Sometimes I read an article that is so idiotic that I've got to wonder how the journalist responsible manages to get out of bed in the morning without hurting himself. There are some journalists (eg Piers Akerman) that produce nonsensical gibberish so often that I don't even have to wonder how any respectable newspaper would publish their rantings. Well, it seems that the Age, which usually displays some sense, has a star of their own.
An article by Michael Vaughan titled "We don't need feminism to fight inequity" takes the idiotic tripe cake. Before taking a closer look at the article I can't help but question who it is that Michael refers to when he says "we"? Sure he doesn't need feminism to fight whatever inequity he may be facing, but going by his name, he's not the one feminism is fighting for. Either Michael is pretending to be one of the girls or he's presumptuous enough to think that he knows what women need, in which case he should probably reveal the basis for his omniscience.
The hypocritical headline aside, the rest of the article is an example of what you get by mixing complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, illogicality and poor writing and pour the product onto a newspaper page. The article is an attempted critique of an opinion piece by Karen Murphy titled "Blame women for the death of feminism". Karen laments modern women abandoning feminist ideals and heading back into "slavery" and sexualisation.
Whether you agree or disagree with Karen's views, she raises a serious social and political issue, one that requires a considered response from someone who knows what they are talking about. If Michael Vaughan thought that described him, he was dead wrong. Just because Michael claims to be a great believer in equality and because he has a female boss (so what one might ask?), he thinks his commentary has some sort of authoritative status. Hmmm. So lets see what sort of equality does Michael believe in.
Karen specifically singles out for criticism certain types of women and activities that betray feminist achievements. Michael comes back with a "brilliant" equality argument - some men do it too, therefore, it's all good, we are all equal. Let me list some of the activities and illustrate why his position in nonsensical.
- lap dancers, strippers, topless barmaids and well-educated prostitutes who do it for the money
Yes, Michael, there are male prostitutes, strippers etc. But if there is one male prostitute or stripper for every hundred women, that isn't equality. It's a sign that the use and abuse of women as sexual objects is much more widespread and, dare I say, acceptable, than similar use of men. And yes, Michael, men do go "topless for many reasons" - sun baking may be one - but a topless woman and a topless men aren't quite the same. The catch is in the sexual nature of the act.
- participating/degrading oneself in pornography
Yep, men do it too, but for some reason whenever I come across those foul pop-ups or ads on the web, they always describe, graphically or otherwise the sexual degradation of women. Men do participate in pornography, but usually as ones doing the fucking/degradation of the woman. When it comes to degrees of degradation, the equality is just not there, Michael.
- model in degrading advertisements for money.
I haven't seen many ads where men are posed with half open mouths near another man's (or woman's) crotch, in a position clearly implying acts of fellatio, but maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. The key word here is "degrading". Perhaps Michael can name a few ads as degrading to men as the Chivas Regal or the Windsor Shoes ads (to name a few) are to women.
- have cosmetic surgery and breast enhancements to make themselves desirable.
Ah yes, my favourite one. Michael must know lots of men who pump silicon into their breasts (or should that be boobs, knockers, tits - those things that men stare at on the train?). Does he spend a lot of time wishing that his B cup was a D, so that he's more attractive to the opposite sex? Is his desirability or identity defined by the size of his boobs? Enough said, I think.
In fact, Michael does nothing to address the key point of Karen's article - that women are increasingly sexualised and defined by their sexuality and that they are complicit in that definition. He prefers to pick on her grammar or expression and imply that the only way for her to know about sexualisation of women is to admire pornography, while claiming that he doesn't take cheap shots. Yeah, those are really killer points Michael - very convincing. Just a tip for future improvement - you might like to try an actual argument once in a while, it helps. Because if all you can do is pick on someone's grammar, your audience may conclude that you don't have any valid points to make.
And when it comes to his claim that Karen must have "taken the time to watch (look at, scan, ogle or admire — your call) all of the things you mention. How else would you be authoritative enough to comment" - Michael, what Karen talks about is all around you. It doesn't require research, just opening one's eyes. And one's mind.
