I believe Dylan Farrow.
Almost every time I am going to believe the victim rather than accused, when it comes to matters of rape, sexual abuse, abuse of power, and the like. I think it's important to redress the massive power imbalance in these cases by giving more weight to the voice, the story, the experiences of the victim. I believe Louise Nicholas too.
I understand that the way the justice system works is different. Due to the presumption of innocence, currently it seems impossible to give anything approaching equal weight to victim and accused. Ironically, what does serve to provide some balance are other prejudices coming in to play. The version of the victim will be considered more believable if they are cis female, white, "presentable", middle-class, virginal/married to someone other than the accused, acted in accepted ways before, during and after being assaulted/abused. The version of the accused will be discounted in part or whole if cis male, physically powerful, brown, a stranger to the victim, poor, shown to be non-vanilla in sexual preferences and practices.
I can form a different opinion from the verdicts the justice system produces. I can make up my own mind. It has no consequences for the legal outcomes if I do.
But, if I can express my belief in the victim and their story in a way they become aware of, or other victims and survivors become aware, then I'm hopeful I'm expressing some solidarity, some support, for them. That in some small way I am helping to redress the tilt the justice system applies, on a social level if not a legal one.
Comment direction: I am not interested in debating my central premise here in the comments below, as I believe that could be very harmful to readers. I'll be deleting comments that denigrate victims, propose that the accused in these cases is the underdog, anything like that. I am interested in discussion of how we make the justice system fairer in these contexts, up against the (important) presumption of innocence of the accused, and I have no easy answers on that.
Showing posts with label child abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child abuse. Show all posts
Saturday, 8 February 2014
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Sexual abuse and culture
There's an interesting article from Joseph Harker, essentially arguing that whiteness is invisible when we talk about sexual violence, a privilege not enjoyed by Muslim people:
What I'm slightly disappointed by in Mr Harker's article though is the lack of attention to power in other ways. Sexual violence thrives in situations in which there are power imbalances. Predators target vulnerable people. Child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults is in the main not by "paedophiles" but by men who have sexual relationships with other adults as well as targeting children.
This power might be institutional - Jimmy Savile say, with his powerful role within the entertainment industry in the UK. Where there seems to be a problem, given the Coronation St roll call of men accused of raping children is growing. Institutional power within educational organisations, or community groups for children, or religious based organisations, or residential services for children, or facilities to care for children. Social power that comes with adulthood, or being a caregiver, or helping out with babysitting.
We need to ask questions of culture if we want to prevent child sexual abuse, but they need to be much broader than racist deficit assumptions for Muslims, Maori or any other people of colour. What was the culture in the British entertainment industries which has led to a Police investigation arresting pop star Gary Glitter, comedian Freddie Starr, DJ Dave Lee Travis, publicist Max Clifford and comedian Jim Davidson, alongside of course the Jimmy Savile revelations and the recent arrest of Rolf Harris?
How many children and adults did these men sexually assault? How many people knew about it? What did they tell themselves? How can we stop that happening again?
The Steubenville rape convictions put the spotlight on the inability of young sportsmen to identify sexually assaulting a near comatose young woman as something unacceptable. One teammate of the convicted rapists who saw the rape and walked away had just moments earlier stopped another teammate from drinking and driving. How do we shift those cultural norms, so that young sportsmen are just as determined to stop their teammates raping as driving drunk?
The most important issue, whenever we are talking and thinking about culture, is that the analysis - and the shift to building and supporting protective social norms - needs to come from within the group of interest. I don't know why the British entertainment industry has been providing such a safe place to abuse for men for decades. But people working there will.
I don't think we should be scared of talking and thinking about culture when it comes to preventing sexual violence. In fact I think it's imperative we do that work, if we want protective social norms which promote respect, safety, mutuality and consent as foundations.
We just need to be looking at our own cultural belongings first and foremost. There's plenty of social change to go around.
