So there's new local research out today that the gender pay gap is a) real and b) primarily due to conscious and unconscious bias.
Firstly YES.
And also: it is good to have this in the public arena and being discussed, and for the Minister for Women to accept the findings as opposed to going "but we really need more research to be sure". It is a victory for all those good folks who have been fighting to get this issue looked at on the facts, for many years now.
Because it is undeniable, it really is, that there is a gender pay gap. There has always been a gender pay gap. It was a little smaller a few years ago (went down to 11%, now back up to 12%) but it has ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
And yet people have sought to deny it, explain it away, it's because women want to be paid less, take time out for children, aren't as qualified as men, don't need as much income because the man of the house is the breadwinner. WRONG.
And we knew these dismissals were wrong. Lots and lots of us. Not just from lived experience or from observing others around us but from the other many ways that workplaces, and society, treats women as less than men apart from pay, and from statistics, and from court cases and union agitation. WE KNEW THIS ALREADY.
A little digression about "conscious and unconscious bias". Can we please just call it what it is? SEXISM. That's what you call it when people are intentionally or unintentionally discriminating against women, individually or collectively, because they are women. It's sexism, it's always been sexism - even the other explanations (now proven to have had only a small impact) like time out for childcare, taking jobs with lower responsibilities, not asking for promotion or pay increases blah blah blah all have a basis in sexism.
So how do we stop sexism, vis a vis the gender pay gap? Apparently we need to raise awareness.
This is the point at which I start to get a certain song from That Bloody Woman (NSFW lyrics) stuck in my head.
See para 5: WE KNEW THIS ALREADY
Yes, it probably will help, and it will give the many many organisations that ALREADY KNEW THIS new strength to push for implementation actual practical measures that will close the gap and treat workers fairly.
But excuse me for a moment while I rage inwardly against the people who only now see the truth that was there the whole time, and pledge to eliminate this Awful New Injustice They Had Never Heard Of Before Today.
I heard someone on the radio saying there is a strong business case to pay women fairly. Of course there is, there always was. Just as there are strong economic arguments to support the Living Wage, paying teachers more, showing that cleaners bring more value to society than hedge fund managers.
Again, WE KNEW THIS ALREADY.
Because businesses who get to pay lower wages save money in the short term. Anyone who has ever worked in the union movement or a strongly unionised workplace will be able to tell you this - for too many in management and above keeping the quarterlywage bill low is seen as essential, even when it undermines longer term benefits like staff retention, and increased productivity.
The tyranny of a corporate approach (in government too) that demands the lowest possible wage bill, and the lowest possible number of staff, will continue unless we ACTUALLY MAKE IT STOP.
That means legislation folks, not just raising awareness. LAW CHANGES, sweet sweet law changes that make it necessary to STOP paying people less based on irrelevancies like gender identity and race.
We've asked nicely for pay equity for many years. We've even asked assertively and with facts, like men do (eye roll).
CAN WE JUST DO THIS ALREADY? (PLEASE)
I don't do comments anymore. You can find me on Twitter or FB under juliefairey.
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 March 2017
Thursday, 4 February 2016
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.
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.
Tuesday, 30 June 2015
Everywhere
Recently I've been spending a lot of time on the 9th floor of Auckland City Hospital - Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) is currently the temporary home of my third child, born three weeks ago today.* Even here, perhaps especially here given the stress of it all, there is violence against women perpetrated by men.
When Early first arrived I was admitted to Ward 96 and he was in nearby Ward 92. There is a security door between the two wards, which requires a swipe card and only the mothers of babies in Ward 92, who are themselves in Ward 96, are allowed the cards. Any visitors to my baby were only allowed in, one at a time, with me or the baby's father. It seemed a bit over the top, until it became apparent that there was a mother and baby in the wards who had a father attempting to visit despite her strong desire for him not to do so. To keep her safe, and the babies, hers and ours, it was necessary to be super vigilant about that door between Ward 96 and Ward 92, and no doubt at reception for NICU proper, because even here, even in the newborn ward of a hospital, there was a threat of violence.
Then there was this very sad sad story in Whangarei, unfolding at the same time that we were all guarding that door on the 9th floor:
* Baby and I are both doing well thanks, just arrived v early for no discernable reason.
When Early first arrived I was admitted to Ward 96 and he was in nearby Ward 92. There is a security door between the two wards, which requires a swipe card and only the mothers of babies in Ward 92, who are themselves in Ward 96, are allowed the cards. Any visitors to my baby were only allowed in, one at a time, with me or the baby's father. It seemed a bit over the top, until it became apparent that there was a mother and baby in the wards who had a father attempting to visit despite her strong desire for him not to do so. To keep her safe, and the babies, hers and ours, it was necessary to be super vigilant about that door between Ward 96 and Ward 92, and no doubt at reception for NICU proper, because even here, even in the newborn ward of a hospital, there was a threat of violence.
Then there was this very sad sad story in Whangarei, unfolding at the same time that we were all guarding that door on the 9th floor:
Rachal, 20, died in Whangarei Hospital on June 10 after suffering a severe asthma attack at home. She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. Her baby was delivered by caesarean section while she was in a coma, but he died in Starship the following day. He was named Robert....Rachal was in the care of the Dingwall Trust, a care and protection facility in Papatoetoe, South Auckland, from nine until she turned 17.The trust's director, Tracie Shipton, says staff had serious concerns about what would happen to Rachal if she returned home. It was also feared she wouldn't get the medical treatment she needed for her asthma and eczema.
The violence is real, the threat is real; it happens everywhere even if we don't see it. There is a lot of talk about terrorism, focused on the international scene, but it seems to me that so much terror, so much fear and harm, is in everyday lives because of men who hate women, men who abuse women.
At the root of most of the recent mass murders we have seen has been a man (or a group of men) who do not see women as full humans; Dylann Roof (Charleston, USA) reckoned he was protecting white women from rape by black men, yet the people he shot dead were mostly black women, and his extreme racism seems to have been coupled with an incredibly patriarchal (at best) attitude to females; Man Haron Monis (Sydney, Australia) had a history of violence against women which, had it been addressed, may have averted the Lindt Cafe siege; Anders Breivik (Norway) blamed feminism for eroding the culture of Europe and advocated for a resurgence of patriarchy; Jody Hunt (West Virginia, USA) killed his ex-girlfriend first; Elliot Rodger (California, USA) specifically drove to a sorority house for his second batch of killings, to punish women in general for rejecting him.
We cannot properly address and eliminate violence against women until we address and eliminate sexism. Until we can create a society where women are equal, both in perception and reality, we will not stop all these deaths, assaults and rapes. And we have to at least try.
* Baby and I are both doing well thanks, just arrived v early for no discernable reason.
Thursday, 17 July 2014
Shouting from water skis
Sometimes being a woman in a male dominated field feels a bit like trying to teach from water-skis.
No, water-skis are not the best platform to teach from.
No, people don’t hear you as well over the roar of engines and water.
Yes, you will probably fail more often
You lose people’s attention more when people are focused on where you are, rather than what you are saying.
It’s exhausting, and even the easiest lesson is hard to do from a difficult place to stand.
But if that is the ONLY space you have to teach from, and people will watch because of the spectacle then what are you going to do?
Quit and lose your voice and audience?
Fight for a better space and risk people refusing to tow you?
Or carry on, and hope like hell that eventually someone sees how stupid this is and gives you a more appropriate space to teach from in the future.
All of the above options are entirely legitimate, and I wouldn’t judge anyone who took any of those options. I also don’t blame people who don’t even go into those spaces because they aren’t well enough, fit enough, have enough time, or can deal with the stress of such an unpleasant work environment.
Refusing to work on skis isn’t unreasonable.
Refusing to provide a better space for women to work and have a platform IS.
This post has been Crossposted from my home blog.
