Chris Brown and fairy dust

What to make of Chris Brown being so well supported by a handful of Māori women, some with history of working to prevent family violence, that he's tweeting them to say thank you?

Quite a lot, actually.  It's damn good publicity for Mr Brown to be talking about "strong women" about now, when his ability to tour the world is threatened by his use of violence towards other "strong women."  Some might say his livelihood may depend on his ability to reframe himself, since he's been banned from entering the UK, Canada and most recently, Australia.  While touring isn't the biggest money spinner for musicians these days, it's not looking good for Mr Brown, is it?

So you've beaten up your partner, been caught, hit and run another woman, been caught, beaten up male fans, been caught, threatened to kill a queer man, been caught, beaten up a man on the basketball court, been caught.  These incidents span a period of six years, most recent just last May.

Let's get this straight.  I firmly believe people can stop using abusive behaviour.  That's why I've spent nearly twenty-five years working to end gendered violence.  Violence is social behaviour that people LEARN - it's not inevitable or natural or boys being boys.  It's also not an accident, it's the logical conclusion of all the ways femininity and women are reduced to less than by dominant cultural values.   

Changing violent behaviour - and changing the ways you use power more broadly - is hard work.  It requires honesty, self-reflection, feeling the pain of causing others harm.  Listening to people you've hurt and taking responsibility for never doing that again is about the hardest process I've ever tried to participate in.  Many men who use violence don't seem to have the stomach for it.

The men we look up to matter.  They are part of what stitches together gendered violence, misogyny and sexist oppression.  Does Chris Brown teach young men to treat women, and all other genders with respect or disdain?  Is he the kind of man we want young men in Aotearoa to learn from, emulate, hold up as a role model?

Hell no.

I have no doubt that part of Tariana Turia and other high profile Māori women's support of Chris Brown is disgust at the different ways men of colour and white men are treated when it comes to using violence.  She's right about that, and not just at the immigration border.  I went to a Refuge hui once where Māori women were talking about criminalisation of Māori men, and Pākehā women were talking about not being able to get adequate police responses to white middle class male perpetrators.  I've personally seen the police not charge white men who have knifed their partners, and put their partners in hospital after beatings - even when they knew he was the perpetrator.  The reality is, whiteness is like a magic cloud of fairy dust in all kinds of ways, and when it comes to causing violence, it's the best way to avoid consequences, particularly when combined with middle class belonging. 

 

But the answer's not extending the white fairy dust to Chris Brown.  It's extending the calling out of the use of violence - with associated sanctions - to white entertainers too.  The flip-side of constructing men of colour as scary violent thugs - racist and damaging as this is to Black masculinities - is the invisibility of white men's violence, in all kinds of ways.  So next time the Rolling Stones tour, let's have just as much public discussion of Bill Wyman's acknowledged statutory rape and their lyrics promoting raping Black women as the publicity Mr Brown has attracted this last week or so.  That would be progress around ending gendered violence.

not foreseeable?

jacintha saldanha is dead.  believed to have committed suicide after a couple of australian DJs managed to get through to kate middleton, while she was ill in hospital, as part of a prank.

as can be expected, the DJ's are upset.  people around the world are upset and have been expressing their anger.  advertisers have pulled out of the station. and now the station is apparently starting to "fight back", and others are starting to defend them.

for example, jeff kennett, head of a depression counselling service had this to say:

"When they did this they had no intention to cause harm, it was a harmless prank,” he said.

and the CEO of the company which owns the radio station had this to say about the DJs:

... there was no way they could have foreseen the tragic outcome of their actions.

the latter is true, in that they could not have foreseen that someone would have committed suicide.  but there are certain things they could have foreseen. they could have foreseen, once they got through, that all the people in the chain of getting them through would have been seriously embarrassed and in some trouble at work.

while the hospital denies this has happened, and there is no evidence to show otherwise, it is quite reasonably foreseeable that staff would have to face some consequences.  it might not be disciplinary action, it may just be the knowledge that everyone in their workplace knows that they have let the side down by being involved in a major privacy breach.

it is foreseeable, when the targets of the prank are wealthy and powerful, are people who have a team of staff at their disposal, are people who have a huge fan following across the globe, that such people being upset at the breach of their privacy is going to lead to consequences for any staff that were involved in that breach.  they wouldn't need to say anything directly to the staff members involved - possibly the royals didn't even meet jacintha saldahna after the prank call.