Every day across Britain, it seems, there's a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse: last week we had the guilty plea of veteran TV presenter Stuart Hall, who confessed to 14 cases of indecent assault against 13 girls, the youngest only nine years old. Days earlier the possible scale of child abuse in north Wales children's homes was revealed.
But after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people's minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this?While Mr Harker has left alone the obvious male connection that all of these perpetrators - white and non-white - have in common, he raises a valid point, well. And one which is just as relevant in Aotearoa, where as Moana Jackson points out the Kahui twins, Nia Glassie and James Whakaruru are household names, while the Nelson twins, Timothy Maybin and Samantha Nelson are not.
What I'm slightly disappointed by in Mr Harker's article though is the lack of attention to power in other ways. Sexual violence thrives in situations in which there are power imbalances. Predators target vulnerable people. Child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults is in the main not by "paedophiles" but by men who have sexual relationships with other adults as well as targeting children.
This power might be institutional - Jimmy Savile say, with his powerful role within the entertainment industry in the UK. Where there seems to be a problem, given the Coronation St roll call of men accused of raping children is growing. Institutional power within educational organisations, or community groups for children, or religious based organisations, or residential services for children, or facilities to care for children. Social power that comes with adulthood, or being a caregiver, or helping out with babysitting.
We need to ask questions of culture if we want to prevent child sexual abuse, but they need to be much broader than racist deficit assumptions for Muslims, Maori or any other people of colour. What was the culture in the British entertainment industries which has led to a Police investigation arresting pop star Gary Glitter, comedian Freddie Starr, DJ Dave Lee Travis, publicist Max Clifford and comedian Jim Davidson, alongside of course the Jimmy Savile revelations and the recent arrest of Rolf Harris?
How many children and adults did these men sexually assault? How many people knew about it? What did they tell themselves? How can we stop that happening again?
The Steubenville rape convictions put the spotlight on the inability of young sportsmen to identify sexually assaulting a near comatose young woman as something unacceptable. One teammate of the convicted rapists who saw the rape and walked away had just moments earlier stopped another teammate from drinking and driving. How do we shift those cultural norms, so that young sportsmen are just as determined to stop their teammates raping as driving drunk?
The most important issue, whenever we are talking and thinking about culture, is that the analysis - and the shift to building and supporting protective social norms - needs to come from within the group of interest. I don't know why the British entertainment industry has been providing such a safe place to abuse for men for decades. But people working there will.
I don't think we should be scared of talking and thinking about culture when it comes to preventing sexual violence. In fact I think it's imperative we do that work, if we want protective social norms which promote respect, safety, mutuality and consent as foundations.
We just need to be looking at our own cultural belongings first and foremost. There's plenty of social change to go around.
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
No immunity for child sexual abuse
Mostly, I stay away from commenting on issues involving religion. I am an ignorant atheist, scarcely qualified to venture into discussing matters of faith which are exceptionally well-considered by others, not least THM's own stargazer.
But the free pass the Catholic Church has given to it's members to sexually abuse children is not just about religion, it's about power, and I'm going to wade in there. There are adult survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic Church staff in at least 65 countries. The numbers of people harmed will be in the many thousands - one survivor support group alone has 12,000 members.
Turns out it wasn't enough for Pope Ratzinger to just move priests from parish to parish while they were sexually abusing children, rather than take action against them. Nor was it enough to take years to respond to allegations when he was chief enforcer for the church in the years before his papacy, allowing priests more opportunities to abuse.
No, now he is apparently seeking immunity from plans of a European state to issue a warrant for his arrest - sent to the Vatican on 4th February, just a week before Pope Ratzinger resigned.
Not content with staying in the Vatican forever in the hope justice will not reach him there, he's also arranged a meeting on February 23 with the Italian head of state, President Napolitano to beg for Italy's protection in allegations of child sexual abuse crimes.