The fact that some of our most interesting scientists in New Zealand (I can name Siouxsie Wiles, Christine Winterbourn, Heather Hendrickson, Margaret Brimble, and Judy O'Brien off the top of my head) are not seen regularly in our media is a damn waste, and frankly it’s a bit of a surprise that even Souxsie with her bright pink hair and award for science communication, is mostly under the mainstream radar.
Dr Dickinson is getting there, and she is getting there on the shittiest water skis possible. BUT SHE IS GETTING THERE.
While we watch the rubbish she has to deal with, hoops she has to jump through, and unreasonableness of her environment, let’s take the focus off the stunts she has to pull, and on why that’s the ONLY SPACE SHE HAS FOUND AN AUDIANCE.
Because I’m pretty damn sure that if anyone had any kind of choice, they wouldn’t work with people who undermine them, degrade them, and bring their personal life into a professional discussion. But we do.
Because that is the only space we have.
Let’s stop pointing at the women who are the spectacle and start looking at why that’s the only space women have voices.
This post has been Crossposted from my home blog.
Sunday, 7 July 2013
Cheering with the man fans
When the great Audre Lorde said there is no such thing as a single issue, because we don't lead single issue lives, she didn't have New Zealand's current debates run by (straight, white, cis, able-bodied) man fans.
But as nearly always, even more than twenty years after her far-too-early death, her words are applicable. The moment some in the Labour Party suggested that there need to be structural measures to combat structural sexist discrimination in politics, all hell broke loose. Despite how modest the suggestions were - that some electorates could decide their Labour candidate from amongst women members - the fallout has been huge.
I've seen commentators arguing if we allow quotas for women, where will it end? Those pesky gays and Māori will be wanting their own quotas before too long, won't they? (Let's not even go there on the fraught colonial history around Māori representation in general electorates. We might have to call it, oh, Māori bans?)
I've seen right wing commentators making jokes about how difficult it will be to tell Labour women apart from male candidates. This isn't, sadly, a celebration of the beauties of gender diversity.
I've seen left-wing men making transphobic jokes about not being prepared to transition for their seat.
And then there is Merit©. Coming up over and over again.
The sad thing is, it's not just the (straight, white, cis, able-bodied) man fans coming up with this. It's people who really should know better. Come on New Zealanders who believe in ending discrimination and oppression. We're never going to do this, on any issue, without making structural changes. Be brave enough to say that and call this "man ban" crap out for what it is - excuses for believing women are somehow worth less than men.
But as nearly always, even more than twenty years after her far-too-early death, her words are applicable. The moment some in the Labour Party suggested that there need to be structural measures to combat structural sexist discrimination in politics, all hell broke loose. Despite how modest the suggestions were - that some electorates could decide their Labour candidate from amongst women members - the fallout has been huge.
I stopped reading, I'll be honest. The framing of the issue, almost immediately, as a "man ban" told me all I needed to know - we were going to pretend that there was a level playing field for everyone in Aotearoa. And that what we acheive in life is based only on Merit©.
This is one of the great colonising myths, the great sexist myths, the great myths of anyone who wants to pretend discrimination and oppression are just unfortunate circumstances, or maybe even - whisper it - possibly the fault of the group complaining. It's much easier, always, to blame the victim than it is to pay attention to those benefiting.
Somewhat depressingly, it's too obvious to point out the hundreds of male political representatives New Zealand's parliament who completely lack Merit©. So I won't bother. Though John Banks will always hold a special place in my heart, for so many reasons.
The discussion about Merit© should have been immediately dismissed as the absolute nonsense it is, by people who believe in challenging inequality anyway. How can we possibly say that has been the sole criteria by which parliamentarians have been selected? Wouldn't there be equal numbers of women and men?
No, the fault lines of this issue can be seen in what else the man fan cheerleaders bring up.
I've seen right wing commentators making jokes about how difficult it will be to tell Labour women apart from male candidates. This isn't, sadly, a celebration of the beauties of gender diversity.
I've seen left-wing men making transphobic jokes about not being prepared to transition for their seat.
And then there is Merit©. Coming up over and over again.
The sad thing is, it's not just the (straight, white, cis, able-bodied) man fans coming up with this. It's people who really should know better. Come on New Zealanders who believe in ending discrimination and oppression. We're never going to do this, on any issue, without making structural changes. Be brave enough to say that and call this "man ban" crap out for what it is - excuses for believing women are somehow worth less than men.
Sunday, 23 June 2013
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:___
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:
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.
- 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.
Monday, 15 April 2013
Marvellous heroes
I've been away at a feminist retreat for the weekend, recharging my energy for gender equity fights with some feminist sheroes. We don't have to fight about some things anymore, right? The world has moved on...
Sure, there's still that small matter of objectification. Despite capitalism finding new ways to exploit men's bodies, when we pay attention to the typical ways women's bodies are positioned in mass media, it's pretty obvious we're encouraged to view the feminine in ways masculinity is never portrayed.
But somehow, despite the cultural scaffolding which treats women as window dressing for the real world concerns of men, despite the fact I wilfully avoid much media to help myself stay sane and centred, I am still shocked when brand new products are created to reinforce traditional gender roles. Just out from Marvel:
We all need heroes. People that inspire us, help us feel brave enough to honour ourselves in tough situations, brave enough to stand up to other people who are behaving badly. Boys need heroes in quite specific ways - while the majority of men don't hold rape supportive attitudes for example, the majority of men do not challenge other men when those attitudes are expressed, because they are scared of failing the dude test.
Sadly I don't think Marvel are quite that nuanced, and this is just pure sexist crap. Girls are being encouraged, again (and again, and again, and again....) to wait around for some bloke to keep us safe, decide what needs doing and help us with our lives with his big strong muscles and his masculine brain. Boys are being encouraged, again (and again, and again, and again....) to suppress any feelings they may have of wanting to be cuddled or comforted, of being able to cry when they are sad, or not knowing how to do something.
If I needed more of a reminder of why I need feminist space than a joyful weekend with other feminists talking about our bodies, our work, self-care and play, I got it, first thing this morning when this jumped into my inbox.
If it bugs you as much as it bugs me, let Marvel know.
Sure, there's still that small matter of objectification. Despite capitalism finding new ways to exploit men's bodies, when we pay attention to the typical ways women's bodies are positioned in mass media, it's pretty obvious we're encouraged to view the feminine in ways masculinity is never portrayed.
But somehow, despite the cultural scaffolding which treats women as window dressing for the real world concerns of men, despite the fact I wilfully avoid much media to help myself stay sane and centred, I am still shocked when brand new products are created to reinforce traditional gender roles. Just out from Marvel:
We all need heroes. People that inspire us, help us feel brave enough to honour ourselves in tough situations, brave enough to stand up to other people who are behaving badly. Boys need heroes in quite specific ways - while the majority of men don't hold rape supportive attitudes for example, the majority of men do not challenge other men when those attitudes are expressed, because they are scared of failing the dude test.
Sadly I don't think Marvel are quite that nuanced, and this is just pure sexist crap. Girls are being encouraged, again (and again, and again, and again....) to wait around for some bloke to keep us safe, decide what needs doing and help us with our lives with his big strong muscles and his masculine brain. Boys are being encouraged, again (and again, and again, and again....) to suppress any feelings they may have of wanting to be cuddled or comforted, of being able to cry when they are sad, or not knowing how to do something.
If I needed more of a reminder of why I need feminist space than a joyful weekend with other feminists talking about our bodies, our work, self-care and play, I got it, first thing this morning when this jumped into my inbox.
If it bugs you as much as it bugs me, let Marvel know.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
I'm too sexy for my job
My parents conceived me in the USA, but my mother travelled half a continent, alone, to give birth in Canada. The US were invading Vietnam at the time, and my parents, no radicals, did not want a possible son to be drafted to another imperialist war.
