15.2 C
Auckland
Friday, October 24, 2025

Contribute

Home Blog Page 2379

This magazine cover doesn’t just redefine beauty standards, it shatters them

turia-pitt-300x400

Three years ago Turia Pitt was running a 100km race in Western Australia’s harsh outback when she was caught up in a bushfire that she could not out run. The fire ravaged the land, and her body. Pitt suffered burns to over 60% of her body including her face, and spent 6 months in the hospital fighting for survival. Her burns have left her permanently scarred. Associate Professor Peter Haertsch, who led the medical team that carried out the life-saving medical procedures on Pitt said at the time: ‘This girl will have it tough.’ Pitt wasn’t just tough. She was a warrior.

The life-changing moment did not stop Pitt, 8 months after her ordeal while being interviewed for 60 Minutes Australia Pitt, the ultramarathon runner, said she wanted to start running and biking again. She has gone on to becoming a motivational speaker and fundraiser for Interplast, a charity dedicated to helping victims in need of reconstructive surgery.

It is now three years after the Bush fire that changed Pitt’s life and body forever and she has been chosen to be on the cover of an Australia’s Women’s Weekly issue that is out in July. She has been selected as a recipient of AWW Women of the future scholarship awards, by calling her “quite simply one of the most impressive women you will ever hope to meet.” Pitt got made-up, stood in front of the camera and celebrated surviving.

Pitt’s cover girl image on the front of a glossy magazine, usually reserved for ridiculing famous women’s bodies or idealising them, will challenge beauty standards, everywhere. Already, before the issue has even hit newspaper stands the editors of Australian Women’s Weekly’s decision to put Pitt on the cover, has gone viral and exploded on twitter with thousands of people championing Pitt and the Editor’s decision to have her as their cover girl.

Dove-Real-Beauty-Campaign-300x159

Beauty companies have often tried to “empower” women and “challenge” beauty standards, like Pitt has done. Such as Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign, I got pretty excited about the idea of a beauty company finally using body diverse models, until I realised not only did the women in the commercials for “Real Beauty” still have nice bodies, normative hip-to-waist ratios and flawless skin, they also were Photoshopped.  So much for “Real Beauty”. Then we have the more recent #GirlsCan campaign from Cover Girl, their “girls can do anything” message is all well and good but as Elizabeth Plank of .Mic points out,

“Cover Girl, a company that’s spent the last 50 years telling young girls ‘Your personality needs layers, your face doesn’t’ and whose core message is, after all, to encourage women and girls to alter themselves to fit an unattainable standard.”

Pitt said in her interview with 60 minutes, “I do not really care about my looks”, I would argue these are revolutionary words to speak as a personal truth, not just some beauty companies or celebrities not-so-believable tagline. Pitt’s words counter a culture that places more importance on a women’s appearance than her character; a world which teaches young girls everywhere that your body is the most valuable currency you have.

Turia Pitt is not, of course, alone when it comes to women who have suffered extensive facial burns and then go on to publicly challenge western ideals of beauty. In 2008 the 24 year old English model and T.V host Katie Piper was leaving her apartment to go to an internet café when she saw a man coming towards her with a cup in his hands. Before she knew what had happened Piper felt her face explode in pain, which spread throughout her body. The man had thrown acid all over her face. Her violent and possessive ex-boyfriend had paid someone to attack her. She spent months in the hospital and amidst it all she filmed a documentary that followed her recovery both physically and mentally called, ‘My Beautiful Face’. Piper said it was the public support of her documentary that helped her realise “it’s ok to be me”.

When asked how she viewed beauty before and after her attack Piper said…

“For me, beauty used to be about the best figure and looking the prettiest when I walked into a room. Now I’ve realised that is only surface beauty. I feel more beautiful and confident by surrounding myself with people that believe in me and encourage me.”

Piper has gone on to make a number of TV shows, and continues to be in the public eye, redefining and challenging what people think is beautiful.

Both Katie Piper and Turia Pitt do not just challenge beauty standards they shatter them. It is hard not to talk in clinches when writing on these two women because of course, without doubt they are brave, resilient, empowered and inspiring – beautiful, but they are also authentic examples of women in the process of accepting themselves, because self-acceptance is a process. Tuaria Pitt now travels Australia talking to young teens about body image, in one school room packed with mostly young teenaged girls she said, “I felt like people only valued me because I was ‘good-looking’ not because I am smart, gritty, determined – we are all so much more than our bodies.”

Anti-domestic violence video shows the price some women pay when England loses The World Cup

wc4

In a haunting and powerful short video released on Tuesday by Tender Education and Arts, a British organisation dedicated to promoting healthy relationships, shows a woman sitting alone watching England play The World Cup, her face drops and turns to horror when she realises England has lost. These words follow: “no one wanted England to win more than women. Domestic violence rises by 38% when England gets knocked out of the World Cup.”

The video has gone viral and the hashtag #StandUpWorldCup has started to trend on twitter:

Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 11.08.27 am

This hashtag follows on the heels of other viral tags such as #YesAllWomen and #SurvivorPrivilege that have responded to, and spoken powerfully about epidemic levels of rape and violence women face around the world, daily.

Tender cites a study done by three researchers at Lancaster University over the course of three tournaments in 2002, 2006 and 2010. According to the study, domestic abuse increased by 26 percent in the country when England won or tied their game. When the team lost, the number rose by 38 percent. As one police officer who was cited in the report said, “The World Cup appears a reason for many to party, however delight and expectation can turn into despair and conflict with the kick of a ball.”

This disturbing and violent trend in relation to sports teams loosing or winning, is of course not isolated. In New Zealand when The All Blacks win a game the police reported  to the NZ Herald in 2012, that they witnessed an increase in domestic violence. When I talked to Stacey Kingston*, who used to work for Auckland’s central police communications, in relation to the #StandUpWorldCup campaign, she said “we would always have to get extra staff in if there was a big rugby game on that night for just this reason.”

While there are few other studies on the topic of the rise of domestic violence post sports games, the trend cannot be ignored. There is never an excuse for violence. Tenders campaign and PSA shows another dark side to the rugby The World Cup, and we need to take notice.