December 12th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Media, Women |
one comment
One can't help but feel a certain sense of unreality when reading that nine men can gang-rape a ten year old girl and get away without so much as a slap on the wrist. In light of the attention given to child sexual abuse crisis in indigenous communities (which was used by the previous government as a justification for sending troops into the NT) it is extraordinary that a Crown prosecutor would not even make submissions requesting custodial sentences for the rapists (aged between 14 and 26), some with previous criminal records.
In light of the DPP's failure to pursue justice for the victim, it is hardly surprising that the court handed down what appear to be ludicrously lenient sentences, including not recording convictions (I am not familiar with the practice in criminal cases, but it would seem anomalous for a court to impose a sentence more severe than that sought by the prosecution). Even so, Judge Bradley's comments that the victim "was not forced" and "probably agreed to have sex" with the perpetrators reveals a staggeringly inappropriate approach to a child-rape case. A ten year old child is by definition unable to "agree" or consent to have sex with anyone for the very reason that makes the crime of child rape so heinous - because she is a child whose developmental stage is such as to disable her from making the choice, because she is incapable of understanding the nature of the act. That being so, talking about her "agreement" to have sex with nine men is nothing short of reprehensible.
Furthermore, how is it relevant that the victim was not "forced"? Force is not an element of the crime of rape and lack of force does not detract from the seriousness of the crime. How does the rape of someone who does not need to be physically forced because she does not understand what is being done to her merit any less condemnation than use of brute force to secure the victim's submission? Is a victim who is coerced into non-consensual sex by means other than physical force any less deserving of protection? Must she put up a physical fight or risk a judge (or a prosecutor) saying that she asked for it, that her rape was not all that serious? Must the rapists slap around a ten year old child as well as fuck her before they are considered sufficiently blameworthy to merit a conviction?
The legal system is not well adapted to dealing with the crime of rape because of the problematic notion of consent, but one would expect that gang rape of a child would not raise such problems. However when a judge makes remarks like those made by Judge Bradley and when a prosecutor does not even bother to ask for a sentence to match the crime, it is clear that even when dealing with child rape the legal system is plagued by inappropriate attitudes.
Incidentally, while I think that Judge Bradley's remarks deserve strong criticism, I believe that the calls for her sacking are inappropriate (as is the behaviour of journalists who appear to have followed her to her home seeking comment on the sentences). Independence of the judiciary is one of the most sacred aspects of our justice system (and rightly so - just consider what occurs in the systems where that independence has been lost) and that independence cannot be maintained if judges are at risk of sacking because their judgments upset the community. The correct remedy for such judicial error is the appellate process, which in our adversarial system ought to have been invoked by the prosecution. When the prosecution does not do its job, one can hardly be surprised that a miscarriage of justice occurs. In the present case the miscarriage of justice is particularly repugnant, but it is not an excuse for making inroads into the principles of judicial independence.
December 10th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Women, Indigenous people |
2 comments
On 26 June 2007 I had the good fortune to be present at a breakfast organised by the Maurice Blackburn Cashman Women's Law Section, where Julia Gillard was a guest speaker. The speech has now been published on Gillard's website, so I thought now is a good time to discuss it without much risk of misstatements.
I must say that Gillard is quite an impressive speaker. If the Labor party had a few more pollies like her I might have considered voting for them in the next election (although they are likely to get my vote on preferences anyway). Ok, enough small talk.
At the start of her speech, Gillard reaffirmed the Labor party's promise to reform and harmonise legislation to protect outworkers in the textile industry (most of them migrant women). She gave examples, from her work as an industrial lawyers, of these vulnerable workers being cheated of entitlements such as annual leave, redundancy, long service leave, or even wages as their unscrupulous employers frequently changed their corporate identities or closed up shop without notice. Labor's promise to reform regulation of outwork is a positive step, as is the plan to "kickstart the development and promotion of the Homeworkers’ Code of Practice and the "No Sweat Shop" label."
One of the most interesting and topical parts of Gillard's speech concerned the impact of AWAs on women in the workforce. She cited recent ABS data which showed "that women working full time on AWAs take home on average $87.40 per week less than their colleagues working on collective agreements based on their rate per hour. Women working on AWAs in casual jobs earn $94 per week less than women on collective agreements."