Where will the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Italian government decide to stand on the issue of child sexual abuse? With the thousands and thousands of survivors around the world, and international criminal law? Or with a man, sheltering other men, who carried out and/or enabled rapes of thousands of vulnerable children to carry on for decades?
But the free pass the Catholic Church has given to it's members to sexually abuse children is not just about religion, it's about power, and I'm going to wade in there. There are adult survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic Church staff in at least 65 countries. The numbers of people harmed will be in the many thousands - one survivor support group alone has 12,000 members.
No, now he is apparently seeking immunity from plans of a European state to issue a warrant for his arrest - sent to the Vatican on 4th February, just a week before Pope Ratzinger resigned.
Not content with staying in the Vatican forever in the hope justice will not reach him there, he's also arranged a meeting on February 23 with the Italian head of state, President Napolitano to beg for Italy's protection in allegations of child sexual abuse crimes.
Where will the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Italian government decide to stand on the issue of child sexual abuse? With the thousands and thousands of survivors around the world, and international criminal law? Or with a man, sheltering other men, who carried out and/or enabled rapes of thousands of vulnerable children to carry on for decades?
Sunday, 10 February 2013
What about teh menz?
I don't know about other feminists, but I have very little patience with people who want to undermine equity driven responses to women's oppression by insisting instead that we focus on men.
There are women's refuges because in the 1970s and 1980s, women started opening their homes up to other women who were being beaten by their partners. We took over empty houses, and they were filled with women and children not happy at home. The state responded, eventually, by providing cheap and mostly nasty state housing for us, and Refuges sprung up all over the country.
Those Refuges, forty years later, are still busy. The state's response has improved and women and children are now more able to stay at home - but there are still times when a protection order is just a piece of paper, or the only way to get some sleep is to leave the place he dominates, or there is literally no where else to go, for far, far too many women.
We don't have men's refuges because men have never organised in this way to keep other men safe from violence or the threat of violence. Of course, in New Zealand, a woman is murdered every four weeks by her male partner or ex-partner. For men, murders by female partners happen just under once a year, usually in self-defence. So it's no surprise men have not set up men's refuge - just somewhat surprising we still have to have this conversation.
I could go on about this ad nauseum, but instead I'd rather point to when asking "what about teh menz?" is genuine. The sexual abuse of boys is heavily under-researched and poorly understood. When Ken Clearwater started talking about the sexual abuse of boys, it was pretty lonely.
Now, Ken is the "self-appointed National Manager" of the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust. He has supported the set up of seven support groups for men around the country, travels regularly to talk about male sexual abuse internationally, and continues to do extraordinary work with male survivors, literally saving lives. The Male Survivors Trust is linked into national sexual violence networks, and Ken continues to challenge sexual violence understandings by describing the blocks to men talking about sexual abuse and/or being victims.
He is, quite simply, an extraordinary man, who in asking "what about teh menz?" actually meant it. His advocacy for male survivors extends feminist understandings of sexual violence, because it pushes us to pay attention to power, rather than use gender as shorthand. The men Ken works with often come to him after experiencing sexual abuse in institutions where as boys, they were targeted because they were vulnerable. In asking "what about teh menz?" Ken Clearwater pays attention, in vital ways for feminism, to the ways masculinity norms damage men.
So there's my challenge - next time you hear or see this question - tell the person concerned to do a Clearwater. If their concern is real, we might just see some further exploration of power and gender which is good for all of us.
"Why isn't there a men's refuge?" "Men should be able to go on Take Back the Night too, we experience violence on the street as well." "Women are just as violent as men." "Men can be victims too."My lack of patience is not because I don't care about men. In fact, paying attention to masculine people's experiences has been and continues to be vital to feminist aims of gender equity. No, it's more that I believe the vast majority of people who raise these issues are just interested in obscuring gender oppression.
There are women's refuges because in the 1970s and 1980s, women started opening their homes up to other women who were being beaten by their partners. We took over empty houses, and they were filled with women and children not happy at home. The state responded, eventually, by providing cheap and mostly nasty state housing for us, and Refuges sprung up all over the country.