 Join the conversation on twitter #StandUpWorldCup

 

 

*Some names have been changed to protect privacy in this blog

 

The Roast Busters actions shocked the nation, so what can we do about it?

unnamed-1

The Roast Busters case came to international media attention last November when the news broke that a gang of young New Zealand men had been plying underage girls with alcohol and then having sex with them, an act which is considered sexual coercion and statutory rape. The Roast Busters would then compound matters by naming and shaming these girls online. This group of violent young men then encouraged others through their Facebook and youtube videos to join them in their exploits. The case is still in legal review and the investigation is ongoing.

The news of these young men’s deplorable acts sent shock waves throughout New Zealand, and many people called for vigilante justice offering a “4k reward for footage of The Roast Busters getting hidings” as the NZ Herald reported, last year. When I heard the news last year I was left shaking with anger, but I was not shocked by their actions. The act of young men targeting underage vulnerable girls is something I have encountered over and over again in one form or another since I was young myself.

When I was twelve, I lived in a house on a quiet Howick, Auckland cul-de sac. On our street there were many families with teenage boys and young girls, unfortunately for some of these girls they hit puberty early, meaning that while they looked like women they were very much still young girls ranging between the ages of twelve and fourteen. I was lucky as I did not start to develop breasts and curves later until after the age of fifteen. Other girls in my neighbourhood who had breasts and hips by the time they turned thirteen, were not so lucky.
Two houses down from me the Wheat family lived with their two teenaged boys aged between fifteen and seventeen and their step daughter. It was here that these boys and others from the neighbourhood would take underage girls. In the basement of the Wheat house they would sexually coerce them into performing blow-jobs, hand-jobs and other sexual acts. A girl I was related to that I will call Amanda, believed for years that what had happened down in that basement was consensual. After all, she never said “no” – she never said yes either. Amanda was only twelve when they started sexually abusing her. No twelve year old girl can give informed consent. Amanda has often maintained to me that she performed those sexual acts because she believed she had no choice. It was not until many years later Amanda realised what had happened to her was in fact, rape.

I knew what rape culture and male sexual self-entitlement over women’s bodies was and looked like by the time I was 14 – I just had no language at the time to talk of what I had witnessed.

The Roast Busters and the teenage boys who lived in my neighbourhood are not aliens and they did not drop out of the sky from some far off planet. We live in a culture that not only teaches behaviour like the boys in The Roast Busters exhibited, but one that encourages it – and then when we hear stories like these boys are accused of doing, we are all shocked and outraged.

“We do not choose the ‘roast’ the roast choices us. We have girls asking to “hung out with us” The girls know what we are like, they know what they are in for”.

These words were spoken by boys in The Roast Busters in a youtube video. This internalised victim blaming aims to excuse their own behaviour and put the blame on the underage girls they boasted about having sex with on their facebook page. Their beliefs are part of our culture that endlessly victim blames girls and boys when they speak out about surviving sexual assault.

In the minds of The Roast Busters the girls turned up and made the choice to hang out with them, which for them was synonymous with them choosing the sexual abuse that came with it.
“She got drunk,” “she had a short skirt on,” “she walked down that ally way,” “she should have fought back…”, “she did not say no”, “she wanted it” are examples of how everyday people perceive rape survivors; not as victims of men’s violence, but as responsible for the violence committed against them. This focus on the female’s actions who are victims of violence renders the perpetrator invisible. When people make statements like “she got drunk” the person who committed violence is not even part of the conversation and therefore not accountable for their own violent behaviour. Jackson Katz, a theorist and anti-violence activist, points out

“This is one of the way dominant systems maintain and reproduce themselves. Which is to say, the dominant group is rarely challenged to think about its dominance.” Katze said, “…that is one of the key characteristics of power and privilege; the ability to go unexamined, lacking introspection.”

When the case of The Roast Busters first hit the media, the police falsely reported to 3news the following, as stated by the IPCA report

Screen Shot 2014-06-22 at 6.56.57 am

The Waitemata Distract Manager focuses on the young girl’s behaviour and uses the lack of bravery of the girls who had not come forward as an excuse when he explains why the police cannot act against the boys in The Roast Busters. The perpetrators are allowed to be invisible. Elizabeth Plank of .Mic wrote, “…it’s hard to feel like we can solve the epidemic of sexual abuse if law enforcement isn’t on our side.” As it turned out, young girls and family members had come forward to lay complaints of sexual misconduct against the boys in The Roast Busters, as the police later admitted to.

We need to stop erasing perpetrators of rape from the conversation as Katz explains,

“Why is it that, when we talk about sexual violence and domestic abuse, we talk about the women involved and erase the men from the conversation?” he explains, “[When we act] as if white people don’t have some sort of racial identity … as if heterosexual people don’t have a sexual orientation, as if men don’t have a gender, [then] the dominant group is rarely challenged to even think about its dominance.”

We often talk about violence against women as a gendered issue, men often think ‘gender issues’ are synonymous with ‘women’s issues’ therefore have nothing to do with them. I know this might be a paradigm shifting perspective for some, but violence against women is first and foremost a men’s issue. Women are not hitting or raping themselves. We need to bring men who are violent back into the conversation and examine why they are behaving in violent ways. How we can do this is by examining and challenging publicly, what it means to be ‘a man’ in New Zealand, and global culture. In the media The Roast Busters actions where condemned but there was no examination of what produces boys like these and creates their extreme misogynistic views and ideologies.

In a searing opening speech by Angelina Jolie for the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict she said “rape is not about sex it is about power”, men are taught from the time they are born that the way to gain power is to dominate – this is the socialisation of men. They are taught as Jeff Perera, who works for White Ribbon, has reiterated for many years that being a man means adhering to the rigid, negative and damaging stereotypes of masculinity; never cry, be tough, be strong, never ever show fear, and show no emotion with the exception of anger. Whether this is internalised destruction, New Zealand has the highest rates of male youth suicide in the OECD, and/or externalised, Women’s Refugee reported between 33 to 39% of New Zealand women experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner. These rigid stereotypes are not just hurting both men and women, they are killing them.