Just today, I'm thankful for that choice, difficult as it must have been for my mother. Because in the USA, you can fire someone if you think they are sexy. That's what happened to Melissa Nelson, backed up by the all male Iowa Supreme Court. Her employer's lawyer said:
Not only do women have to make sure we're not tempting men with our bodies, our clothing choices, our habits, our movements - now we have to not earn a living, in case our male employers feel they might suddenly feel driven to be sexual with us.
Well, I don't know about you, but I find other people attractive and don't sleep with them all the time. Some might say I make a habit of it. Walking down the street - oh, there's someone else, I think I won't sleep with them. Sometimes at work I see someone attractive and, well, chat to them about work. Out with friends? Just more opportunities not to sleep with people I'm attracted to.
That is life, isn't it? Unless, of course, you're a male employer living in Iowa, unable to control those manly urges. Having the power to fire someone because you think they are sexy is rape culture in the extreme. Having that power bolstered by a Supreme Court shows how entrenched rape supportive attitudes are in the institutions supposed to protect citizens from crime.
Rape culture, Iowa is soaking in it.
Thanks again, Ma.
Just today, I'm thankful for that choice, difficult as it must have been for my mother. Because in the USA, you can fire someone if you think they are sexy. That's what happened to Melissa Nelson, backed up by the all male Iowa Supreme Court. Her employer's lawyer said:
"While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman," he said. "The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage."Poor boss Dr Knight. Apparently he found Mrs Nelson "irresistable" and wasn't sure he could restrain himself, describing her as a Lamborghini - which some might call sexual harassment, since it was in reference to it being a waste she wasn't having much sex - and he thought eventually they would have an affair. Not based on anything Mrs Nelson had suggested, mind.
Not only do women have to make sure we're not tempting men with our bodies, our clothing choices, our habits, our movements - now we have to not earn a living, in case our male employers feel they might suddenly feel driven to be sexual with us.
Well, I don't know about you, but I find other people attractive and don't sleep with them all the time. Some might say I make a habit of it. Walking down the street - oh, there's someone else, I think I won't sleep with them. Sometimes at work I see someone attractive and, well, chat to them about work. Out with friends? Just more opportunities not to sleep with people I'm attracted to.
That is life, isn't it? Unless, of course, you're a male employer living in Iowa, unable to control those manly urges. Having the power to fire someone because you think they are sexy is rape culture in the extreme. Having that power bolstered by a Supreme Court shows how entrenched rape supportive attitudes are in the institutions supposed to protect citizens from crime.
Rape culture, Iowa is soaking in it.
Thanks again, Ma.
Monday, 19 November 2012
Not a good day for women in politics, or indeed women
Things that have riled me today:
1. Mis-reporting of Julia Gillard's speech calling out Tony Abbott's misogyny - The speech did not begin with "I will not be lectured by this man..." at all, it began with "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny." Reinvention to turn it into a personal attack on Abbott, as opposed to a statement opposing the systematic marginalisation and covert hatred of women in the Australian political environment is NOT HELPFUL.
2. John Key forgetting that the Greens have two leaders. Guess which one he forgot?
3. Invisible women at the Labour Party Conference too it seems, at least according to the vox pop TV3 News undertook on Saturday night (all Labour party fellas, not online) and the photos of Saturday from the Listener (which I must say are very good pics).
4. No resolution to the funding crisis threatening Auckland's 24 Hour rape crisis helpline, despite repeated promises from this Government, year after year, that they will sort it. I've had an Official Information Act request in for further info on how they have been working on this, made October 15th, but as yet haven't received any actual information as it bumps around between Government departments. Unacceptable that yet again essential services that primarily assist women are cut. I'm very very tempted to suggest we divert some men's sports funding to cover this one.
Ok, that's enough of my grumpiness - what's getting your goat today?
1. Mis-reporting of Julia Gillard's speech calling out Tony Abbott's misogyny - The speech did not begin with "I will not be lectured by this man..." at all, it began with "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny." Reinvention to turn it into a personal attack on Abbott, as opposed to a statement opposing the systematic marginalisation and covert hatred of women in the Australian political environment is NOT HELPFUL.
2. John Key forgetting that the Greens have two leaders. Guess which one he forgot?
3. Invisible women at the Labour Party Conference too it seems, at least according to the vox pop TV3 News undertook on Saturday night (all Labour party fellas, not online) and the photos of Saturday from the Listener (which I must say are very good pics).
4. No resolution to the funding crisis threatening Auckland's 24 Hour rape crisis helpline, despite repeated promises from this Government, year after year, that they will sort it. I've had an Official Information Act request in for further info on how they have been working on this, made October 15th, but as yet haven't received any actual information as it bumps around between Government departments. Unacceptable that yet again essential services that primarily assist women are cut. I'm very very tempted to suggest we divert some men's sports funding to cover this one.
Ok, that's enough of my grumpiness - what's getting your goat today?
Thursday, 15 November 2012
in defence of the ridges
seeing as i have been going through some heavy stuff lately, i thought it was time for a lighter pop culture post. pretty out-of-date, i know, but it's been sitting at the back of my mind waiting to get out & now is as good a time as any.
i remember all the times i've written on this blog about my antipathy towards reality television. i mostly can't be bothered with it, mostly because there seems to be a lot of hostility & nastiness involved in the competitive aspects of reality tv shows, and i don't have the patience for that. i did manage to sit through one whole series of american idol, i can't even remember why. and of course i'm a well known masterchef fan. but that has generally been it, when it comes to me & reality tv shows.
so you would think that "the ridges" is not a show that would particularly appeal to me. never watched the osbornes or the kardashians or any other shows that concentrated on the lives of a particular group of families. it just sounded so boring, i've never even made an attempt to sit through 5 minutes of it. not that i'm judging people who are into that stuff, just saying that it really doesn't appeal to me.
and i can't say i'm a fan of sally or jamie ridge. since i avoid women's mags & entertainment sections, i'm blissfully unaware of the gossip. some of that stuff does spill over into "the news" though, so i can't say i was unaware that sally ridge split up with matthew ridge, and hooked up with adam parore, and then that was all over too. and i was dimly aware that sonny bill williams had been going out with jaime ridge at some point, but i didn't even know what she looked like until i watched the show.
so why did i bother watching? the hook for me was that this was a programme centred on women and women's experiences. sure, many of those experiences come under the category of "first world problems", and essentially the show is yet another one focusing on the lives of people of privilege. but even so, i think what kept me watching the show was the really strong mother-daughter relationship and the way these two women were so supportive of each other. i really don't think that we get to see enough of positive female relationships on our screens.
i also found it interesting to see the pressure on jaime ridge to be super-sexy, when it wasn't how she wanted to portray herself. i thought it was great that she fought back as much as she could, and tried her best to assert her own boundaries, with the support of people around her. i did hate that people were criticising her for being prepared to model underwear while not being prepared to wear skimpy clothing for the fight for life promotions. as if she doesn't have the right to choose in each instance what she's comfortable with. it reminds me way too much of women who are deemed to have a bad reputation for one action, which somehow makes them fair game for the rest of their lives. it's total nonsense.
the whole weight-loss thing was pretty bad as well. although i can see it was a requirement for a fair fight in the fight for life thing, it was still handled badly by the people responsible for her training.
clearly these are not perfect people (but who is?), and they deliberately put their lives into the public arena where they knew they would be judged. that's beyond celebrities being photographed without their consent, or having their personal stuff splashed across the tabloids. this was a case of informed consent, and so there is a much stronger case of saying that we have every right to be judgmental about this duo.
but even so, some of the judginess sounds incredibly misogynistic to me. i really couldn't believe that 7 days were willing to run a clip of some random guy calling them "skanks", and it seems to me that there has been too much criticism of that nature ie criticising the show because it focuses on women's lives and centres on the things that concern women. i'm not saying the show doesn't deserve criticism, as there were a few things that made me feel uncomfortable, but they don't deserve to be criticised just for being women who live their lives, and pretty successfully by the looks of it.
