue the media focus: According to a report in the DomPost, reality TV shows are helping
push a decline in teen pregnancy. The ASC says this is because “extensive reality television
programming depicts the struggle most young people have in attempting to raise a child of their
own…”

It goes on to say, that “the decline is also likely a result of younger New Zealanders
practising safer sex and having less sex overall”. Apparently not watching so much reality TV are
the 20-24 year olds. There’s a new graph this year on “no contraception by age group.” In other
words, what were the ages of the 52% of women who had abortions and said they’d been using no
contraception? According to the report, the biggest group, at 32%, were 20 to 24 year olds; the next
biggest, at 20% each were under-20s and 25-29 year olds.

When it comes to timeliness, Northland and Southland are still coming in last, meaning
women in those districts are accessing abortion care much later than those elsewhere. (The median
gestation in those districts for first trimester abortion is nearly 10 weeks! That is not a good stat, and
that’s the median, meaning access is much later for some women.) Here’s hoping the Invercargill
service will help improve that stat for Southland. But what is going on in Northland?

Finally, there are 170 certifying consultants, down from 175 in the previous year’s report,
and the amount spent on certifying consultants was $4,427,120, also slightly down on the previous
year.

Guestie: The War on Women

Many thanks to Amanda from Pickled Think for submitting this guest post.

Perhaps these fictional examples look like women you know about to be effected by the latest rounds of the War on Women...err...Social Welfare cuts.

• Erin, early 30s, mother of two. Children aged ten and twelve. Has just left an abusive husband of 15 years. No formal education beyond sixth form. Has not worked for almost all of the marriage because husband insisted on controlling finances and did not like Erin "fraternizing" outside of the home. Last job she held was as a "checkout chick" at a local supermarket at age 17. Currently undergoing counselling for domestic violence she suffered. Moving through the court system in a messy divorce and to gain sole custody of children. Children suffering from behavioural problems at home and school because of family violence and divorce, require careful monitoring and CYFs are watching her, making things more stressful. Is often tracked down at a safe place by partner, and driven to further hiding. Cut off from both sets of parents, her siblings and friends because of controlling ex, so cannot count on them for childcare. Cannot afford a car. Cannot get interim education because of Adult Continuing Education cuts. No one wants to hire someone with an empty CV, unreliable transport and unsteady timetable as she moves from one safe house to the next, and struggles to find and afford childcare.
  
  And this woman is to be forced to find a job why?

• Maggie, 55, no children. Husband recently died suddenly, leaving a business, mortgage and health care bills to settle. Has university entrance and a few correspondence papers under her belt, but most of her skills have been gained working for her husband's business and unquantifiable.  Husband's health insurance and superannuation payouts and sale of business (after debtors settled) is enough to pay off outstanding bills and mortgage with a little left over which she wishes to reinvest for her retirement (as she is in good health) rather than use it as living expenses now and suffer a cut back retirement. She could go back to tertiary education, but feels it would cut into the time and money she has left before formal retirement age. Employers are wary of hiring someone of her age and empty CV.
  
  Why would you penalize or completely remove her benefit  simply because she struggles to find a job under the auspices of institutionalized ageism and sexism?

• Moana, 27, married, 3 children under 10. Left school at 15, no formal education, cannot afford any ongoing education. Lives in an historically high unemployment rural area. Husband works a variety of seasonal jobs that takes him away from the home for weeks at a time, which means their income is not always static and they rely on benefits in between times. She has worked a variety of temp jobs deemed as unskilled labour, often just earning minimum wage. Both sets of parents and a variety of friends are available for child care outside of school hours, though her youngest is not yet school age, and these family and friends also work and sometimes are unavailable to help. She cannot afford child care, and CYFs have unusually targeted her, causing undue stress,  though both are good parents and doing their utmost to earn a living. She has unreliable transport, as the car keeps breaking down. In a particularly low time in job availability, she is offered a job in the next town 45 minutes away, but it is only minimum wage, not flexible in the hours she needs to look after her kids, and not worth it for the amount she must spend on petrol and car maintenance.
  
  Should she be penalized and/or lose her benefit because she accurately weighs up the economic and time costs of this job, refuses it, and suffers from entrenched racism?

