One way doors - will they keep us safe?

Recently as part of my local government work I've been thinking about and discussing what Auckland's "Local Alcohol Policy" might look like.  This is a new initiative, under legislation that came into effect in late 2013, which means each local council can determine a Local Alcohol Policy for their community which determines hours of operation, location, density, and additional conditions.

One of the areas of debate that came up in a workshop I was at on Friday was the usefulness, or otherwise of one way doors.  The concept is that after a certain time (say 1am) you would have to stay in the venue you are in until the cut off time for alcohol purchase (say 3am).  If you left a venue after the one way door closed, so to speak, you would not be able to get into another one.

Now on the one hand this will minimise the bar hopping that happens when people are getting drunker towards the end of the night, hopefully minimise street scuffles, and mean that when people are at their drunkest they are in a stable environment.

But what if the venue you are in when the one way door shuts isn't safe?  Or becomes unsafe?  What if you are harassed, assaulted, have your drink spiked, abused?  If you leave that is the end of your night.  If you stay you remain at risk.  Especially if the venue isn't interested in looking out for you.

Feedback most welcome in comments, thanks :)

It is rapists who are responsible for rape

Trigger warnings for rape, substance abuse and addiction, general enragingness.  Also excessive use of CAPS LOCK.


I heard a little bit about Lindsay Mitchell's latest Truth column on Twitter on Friday, but no one could provide me an online copy.  Today someone rectified that in comments here (thank you, kind of).


Now Lindsay and I disagree on many things.  We often have those agreements online, through the medium of blogging, but normally we manage to be remarkably civil for two people who disagree so fundamentally.


I really struggle though finding civil responses to this incredibly harmful rape apologist Truth column from Mitchell.  


1.  It is not necessary to put rapes in scare-quotes, especially when you are already using alleged in front anyway.  Quote marks are for quotes, and here are some examples:  Calling rape a "sex 'accident'" is so incredibly awful that it should be erased from the english language and never ever used again except to point out how awful it is.  Ditto for "retrospectively unwanted sex".  


2.  If a friend came to me and told me she'd been raped while she was drunk (or a male friend for that matter) then my first response would not be to have questions, but to offer support and love and whatever else they needed BECAUSE THEY ARE MY FRIEND.  


3.  The legal standard may be guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but when I'm not a judge or a jury member I am quite at liberty to make up my own mind to believe the person who was raped, which is what I intend to do, especially if they are my friend, but also as a point of principle to somehow slightly re-balance the constant disbelief that rape victims face at every turn.  Hurtful, harmful, unnecessary disbelief that Lindsay is perpetuating with this column.


4.  No one asks for rape.  It is rapists who are responsible for rape.  Being incapable of giving consent means you have NOT GIVEN CONSENT.  Sex without consent is rape.  It's really quite simply.  I thought former ACT candidate's were generally big on people having free will and giving informed consent and all that jazz?  


5.  "I’d talk it out and insist she mentally take some responsibility for what happened, learn from it and move on. And I’d forgive her, so she could do the same. "  This HORRIFIES ME.  If anyone has had that conversation with anyone I know who has been raped you better not ever tell me because I will explode with anger.  All over you in a hideous mess of brain matter and internal organ-ness.  I am not entirely sure I am exaggerating.


6.  Suggesting that the best response is to totally sweep any such incidents away from any examination whatsoever is just so irresponsible that I cannot believe Truth even published it.

I'm going to stop at 6 points.  I have to because otherwise I could write and delete and write and delete and write all night and still not be any further on with saying what I want to than just saying this:

It is rapists who are responsible for rape; minimising, excusing or denying this is unacceptable to me.

A teensy tiny little bit of progress on the Tui ads. Maybe.

You may have noticed that the Tui beer ads have changed.  No longer are they as awfully sexist as they once were.  Now they are only very sexist instead.  Auckland Feminist Action, who raised the issue in the first place are on to it again, with the following statement from earlier this month:

Tui needs to try harder

Auckland Feminist Action gives the latest Tui ad an E for Effort, and invites DB to have a beer with them and discuss how to make an ad without dissing women.

Feminist Action is delighted that its campaign contributed to the sexist Tui brewery ad being taken off television and the Tui website, says spokeswoman Leonie Morris.

“We gave that ad an F for Fail,” she says, “but the new Tui ad, ‘Halftime distraction’, gets only an E for Effort. Tui needs to try harder.”

While the halftime ad doesn’t put women in the sexualised poses of the earlier brewery ads, the
women are portrayed as just as stupid and helpless. They can’t get a kitten off a tree branch barely above their heads, navigate city streets or paint a sign without falling off the ladder.

What ties these ads together is that the only people equal to the lead male characters are their
mates. Women are persistently excluded from equality in Tui ads. In “Halftime Distraction” a series of beautiful women can’t tempt the hero away from his mission - getting the beer for his mates during halftime in a rugby telecast.

Women are treated as distractions from the real thing: a men-only, testosterone-laden, beer-drinking sport session.

DB says camaraderie and irreverence are crucial aspects of the Tui brand. But the camaraderie is a superficial mateship, and the irreverence is expressed by treating women always as objects, rather than equals. “It’s no accident that women like these ads less than men, since women are always the target of the joke,” says Leonie.