Women on AWAs also worked longer hours. Gillard referred to a Victorian Government report released in March which revealed "that female full-timers received 5 per cent less per week on an AWA than on a collective agreement even though they worked an additional 1.3 hours per week."
When you think about it - its not that surprising. AWAs have drastically shifted the balance of power between employer and employee. It can be expected that the greater the power imbalance, the more likely it is that the employee can be compelled to accept inferior working conditions. Unfortunately women still have less power in the workplace than men - they are more likely to be found in part-time or casual jobs because of family commitments, they are more likely to be absent from the workforce for extended periods of time to have and care for children, thus reducing their employability. They are also predominantly concentrated in lower paid, lower skilled jobs such as hospitality and retail (which incidentally are the industries that use AWAs the most), making them more "replaceable" and easier to coerce. And women sometimes lack the confidence the bargain as effectively as men (wonder if it has to do with the social conditioning that we should be sweet, non-confrontational peacemakers)
In fact, in her speech, Gillard referred to a report into women in the professions conducted by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, showed that more than half of respondents reported that they were "not very confident" or "not confident at all" in negotiating good remuneration and working conditions with their employer. And these are professional women, who would be expected to be more confident in bargaining that women in non-professional employment. As Gillard pointed out this is a "truly worrying result when the existing industrial laws are predicated on individuals bargaining with their employer."
Julia Gillard talked about Labor's IR policy and parental leave policies designed to make it easier for parents to balance work and family. This policy included 12 months unpaid parental leave to each parent (which may hopefully encourage more men to take up parental leave and give them the opportunity to spend more time with their children) and flexible work arrangements for families with young children. Gillard gave an excellent response to Howard's suggestion that providing parents with more flexibility would discourage employers from hiring women.
When asked about Labor’s policy by journalist Laurie Oakes, the Prime Minister claimed that it would result in employers refusing to employ women with young children.
"You run the risk, Laurie, if you put it into legislation that some employers will avoid employing women, in particular with young children" [Prime Minister John Howard, 29 April 2007]
The Prime Minister used exactly the same argument that was used back in 1979 in connection with the Maternity Leave Test Case of that year. Since that Test Case, women’s participation has increased by more than 30 per cent.
It was a knee-jerk reaction from a man living in the past who thinks women are at the margins of our workforce and employers can simply overlook their participation. A man who fails to recognise our economy’s twin needs of skilled labour and supporting those who are bringing up the next generation.
A callous response from a man who does not even try to understand the anxiety of young women torn between the need to return to work and the desire to see their child take their first steps.
She may have also added that it is a highly hypocritical reaction from a man whose government uses family or children's interests as political slogans when it is convenient, but fails to support policies that would enable parents to spend more time with their children (and with each other) while still being able to participate in the workforce.
Gillard also spoke about other matters, such as superannuation and childcare. Just click on the link above for the whole speech. It's worth a read, as I said, it was a very good speech which I wanted to share.
I am planning to do a series of posts on WorkChoices and AWAs, so if anyone's interested, please keep visiting and, as always, thanks for reading :-)
July 7th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Howard government, Industrial relations, Women, Family, Julia Gillard |
5 comments
Yesterday I wrote about the political attacks on Kevin Rudd's wife, Therese Rein. One of companies owned by Rein mistakenly underpaid 58 of its employees. When the error was discovered, the underpayment was rectified. The Howard government and its supporters took advantage of the issue in an attempt to undermine Rudd's position on industrial relations. They also sought to manipulate Rudd's statement that his wife was an independent human being an not his "appendage."
Last night Therese Rein decided to sell the Australian arm of her business, which she built up from scratch over the previous 18 years, in order to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. She said she took full responsibility and apologised for the mistake made by her company. Whether or not this move was premature, it is sadly understandable in light of the shameless smear campaign by the government and its supporters.