Those Refuges, forty years later, are still busy. The state's response has improved and women and children are now more able to stay at home - but there are still times when a protection order is just a piece of paper, or the only way to get some sleep is to leave the place he dominates, or there is literally no where else to go, for far, far too many women.
We don't have men's refuges because men have never organised in this way to keep other men safe from violence or the threat of violence. Of course, in New Zealand, a woman is murdered every four weeks by her male partner or ex-partner. For men, murders by female partners happen just under once a year, usually in self-defence. So it's no surprise men have not set up men's refuge - just somewhat surprising we still have to have this conversation.
I could go on about this ad nauseum, but instead I'd rather point to when asking "what about teh menz?" is genuine. The sexual abuse of boys is heavily under-researched and poorly understood. When Ken Clearwater started talking about the sexual abuse of boys, it was pretty lonely.
Now, Ken is the "self-appointed National Manager" of the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust. He has supported the set up of seven support groups for men around the country, travels regularly to talk about male sexual abuse internationally, and continues to do extraordinary work with male survivors, literally saving lives. The Male Survivors Trust is linked into national sexual violence networks, and Ken continues to challenge sexual violence understandings by describing the blocks to men talking about sexual abuse and/or being victims.
He is, quite simply, an extraordinary man, who in asking "what about teh menz?" actually meant it. His advocacy for male survivors extends feminist understandings of sexual violence, because it pushes us to pay attention to power, rather than use gender as shorthand. The men Ken works with often come to him after experiencing sexual abuse in institutions where as boys, they were targeted because they were vulnerable. In asking "what about teh menz?" Ken Clearwater pays attention, in vital ways for feminism, to the ways masculinity norms damage men.
So there's my challenge - next time you hear or see this question - tell the person concerned to do a Clearwater. If their concern is real, we might just see some further exploration of power and gender which is good for all of us.
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Secondary Effects
A few days ago, I spent the afternoon with a group of women. We had met, generally through online groups or professional contacts, and kept in touch. Some of them I was meeting for the first time, others I already knew in person. We laid out food we had made the previous day or picked up hastily on the way, cold meats and cheeses, quiche, boiled potatoes with butter, chocolate brownies. We sat on the deck in the sun, drinking ginger beer and talking. We gossiped - yes, gossiped! - a bit. We told jokes where we knew what was coming and laughed before the punchline had been spoken.
I don't think at any point we mentioned the Sandy Hook massacre. News had only just started to be filtered through to us. Maybe we didn't feel like there was much worth saying. Maybe, with the majority of us working in education in one way or another, it hit too close to home. We hadn't yet realised that - like every one of us - the shooter was autistic, and that once again the term would start being banded around as synonymous with lack of empathy, lack of feeling and violence.
Parents stepped up their search for normalcy, because normal people don't commit violence, because clearly forcing your child to stop moving or communicating in the way that's easiest and most natural to them is the best way to prevent a massacre. Someone claimed to have phoned the police about an autistic person they know of, fearing they may become violent with no further evidence than the fact they're weird.
Not many people have talked about the six year old autistic victim, Dylan Hockley. We haven't much either. We're too busy trying to defend ourselves. We haven't talked much about the other issues that relate to us as the gun debate - and I can't believe it's even a debate - steps up, about the number of autistic people, predominantly young men, shot by police, and about how that's supposed to just be accepted.
A lot of what I want to say can be summed up by Julie's post, There is no Depression in New Zealand, which mostly but not altogether could apply to my experience of being autistic (and mental illness is not something entirely foreign to me either) - this is just my version of it. There is of course a need to challenge the stereotypes that get applied, the associations with violence that have no basis in fact, the refusal to meaningful acknowledge perpetrated against those with mental illness and autistic people.