if there's going to be a season two, i'm not sure that i'll watch it. but i certainly don't regret watching season 1, and i think there was some use in seeing the kinds of pressures that women are subjected to. and while i still can't say i'm a fan, i can say that i wish both of them well.
i remember all the times i've written on this blog about my antipathy towards reality television. i mostly can't be bothered with it, mostly because there seems to be a lot of hostility & nastiness involved in the competitive aspects of reality tv shows, and i don't have the patience for that. i did manage to sit through one whole series of american idol, i can't even remember why. and of course i'm a well known masterchef fan. but that has generally been it, when it comes to me & reality tv shows.
so you would think that "the ridges" is not a show that would particularly appeal to me. never watched the osbornes or the kardashians or any other shows that concentrated on the lives of a particular group of families. it just sounded so boring, i've never even made an attempt to sit through 5 minutes of it. not that i'm judging people who are into that stuff, just saying that it really doesn't appeal to me.
and i can't say i'm a fan of sally or jamie ridge. since i avoid women's mags & entertainment sections, i'm blissfully unaware of the gossip. some of that stuff does spill over into "the news" though, so i can't say i was unaware that sally ridge split up with matthew ridge, and hooked up with adam parore, and then that was all over too. and i was dimly aware that sonny bill williams had been going out with jaime ridge at some point, but i didn't even know what she looked like until i watched the show.
so why did i bother watching? the hook for me was that this was a programme centred on women and women's experiences. sure, many of those experiences come under the category of "first world problems", and essentially the show is yet another one focusing on the lives of people of privilege. but even so, i think what kept me watching the show was the really strong mother-daughter relationship and the way these two women were so supportive of each other. i really don't think that we get to see enough of positive female relationships on our screens.
i also found it interesting to see the pressure on jaime ridge to be super-sexy, when it wasn't how she wanted to portray herself. i thought it was great that she fought back as much as she could, and tried her best to assert her own boundaries, with the support of people around her. i did hate that people were criticising her for being prepared to model underwear while not being prepared to wear skimpy clothing for the fight for life promotions. as if she doesn't have the right to choose in each instance what she's comfortable with. it reminds me way too much of women who are deemed to have a bad reputation for one action, which somehow makes them fair game for the rest of their lives. it's total nonsense.
the whole weight-loss thing was pretty bad as well. although i can see it was a requirement for a fair fight in the fight for life thing, it was still handled badly by the people responsible for her training.
clearly these are not perfect people (but who is?), and they deliberately put their lives into the public arena where they knew they would be judged. that's beyond celebrities being photographed without their consent, or having their personal stuff splashed across the tabloids. this was a case of informed consent, and so there is a much stronger case of saying that we have every right to be judgmental about this duo.
but even so, some of the judginess sounds incredibly misogynistic to me. i really couldn't believe that 7 days were willing to run a clip of some random guy calling them "skanks", and it seems to me that there has been too much criticism of that nature ie criticising the show because it focuses on women's lives and centres on the things that concern women. i'm not saying the show doesn't deserve criticism, as there were a few things that made me feel uncomfortable, but they don't deserve to be criticised just for being women who live their lives, and pretty successfully by the looks of it.
if there's going to be a season two, i'm not sure that i'll watch it. but i certainly don't regret watching season 1, and i think there was some use in seeing the kinds of pressures that women are subjected to. and while i still can't say i'm a fan, i can say that i wish both of them well.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Don't Judge by this
Well knock me down with a feather but Stuff have produced an irresponsible, unbalanced article about women and the justice system. In a profile on Family Court Principal Judge Peter Boshier leaving that role and moving to the Law Commission, the reporter picks out a story from Judge Boshier of how tough the Family Court is to work in.
It's a story about a mother "lying" about sexual abuse; "turning her son against his father" and Judge Boshier awarding sole custody to the father, reluctantly, but because he knew it was best for the son.
Is this case the real outline of what happened in that family? Who knows?
I can't even begin to tell you how many women and children I've worked with for whom trying to talk about sexual abuse has been near impossible. Near top of the list would be the woman who was concerned about her children in the care of her ex-partner, a dentist. She had seen him drug his dental patients in order to sexually assault them, so had a laboratory run blood tests for her children after a visit with their father. The tests confirmed the presence of drugs. Of course, that wasn't considered "evidence" in the Family Court, because there was no proof the father had administered the drugs and the children were both young and in one case, learning disabled, so their views did not count. After a year and a half in court, she won sole custody, when the court appointed psychologist finally stopped blaming her for the fact her children were absolutely terrified of their father. Last time I saw her, she was still picking up the pieces.
So excuse my scepticism of Judge Boshier's understanding of this case - I'm just aware of how many times the Family Court gets it wrong, particularly in terms of sexual abuse.
Actually though, what bothers me most about this article is not whether or not that particular story is accurate. It's the fact that in eight years worth of Family Court chiefdom, the story Judge Boshier has chosen to tell, or that Stuff have chosen to report on, is so wildly misrepresentative of what happens in Family Court.
This is the kind of reporting which reinforces ideas that sexual abuse is made up, and women lie. We lie. We cannot be trusted.
I get that reporting on the soul-destroying slew of misery that is the Family Court - violence perpetrated within families mostly by men who may well not want to live with the consequences of what that has done to their relationships with their ex-partners and children - is not sexy. Or, when violence is not a factor in relationship breakdown, trying to decide how to resolve custody to ensure children have all they need to flourish. Also, not sexy.
That's why when the Family Court was opened to the media at the beginning of Judge Boshier's tenure, the actual reporting of cases did not increase. Because despite the claims of Men's Rights groups in the 1990s, the Family Court isn't a haven of militant feminazis. From one of the reporters in this research:
How effective it's been can be seen in a number of research papers produced over the years exploring mothers experiences of the Family Court by Auckland academics. Their research shows that mothers have pressure put on them because "shared care is inevitable"; that even when the custody situation appears to be just being used to provoke further torment (he doesn't turn up), Courts continue to insist on shared care; that children's wants and needs are frequently assumed to have been manipulated by mothers when those wants and needs include less contact with a father who has been violent or neglectful.
The single most salient point in this for me is that in all the years of working with women who have experienced domestic violence, I've only known a handful of women who didn't want their children to have some kind of relationship or regular contact with the children's father. The vast majority of the women wanted their children's father to parent well - because parenting alone is hard work. Yet for many of those mums, that's not what has been on offer. It's a flaming shame that Stuff and Judge Boshier are contributing to public misinformation. I bet the Men's Rights groups will be posting this up with glee.
It's a story about a mother "lying" about sexual abuse; "turning her son against his father" and Judge Boshier awarding sole custody to the father, reluctantly, but because he knew it was best for the son.
Is this case the real outline of what happened in that family? Who knows?
I can't even begin to tell you how many women and children I've worked with for whom trying to talk about sexual abuse has been near impossible. Near top of the list would be the woman who was concerned about her children in the care of her ex-partner, a dentist. She had seen him drug his dental patients in order to sexually assault them, so had a laboratory run blood tests for her children after a visit with their father. The tests confirmed the presence of drugs. Of course, that wasn't considered "evidence" in the Family Court, because there was no proof the father had administered the drugs and the children were both young and in one case, learning disabled, so their views did not count. After a year and a half in court, she won sole custody, when the court appointed psychologist finally stopped blaming her for the fact her children were absolutely terrified of their father. Last time I saw her, she was still picking up the pieces.
So excuse my scepticism of Judge Boshier's understanding of this case - I'm just aware of how many times the Family Court gets it wrong, particularly in terms of sexual abuse.