If Rein thought that her decision and frank acceptance of responsibility for the error made would end the witch-hunt, she was mistaken. John Howard used Rein's predicament to claim that Labor should stop criticising businesses who engage in unfair work practices, such as forcing employees onto AWAs and Mark Vaile went a step further, suggesting that Labor should apologise to businesses they've criticised. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad - two Liberal party heavies claiming that a mistake made (and remedied) by a company owned by Mr Rudd's wife means that the Labor party should not be allowed to point to examples of employers using Mr Howard's IR laws to deprive employees of their rights. Of course identifying such employers is a simple way of rebutting Howard's disingenuous suggestions that employers will not abuse the almost unfettered power granted to them by his government, so Howard and Vaile's "concern" for the businesses criticised is not exactly selfless.
Vaile did not stop there. In what appears to be an attempt to justify the attacks on Rein which led to her decision to sell a part of her business he stated:
"We all make sacrifices to become a part of the political process and if you aspire to high office in this land, there is a great expectation of total transparency"
Lets leave aside the fact that the person who has had to make sacrifices is not a part of any political process and does not aspire to a political office, she's just married to someone who does, and consider the extraordinary hypocrisy of this statement.
"A great expectation of total transparency" - this coming from a deputy leader of a government that has been anything but transparent! Perhaps Mr Vaile has forgotten the government ministers failing to disclose company directorships or share portfolios, or the unknown intelligence received by the government regarding the existence of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, or the children (not) overboard affair, or the repeated and increasing use of "conclusive certificates" to block the ability of the media to obtain documents under FOI (notably when those documents relate to politically sensitive or embarrassing matters), or abolition and/or stacking of Senate committees, preventing references to these committees, suppression of parliamentary debate, failure to answer questions on notice, or the refusal to reveal the full extent of government spending on political advertising (the government refused to provide the information to a Senate committee).
The government's hypocrisy is mirrored by conservative commentators, who have managed to find a few discontented former employees of Therese Rein to paint her as a boss from hell, who "does not practice what her husband preaches". Andrew Bolt has managed to dig up an advertisement from Germany where one of Rein's companies is advertising for engineering and mining experts on behalf of an Australian mining company. This is supposedly evidence that Rein is driving down the wages of Australians by "importing" workers (the fact that it is the mining company, not Rein, who is trying to employ foreign workers seems to escape Bolt, as does the simple truth that you don't get cheap labour from Germany, but you might get experts you can't find locally).
I don't know what sort of a boss Rein is or how she conducts her business. However, I do think that by acknowledging and taking responsibility for the error made she demonstrated more integrity than has been the norm with the Howard government, which has consistently blamed its shortfallings on departmental errors (responsible government be damned), or the commentators who laud Howard's anti-worker policies one day and pretend to be concerned with employee rights the next.
Almost as disturbing as the witch-hunt itself, is what it says about the position of women in Australian political scene. The underlying ideology appears to be that a politician's wife who does not stay home, unseen and unheard, is fair game, even if she does not venture into the political arena. Anything that she does do is a reflection on her husband and can be (mis)used as such. US and UK have had their Hillary Clinton and Cherie Booth, but Australian politicians are still struggling with the concept that a politician's wife is not the same person as her husband.
And of course there is the inevitable outcome that when the two careers come into (perceived) conflict, there is no question as to who makes the sacrifice. I am not suggesting that Therese Rein did not make her decision independently. Hopefully Kevin Rudd remembers that he owes her big time. And if her sacrifice improves Rudd's election chances, those of us who are hoping to see Howard government dislodged will probably owe her some thanks too.
Thanks for reading
May 27th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Industrial relations, Women, Rudd and Labor |
one comment
It would be a mundane story. A company underpays its employees. It carries out an audit, discovers the underpayment and repays the arrears. Worse things happen every day - workers on AWAs lose some or all of their "protected" award conditions, employers sack sex-attack victims for assisting the police. The government passed legislation specifically to allow such things to happen.
Yes, it would be a boring story, if it wasn't an election year, if the government was not desperate for anything that could boost its falling popularity ratings and if the woman who owned the company was not married to the Leader of the Opposition, who has been successful in raising awareness of the fatal flaws in the government's industrial relations laws.