Russel Smith, who works with violent offenders and is a clinician at Korowai Tumanako a service designed to support iwi, hapū and whanau who have been affected by sexual violence, said when we spoke,

“I have worked with 3 female sex offenders, over 600 adult male sex offenders and I have worked with about 300 adolescent males who have exhibited harmful sexual behaviour in my career.”

So why are we as a society so surprised when boys like those in The Roast Busters boast online about exerting their dominance over young vulnerable girls and exhibit extreme sexist ideas? We live in a society that tells them the way to be a man is to exert power and control over others. I witnessed boys in my neighbourhood behaving this way when I was 12, The Roast Busters behaviour is not a sudden or new phenomenon.

Sexual violence against women intrinsically intersects with rigid stereotypes of masculinity. We desperately need to disrupt and challenge these stereotypes, if we ever hope to end violence against women and raise young boys who are happy and hold healthy views about women. How we can begin to do this is to create a climate in our culture where men and boys who act in sexist or violent ways loose status.

The anti-sexual assault campaign ‘Are you that some1’ was launched last Friday by National’s Paula Bennett and was developed by the team at Rape Prevention Education, in response to the actions of The Roast Busters and other cases of sexual assault in New Zealand. The campaign uses the ‘active bystander approach’ in preventing sexual assault. It encourages young people to ‘step in and step up’, in non-violent ways when they witness young men engaging in unwanted sexual advances and/or behaviour with women in bars at parties or social situations.

The more men and boys who ‘step up and step in’ when they see behaviour they think is not ok, the more others will do the same. Positive peer pressure is a powerful tool to incite change and challenge everyday sexism that has become normalised in our society.

We have many strong male public role-models and community leaders in New Zealand, both Richie Hardcore, a personal trainer who works at the Auckland Council in drug and alcohol harm reduction and Shortland’s Street Sam Bunkall are both involved with the ‘Are you that someone1’ campaign. The before mentioned Russell Smith who works from a Māori perspective, challenges Māori men to rethink what being a man means to them and their own iwi, hapū and whanau.

Culturally diverse public male role-models that counter negative stereotypes of masculinity in their communities, are inspiring and it is encouraging to see, but they need to become the norm and not, the exception.

One of John Key’s responses to The Roast Busters was to say “These young guys should just grow up,” engrained sexism and misogynistic ideologies that can and do lead to violence against women, are not something boys just grow out of. It is behaviour that needs to be unlearned. Obama, recently condemned in a public speech the American college rape crisis and has dedicated a task force to combat the problem. We need this kind of leadership and condemnation for sexual assault from our male politicians and political leaders in New Zealand.

Marama Davidson who is a Green Party Candidate and fronts the indigenous rights movement ‘Idle No More’ said to Waatea News, while speaking on the recent release of the ‘Owen Glenn Report in to Child Abuse and Family Violence’, “we need to have a non-political party approach to fixing this problem, because actually it is successive governments who have not fixed this problem. We really need every political party to step up wipe away those political party barriers and say this is an absolute priority.” Ending violence against women is not just something some good men help out with, it needs to be a collective and national ongoing effort – we need to work with each other, not against. As Elizabeth Plank points out, “We [need to] publicly discuss gender, gender roles, masculinity and femininity as a matter of public policy and not the quirky, marginalized concern of “oversensitive” feminists and scholars.”

We need to engage men as allies in this cause to end violence against women. Most men are not perpetrators–and when we empower men to step in when someone’s in trouble, they become an important part of the solution.

Appointing King Kapisi – squeezing the real stories

SCCZEN_A_040709AKLSPLkingkapisi1_300x200

I’ve always been reluctant to turn on the tv when we arrive home from work. Growing up in South Auckland I got tired very early on in my life of the lead-news-stories that were about crime in the area I called home. I was very aware that crime went on as much as it did in my neighbourhood as it did elsewhere, but the media have an insatiable appetite for news out south. Just a few months ago, a fire in Onehunga had the breaking news line that runs across the bottom of your tv screen as “fire in south Auckland”. Just another example of our uncritical media circus looking to feed on stereotypes and ill-informed ideas. Over the last couple of years, our house has choosen to watch Al Jazeera News because at least it offers a counter narrative to the narrow-minded, isolated and neo-colonial views advanced by free-to-air news media.

Being an election year, all the main news items centre on the upcoming election. David Cunliffe is being ridiculously labelled a liar because he wrote a letter that had no bias in it whatsoever in relation to a persons immigration status. Essentially all he asks is: where’s the process at? Without hesitation the narrow-minded media go on a feeding frenzy bringing into question his honesty when there’s clearly nothing in it. In tis mornings paper there’s now news a revolt from inside is possible. I really don’t understand where the journalists get their grandiose ideas from, but unfortunately it’s the kind of material that’s quickly picked up by a general population that’s bought into tabloid journalism as objective knowledge.

Just a couple of weeks ago the Internet-MANA Party announced their merger – something I received with great excitement. I’ve got massive respect for the likes of Hone Harawira, Laila Harre, Annette Sykes and John Minto. I might not agree with all their views, but I’ve watched these people take a firm stand for the things that matter most to them over the years and I’m drawn to their honesty and boldness. I also know John from his days at Tangaroa College – a man keenly interested in his students with a genuine desire to see them excel. Within a day of the merger being announced Harre was on Q+A where the host didn’t let her answer any of the questions being put to her and the lead over at The Nation was about how “moral” it was for the Party to take money from Kim Dotcom. Engaging the likes of King Kapisi to consider seeking political office shows that the Left is seriously willing to locate and engage the 800,000.

The mainstream media is squeezing the real story. And the real story is that the Left are showing the much-needed signs of a force to be seriously reckoned with. There are some great policies coming thru that get little attention but will make a real difference for people. Labour’s ideas to build more houses, lower electricity prices; Mana’s recent policy announcement on immigration for Pacific people are examples of policies that reach the squeezed in our society that believe their votes doesn’t matter anymore. The evening news will be forced to cover the real story soon, when the vote pointing Left come September, includes a vast number of the enrolled-non vote.