Actually though, what bothers me most about this article is not whether or not that particular story is accurate. It's the fact that in eight years worth of Family Court chiefdom, the story Judge Boshier has chosen to tell, or that Stuff have chosen to report on, is so wildly misrepresentative of what happens in Family Court.
This is the kind of reporting which reinforces ideas that sexual abuse is made up, and women lie. We lie. We cannot be trusted.
I get that reporting on the soul-destroying slew of misery that is the Family Court - violence perpetrated within families mostly by men who may well not want to live with the consequences of what that has done to their relationships with their ex-partners and children - is not sexy. Or, when violence is not a factor in relationship breakdown, trying to decide how to resolve custody to ensure children have all they need to flourish. Also, not sexy.
That's why when the Family Court was opened to the media at the beginning of Judge Boshier's tenure, the actual reporting of cases did not increase. Because despite the claims of Men's Rights groups in the 1990s, the Family Court isn't a haven of militant feminazis. From one of the reporters in this research:
This sense of unease is evident in others, such as Martin van Beynen of The Press: “An hour in Family Court in Christchurch and I already have pages of misery, dysfunction and dislocation in my notebook.”Back to the wild misrepresentation from Stuff and Judge Boshier. Men's Rights groups have campaigned outside judges and lawyer's houses, parliament and courts for a number of years. Their central argument is that the Family Court is tough on them because it stops them seeing their children for unfair reasons like domestic violence:
More specifically, before 2004, men’s groups contended that the Family Court operated to disadvantage fathers after a separation, especially regarding custody of the children. The regulation of domestic violence was also seen by these groups as a particular feature of gender bias perpetrated by the Family Court. They argued that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 “isolat[es] children from loving fathers because the child is automatically included in the order.”It's been a very effective argument. The climate created by Men's Rights groups has put the Family Court under pressure when this so-called "gender bias" - the idea that it might not be ideal for men who use violence towards women and children at home to automatically have access to parenting - is actually just good, clean, proven-by-research how-we-bring-up-healthy-children stuff.
How effective it's been can be seen in a number of research papers produced over the years exploring mothers experiences of the Family Court by Auckland academics. Their research shows that mothers have pressure put on them because "shared care is inevitable"; that even when the custody situation appears to be just being used to provoke further torment (he doesn't turn up), Courts continue to insist on shared care; that children's wants and needs are frequently assumed to have been manipulated by mothers when those wants and needs include less contact with a father who has been violent or neglectful.
The single most salient point in this for me is that in all the years of working with women who have experienced domestic violence, I've only known a handful of women who didn't want their children to have some kind of relationship or regular contact with the children's father. The vast majority of the women wanted their children's father to parent well - because parenting alone is hard work. Yet for many of those mums, that's not what has been on offer. It's a flaming shame that Stuff and Judge Boshier are contributing to public misinformation. I bet the Men's Rights groups will be posting this up with glee.
Saturday, 4 August 2012
Guestie: An eloquent explanation of benevolent sexism
Today someone on the internet asked me about 'benevolent sexism', and I was pleased by the opportunity to explain this concept with web links and studies to hand. I once tried to define it to a chivalrous acquaintance on a train, and by the time we reached our destination a guy near us had joined in and the rest of the men in our train car were quite openly eavesdropping. They all wanted to find out why I seemed so bizarrely against men being nice to me.
Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude towards women which puts them on a pedestal and praises their performance of traditionally feminine roles. It seems to contrast with hostile sexism ("fuck bitches!"), but the two go hand-in-hand as a sort of punishment/reward system to keep women in their place.
Benevolent sexism reinforces gender roles just as much as hostile sexism, just more insidiously. It can seem to both the men who practice it and women like a sweet attitude, especially if we're used to the "fuck bitches" approach, but if you look at what is behind it, you find an ideology that supports gender inequality. Saying "Women are so good at childcare, men could never do that so well!" is easier to swallow than "Women should just focus on childcare while the men work", but they're both in the end saying the same thing in different ways.
Most guys come at benevolent sexism with the best of intentions, because their point of reference is hostile sexism. Whenever I've talked to 'chivalrous' men about it, they ALWAYS ask me if I'd rather they stomped all over/disrespected women instead; I find it interesting that they see their only two options as benevolent and hostile sexism, and can't conceive of a non-sexist option.
Benevolent sexism is quite accepted by society, and seen as harmless, but it has documented detrimental effects on women. In the workplace it undermines women's confidence and performance, and informs their evaluation and treatment by men. It is one of the main contributors to the 'glass ceiling' effect. As one of the more subtle and socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination, it is definitely something to look out for.
Further reading
The studies referenced in this Wikipedia article are a good place to start
Saturday, 7 July 2012
Do not waste your time seeing this film
This week I went to see a film, Cafe de Flore. It had had good reviews (and was, I noticed, the staff pick at the Deluxe). The photography and acting were very good indeed, but for almost two hours, I tried to work out what exactly was going on. When it finally became clear, I found it hard not to start yelling at the screen. I'm now going to "spoil" this piece of pretentious, sexist crap by explaining the plot as simply as I can, because it was the plot that was so revolting.
Two interwoven stories, separated in time and place. On screen, Montreal begins first and takes up more time throughout, with flashbacks, but it makes more sense to put Paris first here.
Paris, 1969. A young woman who works as a hairdresser gives birth to a boy with Down's, and her husband leaves her. She devotes her life to helping her child become the best he can be, insisting that he goes to a mainstream school. One day, when he is seven, a girl with Down's joins his class. The children instantly become firmly attached to each other and scream when they are separated. They spend time at each other's houses, but the mother feels displaced from being the centre of her son's life and becomes very distressed by his obsession with the girl. The girl's parents are distressed too, and decide to send her to a special school. The boy keeps asking for her. The mother ties him to a bed to stop him going out to find her. Eventually she takes him to find her, puts both children in the car, and kills herself and them by driving into a tree.
Montreal, 2011. A man who is now a handsome, healthy, rich, internationally famous DJ married his dark-haired, equally music-loving young girlfriend twenty years ago, and they have two daughters. But he has met and fallen for a younger, hip, tattooed blonde and has moved in with her. He decides he wants to remarry. She is worried about his ex, saying it's too soon. The children visit regularly, but his older daughter becomes upset and in the film's best line, tells him "what Mum won't say - you're an asshole."
The ex-wife is indeed very distressed, sleepwalking and having nightmares about a little boy with Down's. She goes to see a medium and works out that she was his mother in a previous life. Back then she made a mistake thinking he was her soulmate and not setting him free to be with his real soulmate. This time around she has made the same mistake, thinking her husband was her soulmate when really the blonde is his soulmate. She realises she is wrong to stand in his way. He marries the blonde, with the daughters and his now-approving parents standing by. The ex-wife arrives, smiling bravely, and hugs everyone.
I hope you understand now why I'm telling you not to bother seeing this movie.
Two interwoven stories, separated in time and place. On screen, Montreal begins first and takes up more time throughout, with flashbacks, but it makes more sense to put Paris first here.
Paris, 1969. A young woman who works as a hairdresser gives birth to a boy with Down's, and her husband leaves her. She devotes her life to helping her child become the best he can be, insisting that he goes to a mainstream school. One day, when he is seven, a girl with Down's joins his class. The children instantly become firmly attached to each other and scream when they are separated. They spend time at each other's houses, but the mother feels displaced from being the centre of her son's life and becomes very distressed by his obsession with the girl. The girl's parents are distressed too, and decide to send her to a special school. The boy keeps asking for her. The mother ties him to a bed to stop him going out to find her. Eventually she takes him to find her, puts both children in the car, and kills herself and them by driving into a tree.