• Raine, 25, pre-operative transgender woman, single, no dependents. Not in touch with, and can't rely on, any family. Highly educated. Suffers from bad depression. Has lived on the streets before, but currently in a stable, sympathetic living arrangement - would not like to leave if money runs out, but may have no choice. Has worked a variety of well paid jobs, but has been forced to leave many times after being outed against her will and shunned by employees. Would like surgery, but cannot maintain a steady job to afford it as well as her health regimen.  Recently left a sympathetic workplace because of depression issues. Used up all savings towards surgery as living expenses so as not to deal with social welfare system, but now running out of money. Finds sickness benefits excessively difficult and unsympathetic to deal with. Has high medical bills. Can get a benefit, but demands to get another job are stressful as she deals with health care, decision to stay closeted, and living arrangements.
  
  Should she be penalized because of medical issues and systemic transphobia in the workplace and social welfare system?

• Tina, 42, 2 children aged 12 and 14, recently divorced. Lives in Christchurch.  University education. Parents deceased, siblings live overseas. Amicable divorce finalized just before Feb22 earthquake, with agreed joint custody. Children suffering some stress and behavioural issues from earthquake and divorce. Lost her house and job from earthquake. Currently renting while waiting for EQC and insurance payouts on house. Unable to find permanent work post-earthquake because of shrinking local job market, though has taken on some temp jobs. Finds a job in Auckland, but it is far less money than desirable, will take all her savings to move, finances will be in flux while awaiting insurance payouts, after school care for stressed children and living expense will be more expensive, and will take children away from the childcare base of their father who is secure in Christchurch.
  
  And this is an ideal way to "get back into work" how?

• Sharyne, 17, single, no dependents. Living on her own between a variety of friends houses. Sexually abused from a young age by stepfather. Ran away from home at age 14 after failed CYFs placements. Often needs to leave a flatting arrangement quickly if stepfather and associates tracks her down. Left school at age 15 with behavioural issues. Has worked a variety of temporary jobs but left or been fired each time because of altercations with staff or customers. Family and friends who are trying to keep her separated from her abuser, and helping her contemplate laying charges, helping her towards counselling and various work placement courses that may suit her interests, but when she has a relapse or drinking session ends up on the street and/or picked up by the police. Community services keeping an eye on her, but recommends she needs careful attention before she can return to education or work.
  
  Does the government not realize that by taking control of paying a person's rent and living expenses they tie them up in impractical paperwork that slows down their retreat from an abuser? That by forcing a young person towards work or education when they are not mentally or socially capable will cause more problems?

• Robin, 47, single, 1 grown up child who lives overseas. Never married. University education, computer specialist. Suffered a serious back and neck injury twenty years ago, which now creates recurring pain issues and periods of depression. High medical bills. Unable to sit at a computer for long periods of time, though tries a variety of positions/ergonomic furniture to varying success. Some days are better than others with pain management. Reduced mobility with walking stick and scooter, though can look after herself given plenty of time for daily routine. Has tried to work in the past, but met with frustration from employers at her slow movements and high needs. Some success with self employment, but cannot maintain high enough mobility, mental health and energy to self advertise and manage projects.
  
  Should she be tossed out again into an unsympathetic workplace when she knows how this will end, in more stress, pain, and possible loss of already precarious funds?

These examples just scratch the surface of the depth and breadth of women's needs within New Zealand's welfare system. They're not eating bon-bons and watching soaps, waiting for the next sperm donor to turn up so they can rort the system. But thanks Paula and John-John, you two self-declared products of our welfare system, for that nice little mythology you've chucked out there. Nothing like keeping the rich white voters of the country happy with a few little elitist exaggerations.

Bootstraps, eh? Now available in Kiwi Flavour.

Lurking.

I used to read the Hand mirror and other feminist blogs on a semi-regular basis, without ever considering commenting. Then I read regularly. Then I made a few comments, most of which were bitch slapped into place by someone more informed, or evolved, or just more opinionated than me.
99% of the time, I was incorrect about something, or didn’t frame my point clearly enough for people to fully grasp what I was saying. Sometimes people just jumped on me because I was an unknown factor, and it is easier to assume that someone is deliberately wrong rather than just ignorant.
In spite of several moments where I stomped away from the keyboard in tears I continued. And now, I write for the hand mirror. It is still 50/50 whether I think it is worth it. The rapport of my fellow writers, regardless of whether we agree on points, is wonderful. I have met fabulous women in the real world who have changed my life for the better. Other days, I am in a tricky battle to maintain my own positivity while moderating.

I had coffee with a friend this morning who reminded me of all the lurkers out there. The people who read regularly, and irregularly. They talk about issues over coffee with friends, debate topics with family. They work in amazing jobs, and participate in developing amazing families. They may write themselves in other forums, or blogs.