but it is enough that their displeasure and unhappiness was expressed in every media outlet across the world.  to know that you were partly responsible for that displeasure would be a pretty horrible feeling.  that is entirely foreseeable.  it is harmful.  this is not a harmful prank.

any prank that involves embarrassing or scaring someone is not harmless.  a prank that involves embarrassing rich, powerful and extremely influential people is certainly not harmless.  it's harmless enough to the DJs sitting in australia, who were crowing about their achievement until this death, while they were safely half a world away.  but they would surely have known it was not harmless to the staff at the hospital who put the call through.

they knew this because the call was pre-recorded, and apparently the station tried to call the hospital 5 times.  why would they do that, unless they were fully aware that airing the call on the radio would have consequences for the hospital and its staff?  they knew.  this was a calculated decision.  at the point they decided to air the call, they also decided that the consequences for the hospital staff was entirely unimportant to them.

they could not have foreseen the suicide.  but they could have foreseen the shame and the pain.  and they didn't care.  the publicity of airing the call was more important.  if no-one had died, then those staff (there were apparently 2 staff involved in forwarding this particular call) would still have suffered harm.  it is impossible that they would have been unaffected.

as i mentioned above, the DJs are upset.  as i expect they would be, and i do sympathise with the fact that they have to live with the consequences of what has happened.  as with the paul henry incident, i think the responsibility for this whole incident doesn't rest solely with the 2 DJs.  in fact the major responsibility lies with the programmes producers and the management of the station.  these are the people who set the culture, who determine what is allowable and not allowable, who make the decisions of what will air and what won't.  the DJs are the public face of this incident because they were the ones on air.  but i doubt they are the major decision-makers, or at the very least, they did not make the crucial decisions on their own.

we're not seeing the names of the people who were responsible for the culture and the important decisions - or maybe i just haven't looked hard enough.  but these are the people who need to be held to account.  they have knowingly caused harm, even if they couldn't foresee that the harm would lead to such tragic results.

just one final point i want to make about all of this.  with the DJs having done an interview & the station owners basically on the offensive, the coverage is now focused on the suffering of the DJs.  and the suffering of jacintha saldanha is beginning to be sidelined.  the suffering of her family is beginning to be sidelined.  it's wrong for the station and the DJ to put their own suffering ahead of this family, in some kind of attempt at public exoneration.  again the DJs are being used by their management - their tears and hurt are being used in attempt to deflect some of the outrage and criticism.  it's unacceptable.

the honourable thing to do in this situation would be for the DJs to express their grief and to apologise for the consequences of their actions by press release, and then to step back and be silent.  it would be honourable for the station management and the show's producers to apologise and express their condolences, and then to step back.    they did what they did.  they take responsibility and face the consequences, but under no circumstances should they try to take centre stage here.

there will be no happy endings here.  at the most, we might hope that there will be some lessons learned, not only by the people at this radio station but also by staff at other media outlets.  i suspect that's wishful thinking on my part.  my sincere condolences to the family of jacintha saldanha.

Sweet dreams

In praise of mothers who don’t think child abuse is funny

Trigger warning – please be careful with this post – it is deliberately provocative.

Imagine this. You’re a woman. You live with your partner and your daughter. One night, your partner has gone out to a Christmas party by himself. When he comes home, it’s late, he’s drunk, he fancies a shag, you don’t.

You say “no, thanks” and go to sleep.

In the wee hours of the morning, you wake up. Something’s not quite right. You open your eyes properly and look around. Your beautiful little girl, all of four years old, has jumped into bed with you.

Your partner has pulled down her pyjama pants. He was removed her night-time nappy. He has his mouth where her tiny, four year old genitals are.

You probably shout or scream. You probably grab your daughter and pull her away from him. You probably can’t quite believe what you’ve just seen, and desperately wish you hadn’t. You probably try to control what you want to say and do to him, because you have a little, confused girl in your arms who needs a cuddle, who needs help to put her nappy and pyjamas back on properly.

He says “I was confused, I thought it was you.”

You don’t believe this. You don’t wear nappies to bed. And you had already told him, that night, that you didn’t want to have sex.