Montreal, 2011. A man who is now a handsome, healthy, rich, internationally famous DJ married his dark-haired, equally music-loving young girlfriend twenty years ago, and they have two daughters. But he has met and fallen for a younger, hip, tattooed blonde and has moved in with her. He decides he wants to remarry. She is worried about his ex, saying it's too soon. The children visit regularly, but his older daughter becomes upset and in the film's best line, tells him "what Mum won't say - you're an asshole."
The ex-wife is indeed very distressed, sleepwalking and having nightmares about a little boy with Down's. She goes to see a medium and works out that she was his mother in a previous life. Back then she made a mistake thinking he was her soulmate and not setting him free to be with his real soulmate. This time around she has made the same mistake, thinking her husband was her soulmate when really the blonde is his soulmate. She realises she is wrong to stand in his way. He marries the blonde, with the daughters and his now-approving parents standing by. The ex-wife arrives, smiling bravely, and hugs everyone.
I hope you understand now why I'm telling you not to bother seeing this movie.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Girls girls girls
Inspired by a Facebook discussion.
Is calling women "girls" demeaning?
Is calling men "boys" demeaning?
Is it more likely to you will get away with calling a woman a girl, because of the implication of youthful looks being seen as a positive for women, as opposed to calling a man a boy?
Don't people often refer to the All Blacks as "the boys"?
Is it ok to refer to people younger than you as "girls" and/or "boys", and silly to use such for those older than you?
What about the tendency to call women who work in administrative support roles "girls", regardless of their age?
How do you feel when you are referred to as "girl" or a "boy"?
What say you, dear readers?
Is calling women "girls" demeaning?
Is calling men "boys" demeaning?
Is it more likely to you will get away with calling a woman a girl, because of the implication of youthful looks being seen as a positive for women, as opposed to calling a man a boy?
Don't people often refer to the All Blacks as "the boys"?
Is it ok to refer to people younger than you as "girls" and/or "boys", and silly to use such for those older than you?
What about the tendency to call women who work in administrative support roles "girls", regardless of their age?
How do you feel when you are referred to as "girl" or a "boy"?
What say you, dear readers?
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Aggressive Promotion
So Murray McCully is overseeing a halving of women employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in frontline diplomatic roles. It’s down from 30% under the last Labour-led government, to just 16% under this National-led government.
This isn’t surprising, given this government’s laissez-faire approach to women in paid work – scrapping the gender equity unit, paying female public sector workers 15% less than male public sector workers, and reportedly putting blocks within their own party to women representatives.
What is new is the reason Mr McCully has struggled to appoint women, according to Matthew Hooton. He says Mr McCully is manfully fighting “the most conservative of departments,” MFaT, by “aggressively promoting” Gen X talent:
Vangelis Vitalis, 43, has been appointed ambassador to the EU and Nato; Taha Macpherson, 40, to Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority; Reuben Levermore, 36, to the Philippines; and Justin Fepuleai, 38, to Afghanistan. Ben King, 39, is John Key’s new chief foreign policy advisor in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
So this isn’t about “aggressively promoting” Gen XY after all. Mr McCully isn’t a discriminatory employer. It must just be there are no women in their thirties and forties available for employment. Otherwise, I’m sure, with his fight against entrenched and conservative existing power structures, he’d be “aggressively promoting” Gen XX. Right?
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
It's just a joke
Occupational hazard of wanting to end rape culture: you spend lots of time designing training and education packages for people around the ways alcohol facilitates sexual violence which try very hard to avoid traditional victim blaming ideas.
The simplest way to do this is to remind people that drinking (unless you're underage, or in the wrong place) isn't a crime, but sexual violence is.
Another way I've done this in the past is by asking people to think about the messages alcohol manufacturers and sellers give us around alcohol. What's going to happen when we drink?
Well, if we drink beer:
Or how about this one?
These are real advertisements, and hopefully I don't need to explain why they are deeply problematic in terms of messages around sex, consent, masculinity and femininity. Hint: if I do, you're less media literate than young people going to VIBE Youth Health Service in Lower Hutt, where I first focus grouped these images. They were pretty clear in what they thought the key messages were "girls who are drinking are up for it."
(And you know what, we just might be. But to find that out, you'll have to talk to us, and listen to what we say, even when that's different to what you want to hear.)
What can be harder to unpack is humour. When we make something a funny, any criticism risks the defence of bigots everywhere "can't you take a joke?" That's why the Tui beer ads have run so long, despite continued real offensiveness. Because they are funny. Yeah, right.
I'm not able to comment on Tui television adverts, I hardly ever watch tv, and I don't think I've ever seen one. But Tui billboards - there's the homophobic one, the transphobic one, the one about children lying about sexual abuse, and far, far, far too many to mention that have been about treating women like we are stupid barriers to men drinking and having fun.
There's been several explicitly supporting male violence against women - the sexual harassment one, the one bemoaning Tony Veitch's inability to pay his way out of assaulting his then partner, and this little gem from 2005:
I'm going out on a limb here and saying making fun of violence against women, and queer people, and transpeople, and childhood sexual abuse, is part of creating a tolerance for violence and hate. It is part of victim blaming when violence is perpetrated against those groups. It makes us see domestic violence from the role of the perpetrator, as a bit of a laugh. It makes us look at people who say they have been sexually abused, or assaulted because they were queer/trans, with cynicism rather than compassion.
It is part of sustaining a culture which puts a particular kind of straight men at the top of the pile, where, with irony of course, some might think they belong.
It's time to put Tui billboards where they belong - on the scrapheap - by supporting Feminist Action. Watch this space.
Monday, 20 February 2012
Auckland Feminist Action takes on Tui's sexism
Media release from Auckland Feminist Action, up on Scoop earlier today.
Feel free to discuss the campaign idea here, keeping in mind, as always, that as this is a feminist blog we're probably more interested in comments that are rational, on topic, and don't draw on misogynist rubbish. If you want to rant about how Tui's ads aren't sexist and how feminists don't have a sense of humour and wah wah wah I'm sure there are plenty of other places to go do that so best you go to There soonest.
Campaign launched against Tui beer ads
Auckland group Feminist Action has launched a campaign to get Tui to withdraw sexist beer ads featuring its all-female brewery.
“These ads are retro-sexist”, says Feminist Action spokeswoman Leonie Morris. “They mimic tired old sexist attitudes in an ironic way. They are funny only to people who are happy to laugh at put-downs of women.”
The Tui brewery ads feature women in skimpy clothes and sexualised poses, who are relentlessly depicted as more stupid than the dorky group of men who try to infiltrate the brewery.
“The ads say that men should judge women just on how they look, that women are stupid and that it’s okay to laugh at them,” says Ms Morris.
Retro-sexist beer ads promote a form of mateship that dismisses women’s concerns and trivialises relationships with women. “Demeaning women in these ads is harmful whether the ads are funny or not. Valuing women only for how they look has a corrosive effect on women’s sense of self-worth. Men who demean women like this are more likely to be violent to them, and we have a huge problem with violence against women in New Zealand.”
“Women have been protesting against these kinds of ads for decades, and a lot of women feel silenced because they’re now so common,” she says. Young members of Feminist Action particularly wanted to campaign against them. “It’s not okay to make sexist, racist or homophobic jokes.”
The campaign will use Facebook, an online petition and other social media to gain support and put pressure on Tui owner, DB Breweries, to drop the ads.
Auckland Feminist Action is a new group acting on persistent inequalities between women and men in New Zealand.This sounds like a campaign to watch, and will sadly probably attract a fair bit of backlash too.
Feel free to discuss the campaign idea here, keeping in mind, as always, that as this is a feminist blog we're probably more interested in comments that are rational, on topic, and don't draw on misogynist rubbish. If you want to rant about how Tui's ads aren't sexist and how feminists don't have a sense of humour and wah wah wah I'm sure there are plenty of other places to go do that so best you go to There soonest.