Unable to mount a successful defence to Labor's attack on WorkChoices or to convince the voters that being deprived of their rights is a good thing, the government and its supporters adopted the tried and true approach to defending the indefensible - divert attention by attacking an easy and convenient target.
Therese Rein is the convenient target. A successful business woman, she started her own recruitment business in 1989 and grew it from a one-person company to an international operation with over a thousand employees and more than 60 offices in Australia and overseas. She's the sort of woman that conservatives love to hate - not the traditional stay at home politician's wife, she's a Cherie Booth rather than a Janette Howard.
Such a role is hard to grasp for those whose social perceptions are still stuck firmly in the last century. Their difficulty was illustrated by the reaction to Rudd's statement that "This is the age of professional women who run their own companies, who have their own lives and are not simply appendages of middle-aged men". It was a reasonable response to the ridiculous suggestion that a mistake made by Rein's company somehow undermined Rudd's attack on government policy (if anything it points to the need for more regulation of employers' conduct). Rudd simply confirmed what most of us should already know - Therese Rein is not the same person as her husband, what she does is not a reflection of his policy and vice versa.
But conservative politicians and commentators were quick off the mark with some more twisted logic - Rudd "insulted" stay-at-home mums, they screamed. Peter Dutton (Assistant Treasurer) took charge. "That's an offence to all stay-at-home mums" he claimed, Rudd has just implied that they are all "worthless". It is not that Rudd was pointing out that Dutton and his ilk have are unable to escape the outdated assumptions that whatever Therese Rein did must have been approved by her husband. No, simply by stating that his wife is an independent human being Rudd must have been insulting every woman who is not a "professional woman".
The suggestion is of course arrant nonsense. It defies logic. Let me illustrate:
I have a pen. The pen is made of plastic. The pen does not have blue ink in it. If you have a pen, that is not made of plastic, does it mean that it does have blue ink in it? (did I hear "of course not, stop asking stupid questions?")
Let's apply the same logic to the present situation:
Mr Rudd has a wife. She is a business woman. She is not an appendage of her husband. If Mr Dutton has a wife, who is not a business woman, does it mean that she is an appendage of her husband?
But of course Howard and his supporters don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right and they don't have to be fair. These concepts are foreign to the politics of desperation. They just have to create a distraction. Make the voters think about something other than their rapidly vanishing rights, make them forget about the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has wasted to keep itself in power, make them think about something other than the lies the government has told and the promises it has broken. Attacking Rudd's wife is consistent with this approach - who cares if its a cheap shot. Who cares if it is unfair, bordering on sleazy. Twisting Rudd's words to suggest that he, rather than the stereotype-clinging conservatives, undervalues Australian women is an added benefit - who cares if it doesn't make any sense.
After all, there is no fairness test in pre-election politics.
May 26th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Industrial relations, Women, Rudd and Labor |
one comment
The Libs have shown their backwardness yet again. They just can't seem to be able to get over the fact that Julia Gillard is a woman and a politician in one package. First it was the "socially barren" remarks by Senator Heffernan. Given that Heffernan suffers from chronic "foot in mouth" disease, they may have been chalked down to an accidental slip of the tongue. But then it was Gillard's hairstyle. Now Joe Hockey insists that Julia Gillard is more popular than him because she's more pretty.
True, Joe's not exactly a looker. But his comments (ironically made after addressing a conference on advancement of women) are yet another incidence of senior members of the Liberal party showing their disdain for women in the political arena. They seem quite unable to see Julia Gillard as a politician rather than or as well as a woman - to them the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
We have not and will never hear the Libs accusing a male politician of being "socially barren" if he choses not to have children or to remain single. His "maleness" and his capacity to lead the country will not brought into question because of such private choices. The Libs have not and will not comment on hairstyles or appearance of a male politician - it is not something that anyone in their right mind would consider relevant to his capacity to do his job. And Hockey would never say that a male politician is more popular than him because he's better looking.
There is a profound ugliness in these remarks. Such statements dismiss Gillard's ability to function as a political actor (which she has been doing admirably well). In doing so, they show the utmost disrespect for Australian women. The Libs have clearly not grasped the idea that in our society women can and do function as more than sexed objects characterised by their fertility and looks, rather than their competence and intelligence.