Who knows how much you talk about it that night – but you decide you have to report this to the Police. You’re not sure why your partner would lie about trying to do adult sexual things with your daughter, but you don’t want her to be at risk. You don’t know what to believe. Could this happen again? Has he done this before? You don’t know. But you can’t risk your little four year old girl. You talk to people. No one else wants to believe it either.

When you tell the Police, he is furious. He made a mistake, he was drunk, it could happen to anyone. Don’t you care about him? What about his career, he’s a comedian, he makes people laugh, this will ruin everything. He just wants a chance to show you and your daughter how much he loves you. But he has to get a lawyer, because the Police investigate.

It’s in the papers. He tells people that whoever told the Police did it out of spite, to get back at him. It was a genuine mistake, and the report to the Police was malicious, but he’s distancing himself from that bad person now.

The case drags on and on. Even though the court tells reporters they can’t say who you are, who your daughter is, you know everyone knows. Everyone in your lives. They all have opinions about what you should do. Most of them don’t think it’s that big a deal. You don’t want to tell them the details of what you saw, and anyway, you’re not supposed to talk about it.

You might never want to see him again, or you might beg him to go talk to someone professional. Your daughter is behaving differently, crying at night and being very clingy. She doesn’t want to take off her nappy. She wants to see her dad, but she doesn’t want to be alone with him.

You see, over and over again, what you woke up to that night. Flashbacks, other people call it. You feel like you’re there.

The trial is called off for now, because they say they can find no evidence. You don’t understand, doesn’t what you saw count? Doesn’t what your daughter says count?

He tries again. So does his family. Why do we have to do this? Come on now, let’s just forget it and things can get back to normal. Stop making a fuss. He loves you. He loves your daughter. He will never do anything like that again.

You stay strong. Your lawyers stay strong. The trial goes ahead, fifteen months later. The lawyers talk. He doesn’t want to go to prison, and he knows he will if the court believes you and your daughter, if you get to tell them what happened that night.

Your lawyers do a deal. He says he did it, he did try to do sexual adult things with your four year old daughter. He says he is guilty. You don’t have to talk in court after all.

You go back for sentencing. The judge says your partner needs to get back to making people laugh as soon as possible. She said what happened wasn’t so bad, and he had suffered enough, and anyway it wasn’t like real child abuse, because that happens in secret. He doesn’t have to go to prison, or have counselling, or do community work. He is free.

Your life has changed forever. So has your daughter’s. None of this was funny.

UPDATE: With thanks to a commenter - actually, you might know he has done this before. Because he's previously been charged with unlawful sexual connection. This just gets better and better.

Guest post: Two world views

Cross posted

Adele spent a long time on The Hand Mirror, discussing what the furore around Te Papa meant for her (tahi, rua). She has put a detailed comment on my blog, describing Te Ao Taangata Whenua - the world view indigenous to Aotearoa, and how it contrasts with a Western world view. With her permission, I am posting her comment as a post.

Adele is our guest here. Please, keep any discussion courteous. If you feel tempted to hit the keyboards and shoot from the hip, could I ask you step away for a while, and think about how to phrase your comment so that it is at least civil, even if you don't agree with her, or you find things she says difficult. I myself don't agree with some things Adele says, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about Te Ao Taangata Whenua.

Kia ora, Adele!

***************

I am not wishing to dwell too much on the actions of Te Papa except to say that their process lacked foresight. What I would like to debate, however, is the sharing of public space between opposing worldviews – joined by a Treaty recognised in principles, if not fact. I use the term worldview to denote a discussion about ideologies more so than race.

The two worldviews I speak of are, to the left, Te Ao Taangata Whenua – the worldview indigenous to Aotearoa, and to the right, The Western Tradition, the worldview of the coloniser. Te Ao Taangata Whenua is used here rather than Te Ao Maaori because this term better acknowledges the many peoples indigenous to the whenua – nations of people identified as hapuu, or Iwi. The two worldviews are opposing because their cores values are fundamentally different.

The differences became officially manifest in two versions of a singular intent towards sharing place and space -Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the indigenous account and The Treaty of Waitangi, its English counterpart. Two versions in open conflict, such that nowadays, emphasis is focussed on spirit rather than substance and on principles rather than terms.