Friday, 17 February 2012
Sexual Revolution
Broadly speaking, feminists who see pornography as a problem tend to come from sexual and domestic violence activist backgrounds. They point to research like Michael Flood's 2009 review of children and young people viewing pornography:
Especially among boys and young men who are frequent consumers of pornography, including of more violent materials, consumption intensifies attitudes supportive of sexual coercion and increases their likelihood of perpetrating assault.
I’ve supported women whose rapes were filmed, and later made available as porn. Who found naked pictures taken by pimps online years later, advertising commercial sex. Who were taught how to work in the sex industry, after being trafficked from another country and held captive, by being forced to watch pornography. Who have been raped, often repeatedly, by men who used porn to prepare themselves to cause pain.
And the largest category, women who have been pressured into particular sexual activities because their male partner has seen porn featuring that activity. Often these experiences were painful and/or unpleasant. Sometimes they were sexual violation.
Broadly speaking, feminists who see censoring pornography as a problem tend to come from sexuality rights backgrounds or anti-state censorship backgrounds. They point to research which suggests the causal relationship between rape and viewing pornography is not established.
Feminists in this camp are concerned about what happens when sexuality is repressed. When we teach young people to wait until they are married, and rates of sexually transmitted infections increase, or when the first books about sex taken out of schools are those featuring queer identities. They point to sexually explicit material in which participants were explicitly consenting, narratives did not demean women (or anyone else), and exploring the erotic was sexy. They also ask us to pay attention to how demeaning narratives about women are found in Hollywood movies, or music videos, or advertising, and they argue that pornography can be re-fashioned, made feminist, if we make it ourselves, talk about what turns us on, don't harm or exploit in making it, and produce a range of images.
Many feminists today tend to believe feminist porn is possible, desirable, sexy and fun. I think this is positive and hopeful - if sometimes naïve to the realities of sexist objectification for women with less structural power.
Positive because unless women believe we can live in a world in which we are free sexual beings - people able to decide what turns us on, explore that with lovers, take part in not just consent but enthusiastic mutual agreement - then I don’t think those changes will happen. We don’t live in that world now - but in all the examples of my own work I gave above, pornography is not the problem. Sexually explicit material with degrading narratives about women is part of a package of women hating behaviours, supporting, encouraging and providing a site for violence against women. It is also, critically - but far from uniquely - a part of our culture that reduces women to “just sex."
Paying attention to the stories porn tells, just as we might pay attention to the stories music videos, or advertisements, or Hollywood movies tell, is, I think, the critical issue.
We live in an era in which sexualised imagery of women and girls seems all pervasive. Exploitative, heteronormative, damaging to our senses of what we should look like, how we should behave. Damaging to men, especially young men, who learn how to be sexual from watching images in which women are often active beings only in their desires to please men.
This isn't porn - it's MTV. Or how about this Guinness ad from 2008? Trigger warning for women-hating.
The issue is the narrative, the story, not the medium.
What we need are narratives, in every medium, that explore enthusiastic consent. That treat our bodies as beautiful parts of whole people, in which the choices we make to explore different activities at different times are freely given and joyful. We need to know about sex - not from stories which are only interested in male pleasure - but because sex can be fun, may be about as meaningful a connection as we have to others, and is, for many of us, an area of our lives we enjoy.
We also need narratives, in every medium, in which sex is not the only reason women are there. At the moment, we see sexualised images of women in all kinds of contexts. What we don’t see enough are women living our lives with all the humdrum realities that come with working, parenting, having friendships, playing sport, singing, making art, shopping for groceries or climbing mountains.
Women, like men, have a wide range of interests, concerns, areas of expertise, not all of which are reducible to our breast size, how short our skirt might be or whether we perform particular sexual acts. Sex is important - but it’s not, ever, all we are - and increasing acceptance of sexualised, and only sexualised, images of women is no kind of sexual revolution.
Sexual freedom - the freedom to be sexual in the ways which turn us on - has to include the capacity to not only, not always, be sexual.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
On Big Decisions and Hysterical Ladybrains
Good friends of mine - I'll call them Hazel* and Catherine - are buying a house together. They're both women in their twenties; this is their first owned home and whilst they're not exactly poor, as the whole house buying thing would indicate, their incomes are sufficiently limited that they don't have a lot of choice.
Anyway, they have more or less completed a purchase; it's a doer upper, that will need significant work both inside and outside, and it's a commute out of the city, but it's both closer and more convenient to transport than most others in their price range, and it has the right number and configuration of rooms for their needs and whilst compromises have been made they're pretty happy about it. It's happened in a rush, and there is So Much To Do, but both of them seem excited, in amongst the terror.
But through the process, there have been Concerns. Doubts raised by people I shall amalgamate into the character of 'Concerned of Titahi Bay'**. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks that the project they are taking on is too much work. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks they should have bought in Kelburn or Petone or Mount Victoria or something (for those of you not familiar with Wellington, these are not remotely realistic places for them to buy a house on their budget). Concerned of Titahi Bay is very, very concerned that they are letting their hearts get in the way of their heads, that they are making emotional rather than rational decisions.
Hazel and Catherine are close friends, who have lived together a number of years. They are not in a sexual or romantic relationship, but this is not simply a matter of pooling resources for a few years in order to get on the property ladder before going their separate ways; they are a family and a household and intend to be so indefinitely.
Yup, you've guessed it. Concerned of Titahi Bay is very concerned. Have you thought, Concerned of Titahi Bay wants to know, of what's going to happen if you fall out! If one of you goes overseas! If one of you gets married! If you have different views on decisions about the property!
Yes, yes they have thought about that a lot. They've thought about what would happen if their lives took them in various directions. Or if they fell out. They're intelligent people, one of them has substantial legal knowledge. They've talked about this extensively, drawn up an agreement and each engaged a (separate) lawyer. These are sensible things to think about before making any major life decision, particularly one where your property is intertwined with that of someone else. It's sad - and infuriating - though, that had they been an engaged couple buying their first home, these issues may have come up but they likely wouldn't be at the forefront of people's minds.
They've also thought about the building work required. They've made provisional budgets and weighed the stress and time and money involved against the compromises - chiefly location - they would have to make if they bought another property within their budget. They've set a price range they can afford - not just in terms of the bank signing off, but someone that will reasonably fit into their day to day budget.
My partner and I bought a house about eighteen months ago. It's out of the city - significantly further out than Hazel and Catherine's new house. We don't have a car - aside from not being able to afford that and a house deposit at that time, I can't drive, primarily for disability reasons, and my partner chooses not to. I was shocked by the number of people who decide to tell me I was making a Very Bad Decision living where I do without a car. Leaving aside the limited amount of choice without making significant sacrifices in other areas, they were acting like I had never thought about this before. Like I didn't know that my life would be easier if I could drive. Like looking at transport options hadn't been top of our priority list. Like we hadn't been managing with public transport all our adult lives.
And then there's the whole emotional decision problem. Emotions are absolutely a valid part of any big life decision. They're not on the level of 'will attempting to meet the repayments be a recipe for bankruptcy', but if you're buying a house to live in, and you haven't thought about how you'll feel living in it, you're probably not going to end up that happy. It's not that advice isn't helpful. I've benefited a lot, when making Big Decisions (and I'm sure my friends have too) from people sharing stories, giving local or technical knowledge, or simply being a sounding board to talk things through with. But I wish people would do that with the assumption that the people they are talking to - even if they are women in their twenties! - are both intelligent people who are capable of thinking about the major issues and have priorities which may not be your own, but are no less legitimate for that.
I'll leave the last (edited) word to Hazel:
* I asked Hazel tonight what I should blog about and she ranted for a bit, and I said "so basically about you and your lifedrama". "Yes," she said. So here it is.
