Abuse is not an argument

Putting to one side for a moment the merits (of which I think there are many) of Auckland Feminist Action's campaign against the sexist Tui adverts, what is up with the stylez of the pro Tui people?

A massive amount of vitriol has been spewed in the very precise and targeted direction of Leonie Morris, who put her name to the media statement and has since done some interviews, in particular on Newstalk ZB* and in the Herald.  The hateful responses, devoid of actual argument putting the counter position, are scattered across the interweb, and I know that people have also been calling and emailing Leonie's workplace to give her a hard time.

What kind of an argument is this?  To just make assumptions about feminists in general, and Leonie in particular, then use those stereotypes to dismiss the points Auckland Feminist Action are making? As if whether or not someone shaves their legs, or is a size 16, or their sexual orientation** is at all relevant to the matter?  There's also been a large dose of "feminists need a good hammering" type responses too, which honestly make me feel ill.

This has certainly been a case of Don't Read The Comments (DRTC).  And that makes me sad.  What kind of society are we living in where even raising concerns about some advertising, requesting that people think critically about the media they are consuming, gets you scragged across talkback and blogs and even motivates people to ring your place of employment to tell you off?

Particularly when you think about how people have reacted to the prominent bigotry of Establishment Men in recent times, you know who I mean; Paul Holmes, Paul Henry, Tony Veitch, Michael Laws, Andy Haden, Lockwood Smith, the list goes on and on.  Yes there are some people who call bigots out in unsavoury ways.  But they are far outnumbered by polite people like me (and probably you) who write ranty blog posts which at their worst have some swears in them, maybe sign a firm but non-abusive petition, or call to cancel their subscription to the offending media outlet.  What is it about challenging sexism, about being openly feminist, about taking on a beer company, that brings out the toxic frothing?

Kia kaha Leonie, you are doing good work.  I look forward to supporting Auckland Feminist Action's campaign here and elsewhere as I can, because all the hate has proven to me that we desperately need to take down ads like the Tui ones, and reclaim our country as a safe place for women to challenge sexism.



*  When I wrote this post the relevant interview was on the 3rd page of audio, it's probably on the 4th or 5th by now.  Sorry they don't seem to do direct links.
**  I have no idea what Leonie does with her legs, what size she is, or what her sexual orientation is, and I've worked with her on a couple of projects.  I don't need to know any of that.  If she wants me to know she'll tell me.  

A ramble about unacceptable behaviour in activisty groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's bullshit. 

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


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

Paul Quinn's response to our outcry.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am now sure that the Slutwalk is needed here and NOW.

Crossposted from ScubaNurse's blog.

I was willing to understand a police officer making a stupid comment out of genuine concern, at a small gathering. I get that some people who work in Law enforcement get tired of going to scenes of abuse and rape and would do anything to stop them, even try to protect people from the wrong direction.
I did wonder at times if slut walk was an over reaction to a small incident, and then I thought about all the jerks (and wonderful people) that I know who genuinely believe that what women wear has a part in whether they are raped or not.

Tonight’s episode of “Backbenches” sealed my resolve to attend and promote the Auckland branch of Slutwalk on June 25th.

I give the police a long leash, giving that they are on the front line of violence and the sicker levels of our society, but politicians are another breed altogether. By the time you have worked in high level corporate, and then had 3 years in parliament I would expect that you would
A) Have a good grasp of the smooth lines people want to hear.
B) Know when to keep your mouth shut if what you believe is blatantly misogynous.
Wouldn’t you Paul Quinn??

But no…

On tonight’s episode of Backbenches Paul (and the entire room and cameras) was told why slutwalk is occurring. He was asked to weigh in on women’s clothing choices and the link with assault.
And his response (I am waiting for a direct quote here and what follows is from memory – so please forgive any inaccuracy) was to reply that alcohol intake was more of a risk and women who went out drinking until all hours were putting themselves at risk.
He also made some disparaging comments about people in short skirts being out at 6am when he goes to the gym.
– Because us sluts really should be nocturnal, and we are asking for it – right?

This is someone who was being beamed out to the entire nation, who is in charge of policy decisions and represents the people of this country.
He didn’t even look EMBARRASED!

This is why we need Slutwalk, because the perception that victims are EVER to blame for an assault or rape is entirely wrong and incredibly sick.
And yet it is not rare, and this has proved that it is pervasive enough that even our political leaders feel comfortable expressing these themes.
And that is not ok.

Shame on you Paul Quinn, I feel sorry for you.