 

#SurvivorPrivilege: because being raped earns you status

unnamed

The conservative journalist George F. Will who is a walking, talking Republican stereotype, has managed to infuriate a lot of feminists and survivors of violence this week when he recently posted an editorial editorial in both The Washington Post and The New York Post. He claimed being a survivor of rape on college campuses is now some kind of “coveted status that confers privilege” to the point where “victims proliferate.”

That’s right you read those words correctly.

In Will’s world, where he sounds like a Fox News anchor on overdrive, being a rape survivor actually gains you privileges. In fact, he believes women on college campuses want to be raped so they can gain some kind of magical rape status. In other news, unicorns exist. And The Washington Post paid Will to write this hyperbole?!

Will’s editorial claims the rape epidemic on college campuses, a phenomenon that Time Magazine recently covered extensively, is just part of hook-up culture and young women having drunken regrets in the morning, and in turn cry rape.

Apparently there is no end to some people perpetuating rape myths. Fact: it is estimated only 2-8% of all rape complaints are falsified. And yet the widespread myth that some diabolical women have created a plot to destroy the lives of young men everywhere by crying rape is, evidently, alive and well.

It is clear that Will has undertaken a count of zero interviews with rape survivors or people who work in supporting those who have survived violence for his editorial. If he had, he would have learnt what I have known since I was a young girl; rape is not fun. Rape is harrowing. Rape is soul destroying. Rape is a horrific violation. Rape is not a status symbol. It is silencing.

Will, in his editorial attempts to “debunk” the 1 in 5 statistic relating to rape survivors, said:

“The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous.”

Will provides no real evidence to back up his own preposterous claim; he has clearly gone to great lengths to ignore the staggering weight of evidence that rape is not only epidemic on college campuses but around our world. Last month the New York Times reported that the Obama administration released “…guidelines that increase the pressure on universities to more aggressively combat sexual assaults on campus.” Obama himself has condemned campus rape and has created a task force to combat the problem.

The reality is that an estimated 20-25% of women who attend college in America will experience sexual assault. The number of male victims is unquantified. The Guardian recently asked students on campuses to recount their experiences in reporting rape at universities and colleges. If the words of the brave young women who submitted their stories are anything to go by, as Jessica Valenti of The Guardian wrote, ‘…it’s that survivors of sexual violence are treated abysmally by administrators, peers and campus police. But to someone like Will – who calls this a “supposed” scourge of rape and puts the term “sexual assault” in scare quotes – rape is hardly even a real thing.’

How anyone could think a rape survivor, whether male or female, living through the aftermath could somehow benefit or gain privileges from what they have survived, defies reason.

Of course, the republican dinosaur George F. Will and his rape apologia editorial has received a major smack down from the feminist community. When will these conservatives learn that no good can come from spreading lies and disinformation? Activist and feminist Wagatwe Wanjuki pushed back on Twitter with the hashtag #SurvivorPrivilege, which went viral. Wanjuki told Buzzfeed she created the hashtag because…

“I honestly started the hashtag as a way to share my frustration with the notion that survivors have privilege. It’s one of those situations where I felt like I should laugh so I don’t cry, so I used my sarcasm to start a conversation about how difficult it is to be a survivor.”

Thousands of women and men joined Wanjuki on Twitter – using the hashtag to tell their stories; these tweets create a powerful counter narrative to the lies, myths, and misconceptions that survivors face, while also exposing the slut-shaming and consequences that survivors endure when they speak out:

unnamed-2 unnamed unnamed-1 unnamed-4 unnamed-3

I remember when words and stories like those expressed publicly were something me and my friends whispered to each other in private. Stories of pain and frustration and quiet suffering told over wine and cigarettes and shaking hands late at night. And no, it was not just my female friends telling me their stories; some of my male friends had survived sexual assault and violence as well – they often struggled, even more than my female friends, to find the words to convey the mental and emotional pain the violence had caused them.

Thousands of people are writing their personal histories on Twitter to publicly testify to a culture of victim blaming that minimises rape and the trauma it causes. Only weeks ago the hashtag #YesAllWomen exploded on twitter, in response to the Isla Vista Massacre in which Elliot Rodgers shot and stabbed 6 people near, and on, an American college campus. Many feminist commentators have attributed his actions to his extreme misogynistic views. The #YesAllWomen tag spoke to the misogyny women are confronted with daily and told their stories of violence.

George F. Will may feel there are privileges and status rewarded to those who have survived rape (I honestly cringed as I typed that) but as the blogger Michelle Merritt, who is a rape survivor herself points out, his words are far from the truth:

 “Surviving is about living each day even though your best friends, family, co-workers, and random strangers you’ll never meet seem to believe they have a right to decide whether or not you “deserved it.” Surviving is about forcing yourself to block out those who say you were wearing the wrong clothes, in the wrong neighbourhood, out too late, with the wrong people, drank too much, didn’t say no loud enough, or even gave in too quickly out of fear for your life.”

Survivor privilege? The only privilege I can see is George F. Will’s white male privilege and he is clearly oblivious to it. This privilege makes Will feel he has the right to comment, from a safe distance, on rape culture with little understanding or evidence to back up his claims. “Surviving rape is not like surviving breast cancer, Mr. Will.” Merritt wrote, “I don’t get to wear a pretty ribbon or a t-shirt that says I’m a survivor. I don’t get to lift my shirt or bare my scarred chest as a badge of honour. There are no bumper stickers that reads, “Rape Sucks. Fight Like a Girl”…”.

Women everywhere do not secretly wish they could be sexually assaulted so they can gain “rape status” and enjoy the perks and privileges it will bestow on them. It takes a special kind of blind ignorance to hold these beliefs. As Jessica Valenti asserts, “The only ‘privilege’ afforded to campus rape survivors is surviving.”