“Tui refuses to understand why this is sexist. We invite them to have a drink with Feminist Action and discuss how to make women equal in their ads,” she says. “Tui needs to stop laughing at women and start laughing with them.”

Here's hoping DB takes Feminist Action up on that drink and, more importantly, on that conversation.

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.  

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.

Auckland Feminist Action takes on Tui's sexism

Media release from Auckland Feminist Action, up on Scoop earlier today.

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.

Guestie: Fab Feb Fasting Feminist Seeks Same

Many thanks to Deborah for this guest post, crossposted at her place and The Lady Garden, seeking some fab feminist friends to fundraise fast with this February.

I'm going to do FebFast 2012, and I'm hoping that some of the fabulous feminists and friends that I know would like to do it too, and join the team I have set up for us.

The idea of FebFast is simple. You give up drinking alcohol for an entire month, and you pay for the privilege of doing so - $25 for people in employment, and $15 for concession card holders and students. That sounds like a dud deal, except that the money raised goes to four organisations, all of whom are working with young people who may be vulnerable to alcohol abuse. The four organisations are: Rainbow Youth, Evolve, CareNZ, and the ADHD Association. You can read more about them here: FebFast: Meet the Recipients.

So... are you prepared to give up alcohol for the month of February? It's a short month, 'though a day longer this year thanks to the leap year. Even if you don't wish to give up alcohol for a month, you might care to make a donation in support of the team, and of course, in support of the four organisations working to help young people who have problems with alcohol.

If you have an event you were planning to go to in February, and have an alcoholic drink or two, you can still do FebFast. You can buy a Get Out of Jail Free card Time Out Certificate for $25 for an emergency, $35 for a big event, or $45 if you're looking to purchase absolution.

Please think about joining the fast, or sponsoring someone who is doing it, or making a donation. And if you're doing any one of those things, how about doing it as part of the Fabulous Feminists and Friends FebFast team? You can join the team as part of the registration process, or if you want to make a donation, you can do it by clicking on the "Donate" button on the team page.

I'm really, really, hoping that I'm not going to be a team of one...

If you want to find out some more about FebFast, there's an article in the New Zealand Herald today: Kiwis challenged to February booze ban.

it's not how we're drinking, it's the drinking

with the alcohol reform bill being debated in parliament last week, and the law commission publishing its report earlier this year, i thought it might be a good time to talk about the drinking culture in nz.

i come to it from the perspective of someone who doesn't drink any alcohol at all. and someone who really doesn't like to be around people who have been drinking a lot. in fact, being near drunk people makes me feel really uncomfortable, mostly because of the lack of control & unpredictability of their behaviour. also, i hate the smell of beer & wine.

because of my own beliefs, i avoid going to pubs. i don't stay long at functions where i know significant amounts of alcohol will be consumed. and while i don't have a problem with doing this, it's not often realised that in our current culture, this can exclude me from a number of things.

i assert myself where i can. for example, at work they know that if they want me to be at any social function, then they better not hold it in a pub. i've had the "but you don't have to drink" line, which is about as useful as the "just take the ham out of the sandwich & eat it" line, but i've stuck to my principles on this one. i'm lucky enough to work in a place where they value my presence, so they work around this. often, we'll have dinner at a restaurant, then those who want to go to a pub will do so & i'll happily head off home, feeling that i've been able to participate on my own terms & also feeling valued as a person.

i've also been very firm with the NGO's where i volunteer. one in particular was in the habit of holding the AGM in a pub, to which i said "that's fine, but if you hold it in a pub, i won't be there". again, i've been lucky enough that they value my presence enough to hold AGMs elsewhere. but i was surprised to be thanked by two other board members who were also uncomfortable with going to a pub but didn't feel able to say anything about it.

and i can imagine that it might be the same with people who have drinking problems that they are trying to work their way through. i'm sure these people would find it equally uncomfortable, as would people of other faiths & some people of no particular faith.

which is not to say that i've never compromised. i did do the back benches thing, mostly because i thought the positives outweighed the negative - it was more important to get a message across than to fuss about the setting. but things like the "drinking liberally" meetings feel quite exclusionary to me, as do any number of occasions where people suggest going to the pub for something & i'm not in a position to assert myself, or i'm not in a crowd who would care even if i chose to assert myself.

i know there will be many people who'll say "suck it up, this our culture & you're in our country so you'll just have to adjust". to which i say "this is my country & i have as much right to determine what our culture will be & how it will develop as you do". but more than that, we know we have a problem with the drinking culture, we know the social & economic harm that is being caused by excess alcohol consumption. the reason we have strong (but often misguided) advertising campaigns in an attempt to change that culture is because we know it's destructive.

so i'm just throwing another factor in the mix. that factor being that when you organise your social or business events around drinking & alcohol, you are going to exclude some people. and it's not just us "touchy, fussy" muslim people, but many other types of people as well. a lot of these people won't be able to speak out against it, because the peer pressure is very strong & they find it hard to fight against. i find it easier because most people already think i'm weird or very different anyway, and i've gone past caring what other people think.