And of course it's hard to process events like this. We all want to live in a world without them, to find some magic key that means they won't happen again. But if the cost is prejudice, if it's our acceptance of child abuse, if it's persecution and ultimately leads to more violence, we are only floating further from any kind of solution.
I don't think at any point we mentioned the Sandy Hook massacre. News had only just started to be filtered through to us. Maybe we didn't feel like there was much worth saying. Maybe, with the majority of us working in education in one way or another, it hit too close to home. We hadn't yet realised that - like every one of us - the shooter was autistic, and that once again the term would start being banded around as synonymous with lack of empathy, lack of feeling and violence.
Parents stepped up their search for normalcy, because normal people don't commit violence, because clearly forcing your child to stop moving or communicating in the way that's easiest and most natural to them is the best way to prevent a massacre. Someone claimed to have phoned the police about an autistic person they know of, fearing they may become violent with no further evidence than the fact they're weird.
Not many people have talked about the six year old autistic victim, Dylan Hockley. We haven't much either. We're too busy trying to defend ourselves. We haven't talked much about the other issues that relate to us as the gun debate - and I can't believe it's even a debate - steps up, about the number of autistic people, predominantly young men, shot by police, and about how that's supposed to just be accepted.
A lot of what I want to say can be summed up by Julie's post, There is no Depression in New Zealand, which mostly but not altogether could apply to my experience of being autistic (and mental illness is not something entirely foreign to me either) - this is just my version of it. There is of course a need to challenge the stereotypes that get applied, the associations with violence that have no basis in fact, the refusal to meaningful acknowledge perpetrated against those with mental illness and autistic people.
And of course it's hard to process events like this. We all want to live in a world without them, to find some magic key that means they won't happen again. But if the cost is prejudice, if it's our acceptance of child abuse, if it's persecution and ultimately leads to more violence, we are only floating further from any kind of solution.
Sunday, 4 September 2011
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.
Monday, 23 May 2011
The support we choose.
Cross posted from my usual spot...
The case of children /young women using their school councillors as a resource to source options for an unwanted pregnancy has had a lot of time in the media. One of the trends in comments from pro-choice and pro “support in schools for all options” has been the concept that teens use the school because home is not a safe environment.
I balked at that, because my own experience of using school support networks was in preference to admitting to my parents that I was not coping. It was my first experience with depression and the first thing the councillor did was hold my hand while I called my mother and admitted I couldn’t do this alone.
I still count my blessings that my parents’ response was one of support, and my family stood by me while I made decisions around staying in school or not, remaining a prefect or not, continuing competitive activities or not.
So while I realise that many, many young people struggle to find safe places and supportive people in their lives, withholding information is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction or abuse.
So when we discuss children requiring the notification of parents before accessing an abortion I have to ask...
Why?
If it is so the parents can have a say, then no. No, no, NO!
I say no for so many reasons, and most of them have been expressed beautifully elsewhere.
Take a peek at Boganette
Or Anthea
Or Luddite journo
Or Ideologically impure
Or over on life is a feminist issue
There is a lot of murmur on the blogosphere around this topic and I don’t need to rehash it.
The other logical (and not unreasonable) reason is that young people going through an experience like pregnancy/ abortion/ adoption should have support.
This I support, but not in the form of “concern trolling” where people act like they are being concerned about someone’s well being in order to maintain control (would any one like to quote some patronising pro-slavery quotes here?).
If taken at face value the key element of support can be provided by any adult in a child’s life.
I’m a support to several young people who are family friends and I really hope that they would feel safe and free from risk of judgement if they came to me.
So why not require an adult (by all means legislate the age if needed) chosen BY THE YOUNG PERSON to be notified? (Not the sexual partner of the youth if under age).
This seems to fulfil all the needs of the group.
The young person is able to access all healthcare options available.
They have a support person to assist them through the process.
There is an adult in this process.
There are SO MANY massive issues with this.
Young people may not choose the most ‘responsible’ person around.