 

‘Abortion Barbie’ is proof women’s bodies are still a battleground

unnamed-1

Last Thursday, conservative street artist Sabo plastered parts of Los Angeles with posters he had designed – life-size images of a nearly naked Barbie Doll complete with a plastic foetus inside her abdomen. He replaced Barbie’s head with Wendy Davis’ face; Davis is the Democrat’s gubernatorial candidate in Texas who Conservative pundit Erick Erickson nicknamed “Abortion Barbie” earlier this year because she stood for 11 hours straight to, as the Huffington Post reported, “filibuster the draconian package of anti-abortion bills.” It was an epic action that garnered her both enormous praise and criticism.

But, and it is a big but, since her 11 hour showdown, Davis has revoked much of what she said and calls herself “pro-life”. She has even gone so far as to support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks. Guess you got to win those votes in conservative America somehow? So why would Sabo use her image? Perhaps Pro-lifers like him are so manic in their activism that they even attack their potential allies?

Apart from the obvious fact that Sabo targeted completely the wrong person in his Christian crusade to slag off pro-choice activists (awkward), he might also like to know Barbie could not stand up to a strong wind let alone carry a child to full term. Fucking twat.

Many artists use art as a weapon in the struggle for social justice, although Sabo is one of the first contemporary street artists to wield it in opposition to social progress – street art has its roots in left wing dissidence.

Artists such as Barbra Kruger, who are just as home in gallery spaces as they are in the streets, have used art to comment on social issues such as abortion long before Sabo ever did. In stark contrast to Sabo’s work, Kruger designed the poster used to rally support against a case heard in the American Supreme Court in the 1970s; a case the Bush administration was hoping would overturn the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling which established basic legal abortion rights in the 1960s.

The poster showed a negative and positive image of a woman’s face with the declarative caption: “Your Body is a Battleground”.

The patriarchal right wing has, despite efforts by such women as Barbra Kruger, used women’s bodies as a battleground for ‘moral dominance’ since the Sixties, thereby creating a disturbing landscape for women’s reproductive rights. The landmark Roe vs Wade ruling has suffered constant attacks. Just last year a house panel, mainly comprised of men, voted to advance a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy across the entire United States of America. 
As Democracy Now reported,

“…Similar bans are already in place in states across the country, part of an unprecedented tide of state abortion restrictions enacted in the past few years with the goal of challenging Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court and making abortion inaccessible and unaffordable on the ground.”

A report released by “The National Advocates for Pregnant Women” written by Lynn M. Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin found that between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005, American women have been forced to carry unwanted babies. As Democracy Now grimly pointed out, “The National Advocates for Pregnant Women found 413 cases when pregnant women were deprived of their physical liberty, and at least 250 more interventions have taken place since then.” In one case, a court ordered a critically ill woman in Washington, D.C. to undergo a C-section against her will. Neither the baby nor the mother survived. Effectively this woman, and many more like her, have been deprived of their right to life.

unnamed

There is something terrifying about the state taking complete control of a woman’s right to determine her own future.

Kruger created a work in 1982 where the words, “we have received orders not to move”, are superimposed over a woman’s immobile body. The image simultaneously references women’s social status and supplies a feminist retort to the patriarchy’s controlling structures concerned with ‘putting women in their place’.

Forcing women to have children they do not want and often cannot afford is an immobilising action. The aforementioned report found that “low-income women and women of colour, especially African American women, are overrepresented among those who have been arrested or subjected to equivalent deprivations of liberty. As Laurie Penny makes clear,

…“single-mother” is still a synonym for “poor and shunned”, and pregnancy discrimination is rampant in this treacherous post-crash job market. 

The attack on women’s reproductive rights and the right to choice is not limited to America. Britain’s Abortion Act 1967 demands women justify ‘why continuing with a pregnancy poses a threat to her health and well-being or that of her existing offspring.’ Northern Ireland will not even allow an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape, or if the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s life. Women residing in Northern Ireland, as Laurie Penny, who writes for The New Statesman, has previously pointed out, will often fly to England to gain access to abortion; but the trip is often funded by themselves – many go into debt to buy the procedure.

In New Zealand it is illegal to have an abortion unless a medical practitioner declares the foetus is a risk to the mother’s health or the mother is “mentally unfit” a.k.a. “insane”. As I learnt when I needed an abortion, because “I just do not want a baby right now” is not a good enough reason.

I am done paying penance with the shame and guilt women are expected to bear and feel for the rest of our lives for having an abortion. A woman’s “function” far exceeds her ability to pump out babies. The expectation is that I will be sorry forever ever and ever for having an abortion. I am not sorry, and nor should any other women have to be. Exercising my basic human rights is nothing to be ashamed of.

Women everywhere have always fought, and continue to fight, against right wing abortion politics, pro-lifers and apparently now “conservative street artists” who spread abortion myths and disinformation. Emily Lett, a 25-year old who works as an abortion councillor, recently filmed her own abortion and posted it on YouTube for the world to see. You can hear Lett humming quietly to herself throughout the procedure and at the end she says “I feel good”; as Laurie Penny asserts, “shattering generations of anxiety and fear-mongering around reproductive choice with three simple words.” Abortion can even be a positive experience for some women – given the right support and informed decision making.

Lett is not the only one to use film and social media to fight the stigma surrounding abortion. A vblogger, who goes by the name of Angie AntiTheist, filmed herself having a medical abortion after taking the pill RU486. As Lett pointed out in relation to Angie’s abortion video “[Angie wanted] to show everyone that she was fine, that it’s not scary, it doesn’t hurt, and that she was confident in her decision to do it.”

Wealthy and conservative Kathryn Stuard of Midland, Texas funded the ‘Abortion Barbie’ posters (perhaps she didn’t realise Davis is more an ally than enemy, either?), saying “It hits people with the truth”. ‘Abortion Barbie’ certainly hits people with something, but it is not the truth. A half-naked Barbie with a foetus in her abdomen and a giant pair of scissors isn’t the truth; it is abortion propaganda. It is women like Lett and Angie who refuse to hide their stories of abortion who are hitting people with the truth. They are dismantling abortion myths and challenging the stigma women who have had abortions face.

unnamed-2

Guerrilla Girls call bullshit on Pharrell

 

The Guerrilla Girls, an all-female anonymous feminist artist collective, were invited to form part of an exhibition at the Galerie Perrotin in Paris called   G I R L S, curated by pop singer Pharrell himself which opened on Tuesday. The show claims to “celebrate women who are above all free, liberated by artists and their boundless, unfettered imagination”.