I have no idea how many of you are out there but I wanted to say Hi, and thank you.

My friend this morning said that she wouldn’t be commenting on the hand mirror any time soon because it is too intimidating.
She was concerned about saying something wrong.
Not even a morally wrong concept, or a wrong understanding of someone else’s idea, but just simply WORDING it wrong. She didn’t want to be criticised or misunderstood, and it made me realise that not everyone bounces back stubbornly when smacked down.
There is a lot of talk about who is and isn’t a “101” space and I actually have no idea whether the hand mirror officially is or isn’t. I know my own personal blog, and anything I write always will be, because when I was new, and didn’t know what spoons were, or why the fuck strangers kept all caps-ing “PRIVILEGE” at me, my friend Julie was there for me to email and ask, on top of my google-fu, and other bloggers.
It really upset me to think that we are being robbed of a brilliant young woman’s opinion, ideas and thoughts. She contributes so much in her community, and yet we are missing out.

So how’s about we start here?
Any lurkers, feel free to say Hi, introduce yourself and talk about feministic things…
If anyone isn’t happy, I can pick this up in my own space.

NB: The usual moderating rules apply, so please use a consistent handle, even if you keep it an anonymous one.

A ramble about unacceptable behaviour in activisty groups

Trigger warnings for rape, sexual abuse, violence, exploitation of power:

The other day Stef and I were having a chat about the Omar Hamed stuff that has come up here and elsewhere lately.  Neither of us know Omar at all, but sadly the theme was familiar; sexist injustice and exploitation, hidden within activist groups supposedly overwhelming in their right-on expressions of gender equality and general comradely behaviour of The Highest Order.

We both knew of examples the other was unaware of, even in groups we had both been active in around the same time. I don't know about Stef, but I kept at least one story back, one I just still cannot share with people who know the rapist even vaguely.  So often these stories feel like they are not our own to share because they happened to someone else, and we want to protect them, not the abuser.  It's difficult to know what to do; the worry that by telling what the areshole did you will open the victim up to shame and recrimination.

Which is where leadership comes in.  One of the responsibilities of leadership is dealing with the internal Hard Stuff too.

I've noticed it too many times now.  When concerns are raised about a prominent member, a "Good Guy", who is behaving in a predatory sexist manner towards others in the group, the shutters come down on the faces of the political leaders and the problem becomes not the unacceptable behaviour, but the fact that people are labelling that behaviour as unacceptable and challenging it.

The person with the problem, the person who acts unacceptably, might not be an out-front leader, they might be someone who delivers lots of leaflets, or has a great hoarding spot, or is one of the few in paid employment for the group.  Whatever role they fill there seems to be some protection afforded, some reason to not rock the boat in case they decide to jump out and take their contribution with them. 

But what about all the contributions withdrawn by others because of that person and the fact that their behaviour is tacitly accepted by the leadership?  What about the women who don't go to SlutWalk in case the man who raped them is there?  What about the men who just never come back to another planning meeting?  What about the discussions had over a few beers at the pub that a whole heap of the activists just never seem to participate in?

It terrifies me that when I start talking to people about this stuff more and more comes out.  Stories with statements like:

• "Oh yeah, someone told me to watch out for him because I'm an attractive young blonde and apparently he has a bit of history."
• "I always make sure I don't put any young women in a car alone with that guy, just in case."
• "He said if I gave him a blow-job he'd back my friend in the election, but I figured he was just joking and I laughed it off.  But he never did write anything nice about my mate."
• "The only reason he stopped following me around campus was because someone threatened to break his legs."
• "Well he's a bit of a groper, but some young gay men like that, so I guess it's ok."
• "Best to billet men with them."
• "So then I said 'it's probably best I walk home with you both,' and it was alright."
• "Everyone thinks he's so sweet and adorable but I shake whenever I see him and apparently I'm overreacting."
• "There was this time in the carpark where I had to lock my car doors and drive away."

At heart I believe that rejection of the actual problem, the bad behaviour, is sexist.  It is unjust.  It is making a judgement call that the accused is entitled to protection from the consequences of their actions.  It enables them to continue as they were, maybe get worse, and not have to think critically about what they are doing and why.  Saying nothing, doing nothing, changes nothing.