Anyway, they have more or less completed a purchase; it's a doer upper, that will need significant work both inside and outside, and it's a commute out of the city, but it's both closer and more convenient to transport than most others in their price range, and it has the right number and configuration of rooms for their needs and whilst compromises have been made they're pretty happy about it. It's happened in a rush, and there is So Much To Do, but both of them seem excited, in amongst the terror.
But through the process, there have been Concerns. Doubts raised by people I shall amalgamate into the character of 'Concerned of Titahi Bay'**. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks that the project they are taking on is too much work. Concerned of Titahi Bay thinks they should have bought in Kelburn or Petone or Mount Victoria or something (for those of you not familiar with Wellington, these are not remotely realistic places for them to buy a house on their budget). Concerned of Titahi Bay is very, very concerned that they are letting their hearts get in the way of their heads, that they are making emotional rather than rational decisions.
Hazel and Catherine are close friends, who have lived together a number of years. They are not in a sexual or romantic relationship, but this is not simply a matter of pooling resources for a few years in order to get on the property ladder before going their separate ways; they are a family and a household and intend to be so indefinitely.
Yup, you've guessed it. Concerned of Titahi Bay is very concerned. Have you thought, Concerned of Titahi Bay wants to know, of what's going to happen if you fall out! If one of you goes overseas! If one of you gets married! If you have different views on decisions about the property!
Yes, yes they have thought about that a lot. They've thought about what would happen if their lives took them in various directions. Or if they fell out. They're intelligent people, one of them has substantial legal knowledge. They've talked about this extensively, drawn up an agreement and each engaged a (separate) lawyer. These are sensible things to think about before making any major life decision, particularly one where your property is intertwined with that of someone else. It's sad - and infuriating - though, that had they been an engaged couple buying their first home, these issues may have come up but they likely wouldn't be at the forefront of people's minds.
They've also thought about the building work required. They've made provisional budgets and weighed the stress and time and money involved against the compromises - chiefly location - they would have to make if they bought another property within their budget. They've set a price range they can afford - not just in terms of the bank signing off, but someone that will reasonably fit into their day to day budget.
My partner and I bought a house about eighteen months ago. It's out of the city - significantly further out than Hazel and Catherine's new house. We don't have a car - aside from not being able to afford that and a house deposit at that time, I can't drive, primarily for disability reasons, and my partner chooses not to. I was shocked by the number of people who decide to tell me I was making a Very Bad Decision living where I do without a car. Leaving aside the limited amount of choice without making significant sacrifices in other areas, they were acting like I had never thought about this before. Like I didn't know that my life would be easier if I could drive. Like looking at transport options hadn't been top of our priority list. Like we hadn't been managing with public transport all our adult lives.
And then there's the whole emotional decision problem. Emotions are absolutely a valid part of any big life decision. They're not on the level of 'will attempting to meet the repayments be a recipe for bankruptcy', but if you're buying a house to live in, and you haven't thought about how you'll feel living in it, you're probably not going to end up that happy. It's not that advice isn't helpful. I've benefited a lot, when making Big Decisions (and I'm sure my friends have too) from people sharing stories, giving local or technical knowledge, or simply being a sounding board to talk things through with. But I wish people would do that with the assumption that the people they are talking to - even if they are women in their twenties! - are both intelligent people who are capable of thinking about the major issues and have priorities which may not be your own, but are no less legitimate for that.
I'll leave the last (edited) word to Hazel:
We've got the "you need to not make emotional decisions" thing from almost every guy we've talked to. Most of the women I've spoken to about house buying have (a) accepted that an emotional reaction to the place is totally okay and (b) assumed that we've, like, thought about that shit. I just really feel that if we were two dudes buying a fixer-upper in [suburb], the things we're getting told would be different and we wouldn't be being accused of having been MAKING STUPID DECISIONS BECAUSE OF OUR HYSTERICAL LADYBRAINS.
* I asked Hazel tonight what I should blog about and she ranted for a bit, and I said "so basically about you and your lifedrama". "Yes," she said. So here it is.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
But they do such good work...
Today I'll just be the grumpy feminist, sitting over here in the corner complaining about charity at Christmastime. How many times have you heard this:
The idea of good work and of charity generally, is fraught with issues as well, but there's something more specific happening here. There's a division presented between the practical, on the ground, real charity stuff - soup kitchens, emergency accommodation, addiction treatment or whatever. That's concrete and real. The other stuff - homophobia, transphobia, ableism, misogyny etc - that's not nice, but it's purely theoretical and we really should be focused on the important things here. It's not like it makes any difference in practice...
...except it does. Even when charity provisions don't actively discriminate - and sometimes they do, with horrendous consequences - you can be sure that there will be a lot of people who don't feel safe using their services. The people who are discriminated against are both more likely to be in the groups that need services provided by charities, and likely to be in a more difficult situation than many others needing those services.
It's also not the case - as some people assume - that the choice is between having, say, a homeless shelter which isn't accessible to everyone, or no shelter at all. Such services are often partially government funded - the need for them is already recognised; it's simply a case of who the contract goes to. And I like to think that as a society we do see the need for solutions - or at least ambulances at bottoms of cliffs - to these issues, even if not as much or as soon as I'd like.
This isn't a division between real physically tangible things or some fluffy abstract principle. This is about whether kids who can no longer live safely at home get to sleep in appropriate accommodation or on the streets. It's about whether people are able to eat in an environment in which they feel safe, or have to weigh that up versus going hungry. It's about whether people abused by carers have a way out or whether the abuse of them is reinforced. It's about whether can access free counseling that is appropriate to them, or whether they get increasingly and more dangerously desperate. The identities of the people who need them don't make that food or that roof any less concrete, any less needed.
You may or may not have the ability or inclination to donate money. You may feel that it is better going to places that aren't charities in the usual sense of the word (a reminder that CMP meatworkers are still locked out). But if you do chose to make a charitable donation, please make sure that it is to a group that is genuinely in line with your beliefs, and not pushing us two steps backward for every one they take forwards.
"Oh, I obviously don't like a lot of the things [Charity] stands for, but, you know, they do such good work..."
The idea of good work and of charity generally, is fraught with issues as well, but there's something more specific happening here. There's a division presented between the practical, on the ground, real charity stuff - soup kitchens, emergency accommodation, addiction treatment or whatever. That's concrete and real. The other stuff - homophobia, transphobia, ableism, misogyny etc - that's not nice, but it's purely theoretical and we really should be focused on the important things here. It's not like it makes any difference in practice...
...except it does. Even when charity provisions don't actively discriminate - and sometimes they do, with horrendous consequences - you can be sure that there will be a lot of people who don't feel safe using their services. The people who are discriminated against are both more likely to be in the groups that need services provided by charities, and likely to be in a more difficult situation than many others needing those services.
It's also not the case - as some people assume - that the choice is between having, say, a homeless shelter which isn't accessible to everyone, or no shelter at all. Such services are often partially government funded - the need for them is already recognised; it's simply a case of who the contract goes to. And I like to think that as a society we do see the need for solutions - or at least ambulances at bottoms of cliffs - to these issues, even if not as much or as soon as I'd like.
This isn't a division between real physically tangible things or some fluffy abstract principle. This is about whether kids who can no longer live safely at home get to sleep in appropriate accommodation or on the streets. It's about whether people are able to eat in an environment in which they feel safe, or have to weigh that up versus going hungry. It's about whether people abused by carers have a way out or whether the abuse of them is reinforced. It's about whether can access free counseling that is appropriate to them, or whether they get increasingly and more dangerously desperate. The identities of the people who need them don't make that food or that roof any less concrete, any less needed.
You may or may not have the ability or inclination to donate money. You may feel that it is better going to places that aren't charities in the usual sense of the word (a reminder that CMP meatworkers are still locked out). But if you do chose to make a charitable donation, please make sure that it is to a group that is genuinely in line with your beliefs, and not pushing us two steps backward for every one they take forwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)