The show is no doubt another of Pharrell’s attempts to distance himself from the controversy surrounding his “rapey” song, Blurred Lines, released in 2013. He attempted to do the same in his latest Oprah Winfrey interview , in which he waffled on and on about how “women are the creator” and that he truly meant no harm by his song, and feminists everywhere just misread him.  Sure Pharrell. Whatever you say.

The Guerrilla Girls accepted his invitation but insisted on exhibiting two new posters they had created. Pharrell, to his detriment, said yes. This is one of their posters in Pharrell’s exhibition:

Screen Shot 2014-05-31 at 1.12.09 pm

 

Burn. That Pharrell, is what you call getting owned. As the Guerrilla Girls said on their website, “After watching lots of [Pharrell’s] videos we had a question for Pharrell: why DO WOMEN HAVE TO BE NAKED TO GET INTO MUSIC VIDEOS WHILE 99% OF THE GUYS ARE DRESSED? We did a remix one of our classic posters with a still from Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines”.

If you are not familiar with the Guerrilla Girl’s work, they have been around since the 1980s and have dedicated the majority of their work and activism to pointing out how art institutions perpetrate racism and sexism. The remix of a classic poster they spoke to above is pictured below:

Screen Shot 2014-05-31 at 1.38.15 pm

 

Naturally the Guerrilla Girls also turned their razor sharp wit to Galerie Perrotin with this poster:

Screen Shot 2014-05-31 at 1.38.23 pm

As the Guerrilla Girls astutely point out on their website “Sure, 50% of the artists in the G I R L exhibition are women, but since 2010 only 13% of solo exhibitions have been by women artists. We grafittied one of our early posters to show that not much has changed: BUS COMPANIES ARE STILL MORE ENLIGHTENED THAN ART GALLERIES”.

Ah, Pharrell. At least he has included some serious female heavy hitters in his show G I R L, who are women (not girls) such as Yoko Ono, Cindy Sherman, and Sarah Lucas. But he has failed to maintain gender equality in something aimed to celebrate women; of the 37 artists in the show 18 are female and 19 are male.

The issues with the show do not stop there; the decision to include fashion photographer Terry Richardson is baffling. Richardson’s image of a slice of a girl’s abdomen from belly button to upper thigh, a chocolate heart dangling in front of her vagina with the words “Eat Me” scrawled in pink alone is enough to undermine the show’s feminist theme. Then add in the fact that Richardson is facing widespread allegations of sexual assault and is known, as The Guardian suggested, as a “loathsome sexual predator”, then the message of female power in this show come to a screeching halt.

Really, Pharrell? You thought including this asshole was a good idea?

When journalist Sarah Moroz confronted Pharrell about his decision to include Richardson, he said “He has his own expression … What we were trying to accomplish with this project was to house many different facets of women,” then bizarrely went on to say, “Just because you’re a good girl doesn’t mean you don’t have naughty thoughts.” This is not the first time Pharrell has used this line to defend and justify his questionable, sexist actions. He said the exact same thing verbatim to Oprah in his previously mentioned interview when she questioned him in relation to writing, and then performing, the song Blurred Lines with Robin Thicke. A song that uses non-consensual language such as “I know you want it”, while half-naked girls dance around both men – who of course, are fully clothed.

My God, sometimes Pharrell should just not speak. No matter how much Pharrell tries to deny his obvious sexism – something to which he is completely blind, he never seems to miss an opportunity to say or do something stupid that is further proof of his own misogyny.

 

Fluency in the language of violence: The toxic masculinity of the Isla Vista Campus massacre

unnamed
I have spent the last few days shedding tears and ringing my hands over the Isla Vista Campus Killings. I am horrified and angry, but I am not surprised by it. One of my earliest memories is of a man touching me without my permission because he thought he had ownership over my body; he thought I owed him something. I was only 3. Sadly there has been more occasions in my life when I was not quick enough to avoid the hands and fingers of men.

Elliot Rodger, the 22 year old male responsible for the Isla Vista Massacre at a Californian college campus, believed that women owed him something too. He believed women owed him sex and love, and when Elliot Rodger did not get what he wanted he killed 6 people: he stabbed his three flatmates before moving on to a shooting rampage in which he killed two women and one other man. Rodger reserved special hate for two groups: the women he says denied him sex and kept him a virgin, and the men they picked over him.

There is a trail of evidence left by Rodger that paints a picture of a truly disturbed young man struggling to fit into the narrow confines of western masculinity. Before Rodger committed his massacre he published online his 140 page manifesto which begins like a memoir. This quickly dissolves into a misogynistic diatribe and ends with a final solution he called, The Day of Retribution. Rodger declared he was going to purify the world and believed women should be herded up and imprisoned in concentration camps, to be ‘eventually starved to death’. In his Manifesto he also stated ‘Women are like a plague that need to be quarantined’. Rodger’s final solution was the obliteration and erasure of women everywhere.

The Youtube video Rodger uploaded hours before he went on his rampage is titled Retribution. In it he claimed he was going to prove himself the ultimate “alpha male” and take revenge on all the “blonde sluts” and “popular kids” who had socially or sexually rejected him:

“Tomorrow is the day of retribution, the day in which I will have my revenge . . . you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one, the true alpha male.”

Elliot Rodger’s murderous thoughts and actions didn’t happen in a vacuum. As my friend John pointed out to me, “Massacres like the Isla Vista killing happen because the social and cultural environment around those men give them permission to hate.”  Although mass shootings like these are rare, the rape and beating of women happens every day. As Eve Ensler’s human rights organisation V-Day has reported; 1 billion women have survived violence globally. The views and ideology that Rodger held in relation to women are widespread; Rodger just took his deep hate of women to an extreme and violent conclusion.

The misogyny that is prevalent within Rodger’s manifesto, his alignment with the Man’s Rights Movement, and the Youtube videos he posted leading up to his attack, can tell us much more about why Rodger massacred 6 people than any arguments over gun control or mental health ever will. These two factors are, simply, not enough.