They also fail to appreciate that some voters may have adequate mental capacity to actually consider and favour Julia Gillard's policies, not just her face. Just because the Libs aren't capable of it doesn't mean the rest of us are equally incapacitated.
May 23rd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Women |
2 comments
The legal system has never been great at dealing with the crime of rape, so a story like that about the horrific ordeal suffered by Miss C at the hands of the legal system comes as no surprise. Rather it is a dreadful reminder of how long there is still to go before the law is able to adequately address gendered crimes.
As Miss C recounted how she screamed when raped 25 times by 14 men, the defence counsel reportedly asked her "No, you were moaning in pleasure, weren't you?"
It is not the aim of this post to levy accusations at the particular defence lawyer. He was doing his job. He was required, within ethical and legal constraints, to present the best possible defence for his client, who was charged with extremely serious offences. The aim of this post is to critique the system which makes it legitimate to put to a woman that she enjoyed being violated 25 times by 14 men, that makes it legitimate to violate the victim again and again and again, to do verbally and mentally what the rapists did physically.
What is the purpose of a question like that?
Stephen Odgers SC, chair of the NSW Bar Association's criminal law committee reportedly explained it as follows:
"...at the end of the day, if the accused says the woman consented … the defence has to be given a reasonable opportunity to test the complainant's account"
Consent is an integral part of the law of rape. If there was consent, or if the alleged rapist believed there was consent (even if that belief was unreasonable), the law says there was no rape. It is presumed that the woman consented - that is part and parcel of the presumption of innocence. The prosecution (or rather the victim), has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she did not consent to what was done to her. Then she has to prove that the man did not believe she was consenting. Should she fail on either of those tests, in the eyes of the law, what was done to her is not rape. Its sex, its legal, no harm done, its just what men and women do.
The principle works in reverse too - if what happened was sex, then it can't be rape. In the eyes of the law the two are mutually exclusive. As Catherine MacKinnon eloquently put it in Towards a Feminist Jurisprudence: "sex itself cannot be an injury. Women consent to sex every day. Sex makes a woman a woman. Sex is what women are for."
If a woman was "moaning with pleasure" she must have been having sex, not being raped. Isn't that what women do during sex? Isn't that what sex is about? If the jury can be made to believe that there were moans of pleasure rather than (or maybe mixed with) shrieks of fear and pain as this woman was gang-raped 25 times by 14 men, well, then the job's half done.
Does this sound grotesque? It is!
We would be shocked if victims of torture had to prove that they did not consent to what was done to them. We would be bewildered if a victim of non-sexual assault had to prove that he did not consent to the violence. Yet, when it comes to rape, a woman gang-raped 25 times has to prove that she did not consent to her violation. Her consent is assumed until she proves otherwise.
That is the corner-stone of the law of rape. Within that system it is legitimate to suggest that a woman had an orgasm as she was raped by 14 men or to dig up her psychiatric records or to overturn a conviction because a judge failed to instruct the jury that a woman who was beaten, choked, shocked with a cattle prod and forced to have sex with a dog may have consented to this treatment (an actual case from UK, if anyone's wondering).
Compounding the problems with the notion of consent is the fact that the law of rape was not developed with the victim in mind. It was a variation on the law of criminal damage by one man to property of another. The woman (property of husband or father) was raped (damaged) by another man. Her feelings didn't come into the equation. They mattered so little in fact that occasionally the rapist was "punished" by being made to marry his victim (you break it, you buy it sort of thing). Some changes have been made, but they have been tinkering at the surface of the system that is stacked against treating the victim as a human being who has been terribly traumatised in a way that the male-centric legal system has never understood particularly well.
The law must protect the rights of the accused. It must allow 10 guilty men to go free rather than put one innocent man in jail. What it must not do is consent to rape and call it justice. Whether it means that further reform is necessary or whether it is time to admit that tinkering around the edges does not work and go back to the blue-prints, is not for me to decide. But lets hope that Ms C's horrific story will lead to change that will, in time, make rape trials a process of justice rather than of legally-sanctioned violation.
May 22nd, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Law, Women |
3 comments
RSS