Yes someone accused has rights; in the criminal justice system these include a presumption of innocence.  I support that.  In a legal system we do need to come from a position, most of the time, of proving guilt.  Being found guilty in the courts has massive repurcussions for the individual in the dock; not least often a serious loss of liberty.  Our society needs to be really really certain before enforcing that.*

But in activist groups we don't need to have mock trials and legal representation at the table.  The first thing we need to do is believe and trust women.  The second thing we need to do is put in place structures to address these types of concerns when they are raised.  With mechanisms already in place when something comes up there is already a clear path to follow in that immediate period when as a leader you are flailing around going "oh shit, I really wish that I hadn't heard that."  It changes the instant response from Make It Go Away *puts heads in hands* into This Needs To Go To There First *starts doing something*.

We basically rely on gossip to keep people safe in our activist groups.  That's not good enough.   When someone's behaviour is unacceptable it needs to be raised with them.  The earlier it is done the more likely it is that change will happen and harm will be lessened.  No one should have to confront an abuser alone.  Anyone should be able to approach others for support, and receive it, particularly amongst a group's leaders.

My experience to date has been male political leaders (not exclusively, but mostly) putting concerns raised by women (not exclusively, but mostly) to one side.   A sexist mathematical calculation which continues to see women's concerns about a man < the man's contribution to the cause.

This is the personal mainfestation of a broader political equation: Women's issues < so-called "mainstream" issues.  Abortion law reform, low rates of prosecutions and conviction for rape, pay equity, women's political representation.  They're all so-called "side issues."  We're told to roll our dainty sleeves up, put on the kettle, and help the fellas fix the Big Problems first, then we'll all pitch in on that other stuff.  The Cause is more important than the issues of any members within The Cause, or something.

It's bullshit. 

The very fact that we've been having a public conversation about these matters shows a commitment to change.  The bravery of those raising these issues (as they multitask and work on heaps of other great stuff too) gives me heart.  This is change we can make, we must make, and we are starting to make.  Let's keep going.


*  Actually I'm pretty dubious about how our criminal justice system approaches sentencing, but that's a bit off topic.

Paul Quinn's response to our outcry.

This post refers to yesterday's episode of Backbenchers and the post I wrote last night.


Other than a quick (not-sorry) tweet Paul Quinn has not fronted to the numerous people on twitter and other social media questioning his comments, today TVNZ (reported by stuff with video link) had the following response from him…

Quinn said he hadn't heard the slutwalk presentation (a great brief from Pollyanne Pena) and didn't understand why he was being asked the question.
He ''absolutely regretted'' the misinterpretation.
''I couldn't hear the speaker's presentation and I didn't know what she said. Wallace asked me what did I think of girls wearing short skirts at 2am in the morning in Courtenay [Place]. I looked at him and thought 'what the hell is he asking me that for?'
''Clearly rape is not justified for anything.
''I thought the question was around drunkenness on Courtenay Place at 2am. That's what I thought the discussion was initially about. Others started talking about rape and I thought what the hell are they talking about.''
He added: ''The mis-interpretation was around the fact that I hadn't heard what the discussion was about. I explained that to them afterwards.''

So let me clarify, you didn’t know what they were talking about, and so launching into a tirade about women still being out at 6am partying was the best response?

And then when Wallace Chapman clarified the question by saying ''Do you think there is something to this idea that girls ask for it...they'll be saying that?''
Then you STILL didn’t understand?
What did you think you were talking about?
Girls who go out partying and drinking til all hours are asking for:
help?
A lecture?
A headache?
A bad reputation?
A pregnancy?
A theft of their purse?

What exactly DID you think you were talking about Paul? Because I cant think of anything that someone asks for by going and drinking other than (and this may surprise you):getting drunk.

And later, once it was VERY clear, and Trevor Mallard had very clearly stated that there is NEVER a reason for rape you felt the need to clarify.
At this point it should have surely been the clarification that you didn’t realise they were discussing assault?
No, what you said was…

“I should, I should say… Your question was aimed at women, so I responded to women – boys are just the same”
Yep. Don’t want to leave those boys out.
So men, if you get raped, it is probably because you were asking for it too.
And boys…
No I’m sorry, I’m not even going there.
I feel sick.

I think the country needs an apology, and an acknowledgement that this attitude is not ok.
I would love to see a live debate on one of our news stations, between several panelists, because the more we bring this topic out in the open, the quicker we can change this crap.

If anyone does want to write to Paul his email address is paul.quinn@national.org.nz

*headdesk*

A local radio station is running a competition to 'win a wife'. The winner gets to fly to the Ukraine and choose a bride from an agency.