Boys are taught to dehumanise and devalue women from a young age. One of the biggest insults a boy or a man can receive is to be told that he is a girl. We shame men when they behave in a way that is perceived to be feminine. When boys or men cry, or show emotion, they are often called “girly”, “pussies” or “fags”; all words using femininity as an insult with the underlying belief that being feminine is bad.  These are words that are meant to injure and humiliate. They teach men and boys that the last thing you ever want to be is a girl. Boys are taught that being female is lesser than being male. Tony Porter,  the founder of A Call to Men said in his Ted talk,

 ‘Growing up as boys we were taught men had to be tough, we had to be strong, we had to be courageous, dominating. No pain; no emotions with the exception of anger and definitely no fear. That men are in charge, which means women are not, that men lead and you should just follow and do what we say. That men are superior, women are inferior. That men are strong, women are weak. Women are of less value; property of men and objects, particularly sexual objects. I’ve later come to know this is the collective socialisation of men.’

The hegemonic masculinity Porter speaks of is a reflection of a society in which a toxic masculinity is deeply engrained, and where misogyny like Rodger’s is normalised, a society that encourages social and binary gender-types and stereotypes, in which men are taught to dominate other males and subordinate women.  Rodger constantly referred to women as “animals” of lesser intelligence than himself, throughout his manifesto. He did not see women as human; he viewed them as a disease that needed to be eradicated.

Many boys are being raised to believe they are entitled to a woman’s body. Women’s bodies are treated as a form of sexual currency on which men can calculate part of their worth by a large majority of men. Rodger felt worthless because women denied him this currency, so they had to pay. In his manifesto, Rodger often talked of ‘punishing women’ for denying him sex and the love he felt he deserved and was entitled to.

An individual owes no other individual anything based on the sex they happened to be born as. No women owes any man anything. What is owed to women and all people is a safe world to live in, one where you don’t get murdered or raped because of the sex you were born as or become.

Since the massacre, men and women took to twitter and it has exploded with the powerful hashtag #YesAllWomen. It paints a grim but powerful picture of the everyday sexism and violence women face. Many of the tweets spoke to the misogyny women are confronted with daily, but which is often invisible to many men.

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 7.23.16 am

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 7.24.01 am

 

Screen Shot 2014-05-28 at 7.24.33 am

The hashtag has now got its own twitter profile, and in under two days has over 10,000 followers. There is something going on in our society and it goes far beyond Elliot Rodger massacring 6 people.

The world rightly claims horror and shock at the actions of Elliot Rodger, however if the #YesAllWomen hashtag is anything to go by then it becomes evident that his ideology and misogynistic views are widespread.  A powerful example is the epidemic rape crisis on college campuses; the college town of Missoula, Montana, recorded at least 80 reported rapes over three years as Time Magazine  recently reported.  Colleges and Universities have become a place where young women are being systematically targeted by men in “horrible and violent attacks”. Campus rape does not end in the mass killing of people, but it is mass violence against women – perpetuated by a sense of ownership over women’s bodies, and often a deep hatred of women. As Isha Aran reported for Jezebel,

“…his rhetoric and general view of entitlement to women is engendered by the same anti-women notions that houses the men’s rights movement. We are told not to give attention to the ideology of a deranged killer, but what are we supposed to do when that ideology is as widespread as misogyny?”

The method in which Rodger carried out his violence may be an anomaly, but he is not an aberration.  As Elizabeth Plank argued on Policymic, most school shooters are white men, most victims of school shootings are women, many school shooters target females that have rejected them in the past, and most school shooters exhibit a large sense of entitlement. If news sites such as Fox and other corporate media are the only sources of news you read, you would come to the conclusion that most school shooters are ‘lone madmen’ with “serious mental health issues’ – ignoring the historical pattern which Plank points to in her article. Plank concludes school shootings are often hate crimes against women.

The everyday sexism Rodger has left as part of his digital legacy on social forums and in his Manifesto, speaks also to a much wider culture of normalised hate speech against women. Jeff Perera – who works for White Ribbon, said when interviewed in relation to the massacre; “Most men do not go to the extreme of violence, but it is important to take a look at some young men who are fluent in the language of violence, where this is the way they resolve conflict… we deny young men emotional literacy.”

We raise boys to comply with a system that works against them. Toxic masculinity teaches boys to deny and subjugate some of the most powerful emotions they have; vulnerability, compassion and empathy. Men are taught not to have emotions – with the exception of anger, but I believe that compassion and vulnerability are our greatest strengths; they are our connection to other people. All people, not just men, are taught to distrust our emotions, when emotions have inherit logic and can as Eve Ensler  said, “lead to radical saving action”. The most defiant act we can perform in a world that tells us to disconnect our hearts from our heads, is to stay connected.

This impact is clear in Rodger, who often wrote about feeling isolated, lonely, frustrated and disconnected from the world.  Tony Porter went on to say;

“Stay stoic and quiet, it is part of the unspoken male code: ‘toughen up son’, ‘suck it up’, ‘Man up’ – this is how we learn to process emotion. This is the cause of our emotional illiteracy. No wonder so many men bury their wounds and insecurities in alcohol, drugs and violence.”

There is a code for men and it promises if you acquire certain things – wealth, a six pack, a nice car, expensive clothes – you will obtain women, and status. This code failed for Rodger and in turn he felt the world had failed him. He didn’t get the girl, despite the fact he came from wealth, drove a BMW,  spoke of wearing Armani suits and considered himself “the perfect gentlemen”. Rodger was a white male from a background of privilege and he was promised the world, but as he perceived it, the world had turned on him. As Jeff Perera asserts in his interview “the quickest way to ascend this [failure] is to use violence.” Perera had previously posted on his facebook;

“Young men are sold an idea that the ‘World Is Yours’, and use women as the rungs to climb that ladder towards being ‘The Man’. When some realize they are not allowed to the highest level of the ladder (an elite level of privilege), their rage is placed towards women.”