Developing a principled approach towards sharing place and space is also contentious especially as the worldviews in co-habitation are polar opposing in bed. One connects the spiritual, natural, and human realms via whakapapa. The other has mankind at its summit, holding dominion over the natural world. The hegemonic uplifts democracy as fair and just. The marginalised finds democracy unfair to the minority opinion. Our Gods are seventy plus in number, your God is money.

Despite being incompatible bed mates, there is a covering agreement to share place and space in partnership. The abusive relationship that currently passes for partnership is a hoohaa. There is an obligation on behalf of the state to actively ensure that taangata whenua (Maaori) have and retain full exclusive and undisturbed possession of not only the language but also the culture. That obligation extends to Government agencies. This argument has nothing to do with separating church from state.

Te Ao Taangata Whenua is not sexist. Our cosmology overflows with the power of the feminine. In Te Reo, the personal pronouns and possessive personal pronouns are gender neutral – there is no differentiation by gender. The significance of women is also symbolised in the language – whare tangata, the house of humankind, whenua – means both land and afterbirth, and hapuu meaning both pregnancy and large kinship group. We all whakapapa to Papa-tuu-aa-nuku, mother Earth – in other words, our worldview has strong attachments to the matriarch.

When the western worldview arrived in Aotearoa, it bought along dis-empowered women – mere chattels to their men-folk. It arrived into the world of the savage whose stories spoke of the strength and power of women. The missionaries, in particular, were heaven sent in destroying the heathen and the matriarch. Thus, in the retelling of the stories into written form, mana waahine was rendered impotent.

Mana waahine, today, continues to rage against the oppressive nature of the western worldview – the patriarch with a holier than thou attitude. Thus mana waahine and feminism are also bedfellows in dispute. Feminism, is fathered by the patriarch, and seeks merely to gain equality with their men-folk. Mana waahine, belongs to the matriarch, and aspires to regain the power and strength that rightfully belongs to her – emanating directly from Atua.

not yours to tell

how would it feel to have someone write all about your life, especially if you didn't want them to? and talk to your friends, family members, work colleagues and other people you have interacted with, some of whom will be loyal to you and refuse to get involved, others who won't. for the ones who talk, knowing you don't want them to, it must be an awful feeling of betrayal.

we live in an age and a society where price of being a celebrity means that every little bit of your life and your appearance get picked to pieces. there is very, very little that is allowed to be private. the more successful you are, the more there are people out there anxious to dig a little dirt. because it will sell, and some people love to see other successful people brought down.

as you may guess, i'm not a fan of celebrity culture. i don't buy gossip mags, i refuse to watch shows like entertainment tonight, i tend to avoid conversations that focus on which celebrity split up with who, or did what silly thing. it's not my business, it's generally not important (unless there's some actual level of criminality involved, in which case there may be a genuine public interest), and i basically don't want to know.

given all of that, i really am not a fan of unauthorised biographies. at least not for entertainment celebrities. it's not so bad if it's a historical figure or political leader, particularly one who has caused significant harm. in that case, there is some importance in learning about the person's motivations, the influences on their lives, their childhood experiences. and an unflattering portrait is not likely to cause harm to such a person, when they aren't well thought of anyway.

and i could accept unauthorised biographies of political leaders where they bring to light important information that is of a whistleblowing nature - making us aware of unacceptable connections or behaviour.

but even then, i think even the worst people have some right to privacy, some areas which they should not have to share with the rest of the world. and where the revelations are for entertainment purposes only, ie they have no public interest value, then i think they shouldn't be made public without the express consent of the person involved.

the problem of course is how to police such a thing. i don't think it would be useful to have any laws to regulate such a thing. and with the viral nature of electronic communications and the internet, it's almost impossible to keep things from becoming public. there's the whole free speech argument, and i'd agree that any kind of suppression in this area has the potential for significant harm.

of course i want none of that. for me, it's a matter of self-policing. i'm not going to spend my money on unauthorised biographies, i'm not going to be involved in activities that pry unfairly into another person's life. because i would hate for such a thing to happen to me. i would hate for my personal stories to be broadcast to all the world, and especially by someone who was unsympathetic to me.

so why would i want to participate in something that, even in the smallest way, does that very thing to someone else?