That person may not have the young person’s best interests at heart.
That person may be involved in the relationship that led to the pregnancy.
The person may be covering for a rape that occurred.
The person may use their influence to pressure the youth to make a decision that the youth is not fully comfortable with.
Like I said; a lot of issues.
The problem is that all of the above issues apply to parents as well.
So we are back to square one...
Anyone got any good ideas?
The case of children /young women using their school councillors as a resource to source options for an unwanted pregnancy has had a lot of time in the media. One of the trends in comments from pro-choice and pro “support in schools for all options” has been the concept that teens use the school because home is not a safe environment.
I balked at that, because my own experience of using school support networks was in preference to admitting to my parents that I was not coping. It was my first experience with depression and the first thing the councillor did was hold my hand while I called my mother and admitted I couldn’t do this alone.
I still count my blessings that my parents’ response was one of support, and my family stood by me while I made decisions around staying in school or not, remaining a prefect or not, continuing competitive activities or not.
So while I realise that many, many young people struggle to find safe places and supportive people in their lives, withholding information is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction or abuse.
So when we discuss children requiring the notification of parents before accessing an abortion I have to ask...
Why?
If it is so the parents can have a say, then no. No, no, NO!
I say no for so many reasons, and most of them have been expressed beautifully elsewhere.
Take a peek at Boganette
Or Anthea
Or Luddite journo
Or Ideologically impure
Or over on life is a feminist issue
There is a lot of murmur on the blogosphere around this topic and I don’t need to rehash it.
The other logical (and not unreasonable) reason is that young people going through an experience like pregnancy/ abortion/ adoption should have support.
This I support, but not in the form of “concern trolling” where people act like they are being concerned about someone’s well being in order to maintain control (would any one like to quote some patronising pro-slavery quotes here?).
If taken at face value the key element of support can be provided by any adult in a child’s life.
I’m a support to several young people who are family friends and I really hope that they would feel safe and free from risk of judgement if they came to me.
So why not require an adult (by all means legislate the age if needed) chosen BY THE YOUNG PERSON to be notified? (Not the sexual partner of the youth if under age).
This seems to fulfil all the needs of the group.
The young person is able to access all healthcare options available.
They have a support person to assist them through the process.
There is an adult in this process.
There are SO MANY massive issues with this.
Young people may not choose the most ‘responsible’ person around.
That person may not have the young person’s best interests at heart.
That person may be involved in the relationship that led to the pregnancy.
The person may be covering for a rape that occurred.
The person may use their influence to pressure the youth to make a decision that the youth is not fully comfortable with.
Like I said; a lot of issues.
The problem is that all of the above issues apply to parents as well.
So we are back to square one...
Anyone got any good ideas?
Thursday, 14 April 2011
this is the front line, minister
excellent work by jacinda ardern & carol beaumont today in questioning tariana turia on the cutting of funds from self-defence programmes for girls. here's the clip (hat tip):
i can't find a transcript online yet, but basically there has been a full cut of government funding to the "girls self-defence project", which amounts to $377,000. the project has reached 77,000 girls. jacinda quoted one principal who said:
each time it has been delivered the girls self defence programme has given at least one of the girls the courage to speak out about an inappropriate and, in a number of instances, unlawful act that involves them. i truly believe that if a programme like this is cut, there will be girls who don't find the confidence to speak out about abuse that they are having to endure.
in a question from carol, we find out that this is "a course where ... evaluation results showing over 90% of the girls felt stronger, more confident, knew ways to deal with unsafe situations and feel that they can talk to safe people."
the minister's response was that the ministry wanted more money going to frontline services (with the implication that this project somehow isn't one). she also says several times that the organisation can apply to the "innovation fund", but that fund is for families not frontline services delivered through schools, minister wouldn't answer as to their chances of success.