Yes, that's actually true. I'm appalled by it. Scuba Nurse has the details, and an analysis of the problems with the competition, and importantly, a list of the companies that advertise with this station. Head on over there for details.

Win a wife? WTF?

I've loaded a screen cap to preserve the web page where they advertise it: http://yfrog.com/h4x83oikj

soft war against women

doing the rounds on facebook lately was this piece from salon:

In the run-up to the midterm elections, a bevy of conservative female candidates invoked feminism in one way or another, but all backed policies harmful to women. In the process, they became media darlings. Palin, who wasn’t running herself but helped get a number of candidates on the ballot across the country, opposes abortion and sex education. Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell called masturbation adultery and promoted abstinence. Sharron Angle in Nevada opposed abortion in all cases, even when children were raped and impregnated. In California, Senate candidate Carly Fiorina was antiabortion. She was a speaker at the evangelical megachurch Willow Creek, which requires any gay or lesbian members to practice celibacy. None of these candidates won, but except for O’Donnell, they ran very competitive races.

[...]

At first glance, it may seem like a wonderful time to be female -- a time of empowerment and achievement: the "You Go, Girl!" era.

But there is another, even stronger current running beneath the surface of society that carries a very different message. The warning today is far more subtle than it was in the early "Backlash" days, when the argument was that women simply could not and should not do what men could do. Now, the message is, "Yes, indeed, you can do it all, and often better than men. But beware!"

Women, you’ve come too far too fast, and because of your success, men are faltering, leading to, as the Atlantic Monthly put it, "The End of Men." A 2010 cover article bearing this title claimed that women were fast taking over the important jobs in society.

Women, you’ve paid too high a price for achieving; you will probably end up alone and miserable. Men do not like high-achieving women. (As a Forbes.com article put it, men who marry career women will be unhappy.)

the writer goes on to write about the effects of increasing sexualisation of women. it does feel frustrating to see so many gains that have been made over many years being gradually eroded away. and it's especially frustrating to see women proclaiming themselves feminists when they aren't interested in improving the lives of women.

Boobquake a comin'

Emma considers the pros and cons of the Boobquake shaking the world today in response to the Iranian cleric who reckons earthquakes are caused by adultery and adultery is caused by women's fashion choices. Here's my favourite part of Emma's post:

Firstly, they're about a woman's right to choose her own clothing. This is a feminist issue. Associated with it is a blatant refusal to accept responsibility for supposed consequences of those clothing choices, from sexual assault to earthquakes. We are refusing to make our choices on the basis of what men might do or feel, because we are NOT responsible for those actions or emotions.

Secondly, it's about women taking pride in their bodies, feeling comfortable in their own skins. This is a feminist issue. And please note, because I don't think it's unobvious, that both events were explicitly about women dressing 'provocatively' within their own comfort levels. Now, we're told (sometimes explicitly) that we shouldn't show pride in our own bodies because that makes other women feel bad. I'm not buying that, because I think it's predicated on a false assumption: that the only women who feel that comfort and pride are young, skinny, large-chested conventionally-attractive women. And that's bollocks.

People signed up for Boobquake include women my age (and even older ZOMG!), pregnant women, breast-feeding women, lesbians (only interested in getting attention from men, of course), and at least one post-operative transsexual. I think it's at least possible that seeing a wide variety of women being comfortable with their own bodies might be helpful for other women.

The final criticism I want to deal with is that these events are frivolous. To which the only response is: of course they bloody are. They are a response to criticism so stupid it shouldn't be dignified with an intelligent reasoned response.

Go read the whole thing, if you feel that way inclined.

Quick hit: Gee, why doesn't Lagerfeld just tell us what he really thinks?

Via the Herald:

German designer Karl Lagerfeld has waded into the debate on too-thin models, telling a German publication that no one wants to look at chubby women on the runway.

His comments come a week after popular German women's magazine Brigitte announced it would no longer use professional models for its photo shoots.

"Fat mummies sit there in front of the television with their chip packets and say skinny models are ugly," Lagerfeld told Focus magazine in an interview published yesterday.

The world of beautiful clothes was ultimately about "dreams and illusions", he added, and no one really wanted to see overweight women.

Click through for the rest.

I guess I'm confused about what Mr Lagerfeld considers "overweight."

Also I prefer popcorn to chips, but otherwise, yep I'm all about the sitting in front of telly calling skinny people ugly. It's my preferred leisure activity. /sarcasm