of course this is appalling. i'm really glad that these questions have been raised and this particular cut has been highlighted. but there's something missing here - the usual something. we're teaching our girls about safety (as we need to) but we're not teaching our boys to (a) also keep themselves safe, since boys suffer from childhood sexual abuse too and (b) how to conduct safe relationships that respect consent and the personhood of the other person. i'm hoping that the girls self-defence project covers consent and boundaries as well.
basically we need all round better education on matters of sex, sexuality and relationships. and that education will require funding. it may be preventative, but there can be no better frontline funding than this.
i can't find a transcript online yet, but basically there has been a full cut of government funding to the "girls self-defence project", which amounts to $377,000. the project has reached 77,000 girls. jacinda quoted one principal who said:
each time it has been delivered the girls self defence programme has given at least one of the girls the courage to speak out about an inappropriate and, in a number of instances, unlawful act that involves them. i truly believe that if a programme like this is cut, there will be girls who don't find the confidence to speak out about abuse that they are having to endure.
in a question from carol, we find out that this is "a course where ... evaluation results showing over 90% of the girls felt stronger, more confident, knew ways to deal with unsafe situations and feel that they can talk to safe people."
the minister's response was that the ministry wanted more money going to frontline services (with the implication that this project somehow isn't one). she also says several times that the organisation can apply to the "innovation fund", but that fund is for families not frontline services delivered through schools, minister wouldn't answer as to their chances of success.
of course this is appalling. i'm really glad that these questions have been raised and this particular cut has been highlighted. but there's something missing here - the usual something. we're teaching our girls about safety (as we need to) but we're not teaching our boys to (a) also keep themselves safe, since boys suffer from childhood sexual abuse too and (b) how to conduct safe relationships that respect consent and the personhood of the other person. i'm hoping that the girls self-defence project covers consent and boundaries as well.
basically we need all round better education on matters of sex, sexuality and relationships. and that education will require funding. it may be preventative, but there can be no better frontline funding than this.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
another type of bullying
i'm just going to link to other people's writing on the case where a jury acquitted who had admitted tying his son to his wrist, shaving his hair off and washing his mouth with soap:
"It is probably the worst thing I have ever done to my child, but I grabbed my tie that I wear for church and I tied his wrist to my wrist beside my bed so he couldn't take off and go and kill himself," the father told the Sunday Star-Times. "Then he did manage to loosen it, so I did tie it around his neck for only about 30 seconds. I admitted to those things in court, but given the circumstances and what I was trying to achieve – trying to stop him killing himself – I was found not guilty."
here is stef, who doesn't think this kind of parenting is typical.
and neither does the queen of thorns (and no, i won't give her a dismissive introduction so that you can take her less seriously).
i don't have much more to add. that we live in a society where a jury can acquit a person on this kind of behaviour is indeed a sad thing. i don't understand how putting a tie around your child's throat in attempt to stop him killing himself is a productive exercise. and the lead juror should be "embarassed to be a new zealander", but not for the reasons she thinks.
seriously, if she doesn't think this was a case that needed to be answered, i don't know what is.
"It is probably the worst thing I have ever done to my child, but I grabbed my tie that I wear for church and I tied his wrist to my wrist beside my bed so he couldn't take off and go and kill himself," the father told the Sunday Star-Times. "Then he did manage to loosen it, so I did tie it around his neck for only about 30 seconds. I admitted to those things in court, but given the circumstances and what I was trying to achieve – trying to stop him killing himself – I was found not guilty."
here is stef, who doesn't think this kind of parenting is typical.
and neither does the queen of thorns (and no, i won't give her a dismissive introduction so that you can take her less seriously).
i don't have much more to add. that we live in a society where a jury can acquit a person on this kind of behaviour is indeed a sad thing. i don't understand how putting a tie around your child's throat in attempt to stop him killing himself is a productive exercise. and the lead juror should be "embarassed to be a new zealander", but not for the reasons she thinks.
seriously, if she doesn't think this was a case that needed to be answered, i don't know what is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)