Sexism and misogyny is not an individual choice. In reality misogyny and gendered violence is largely structural, cultural and systematic. It’s an arrangement of power. A curious thing happened when women started speaking out about the massacre: men, not all, but enough, pulled out the old “not all men…” and “men were killed too” chestnuts. Saying men died in this tragedy does not magically prove it was not a misogynistic act; it means misogyny hurts men too.  The cries of defense are just a way of refusing to acknowledge that the violence is structural, cultural and systematic. It is just a way of denying that a problem exists. A denial that sadly serves the purposes of the brutal system perfectly.

I know there are good men everywhere, and we need more of these good men to take responsibility for the global issue of violence against women. We desperately need more men to join women’s voices in the fight to end violence, not drown them out. It can be as simple as calling bullshit on the dude telling a sexist joke at work that belittles or demeans women. It can start with not accepting sexual harassment of women; a women should be able to walk down the street without being whistled or yelled at.  It can begin with refusing to adhere to the suffocating construct of toxic western masculinity.

These hegemonic systems of patriarchy that normalise violence and oppression need to be disrupted.  What we are seeing is a resurgence of the assumption that somehow patriarchy is positive and empowering for boys – they are being sold an epic lie.  As Bell Hooks said, “

Boys need healthy self-esteem. They need love. Patriarchy will not heal them. If that were so they would all be well.”

 

Dads “ogle” young girl at prom… and she gets kicked out? 

unnamed

You may already have heard about Clare Ettinger, a 17 year old girl who attended a prom for homeschooled students in Portman, Richmond. She was kicked out by a parental chaperone. In a guest blog adeptly titled, Fuck the Patriarchy which went viral, she said this was due to “some of the dads who were chaperoning had complained that my dancing was too provocative, and that I was going to cause the young men at the prom to think impure thoughts.”

As the journalist and feminist Charles Clymer stated in response, “If you’re at a prom, and you’re told a girl’s attire is making men there uncomfortable, the correct response is asking the men to leave.” But apparently this 17 year old girl posed such a threat to the male minds in the room that she simply had to go.

Clare Ettinger was not only accused of corrupting boy’s thoughts at the prom, she had also been accused of her dress not adhering to the proms dress code. Ettinger is 5’9, rather tall for a 17 year old woman, and while her dress did meet the dress code, it was singled out due to her appearing to be “more leggy” than the other women at the prom. As Ettinger wrote in her blog, “I’m not responsible for some perverted 45 year old Dad lusting after me because I have a sparkly dress on and a big ass for a teenager. And if you think I am, then maybe you’re part of the problem.” Ettinger’s own sexuality as a woman made these grown men uncomfortable. Perhaps the real issue these god fairing fathers had, was trying to hide their shame-boners. As Callie Beusman wrote,

‘We’re taught to think that women’s bodies are by definition impure and that displaying them is automatically salacious and obscene. And we localize that “obscenity” in women’s behaviour, which is patently ridiculous. In this situation, a bunch of fully-grown men were gawking at a teenager’s body, and she’s the one accused of being “inappropriate”? Seriously?’

Making females responsible for the naughty or impure thoughts of others feeds into a culture that polices women’s behaviours.  It shames them when they fail to act or dress in a way that adheres to entrenched expectations of how a women should behave. Slut shaming leads to victim blaming as Kelly Wallace of CNN said,  ‘…that isn’t much of a stretch from “she asked for it” when we blame victims of sexual assault for what they were wearing. Are the thoughts and actions of young men and their fathers really her responsibility?’

Many other schools and Universities have enforced dress codes on women, for example Cameroon’s University of Buea put in place a strict dress code predominantly aimed at young women, one University lecture posted the following rules:

Female students’ dresses should be at knee-level and not [above]. Dresses should not be transparent. They should put on breast wears … Dresses should cover all sensitive parts, like breasts, lower belly, waists, buttocks and, of course, thigh[s]. Trousers should not be too tight and very short.

The University claimed the dress code is necessary to keep students from getting raped.  Clothes do not get women raped this is a myth, 90% of rapes are carried out against women by people they know. As Beusmen said, “Just another reminder that victim-blaming is a global problem, but common sense — and focusing on the rapist rather than the victim — are a global solution.”

Teaching women to cover up so men will not have to fight their sexual urges is ludicrous and it feeds into toxic ideas of masculinity. It implies boys and men cannot control their own sexual urges or thoughts – this is a damaging and pervasive idea taught to men and women. It is an idea that is also insulting and demeaning to both sexes.

It tells women they are to blame if they are raped and it tells men that if they rape it can be blamed on her. After all men, can’t help themselves when a pretty lady in a tight dress is around – this is a dominant [false] orthodoxy enforced in our society.

Calling sexual thoughts or finding another person sexually attractive “impure” implies there is something dirty or unclean about it – making sex or even thinking about sex taboo.

The less healthy and open conversations young people are allowed to have in relation to sex the more blurred lines are drawn in relation to sex and consent. Thinking about sex is healthy and normal. I spent many hours thinking about penises and sex and what might get me off as a teenager – clearly it is not just boys who have “impure thoughts”. What is wrong, is telling young people that sexual thoughts are “impure”, while at the same time they are saturated with hyper-sexualised and objectifying images of female bodies by a mass media that uses sex to sell anything from fucking soft drinks to socks.

The only people who deserve to be shamed for their behaviour are the Dad’s with their shame-boners and Miss. D for kicking Clare out of her own prom, this is just another classic example of slut-shaming at its worst.

Reframing gang culture: humanising the inhuman?

 cUyUvwj

There has been a lot of hype and controversy over the commercial photographer Jono Rotman’s latest body of work which opened last week at Auckland’s Gow Langsford Gallery. Rotman spent 7 years photographing and unpacking narratives of Mongrel Mob members. The results are eight, white framed, life-sized photographic portraits in which predominantly Māori men have been photographed wearing their gang patches, SS helmets and other Nazi paraphernalia and leathers.

It is hard to escape or avoid the reading of Jono Rotman’s work as effectively glamorizing and romanticising gang culture. As Ruth Money from Sensible Sentencing Trust said “I think it is glorifying gang culture and completely offensive to their victims, and the members of the public and society who live a socially acceptable and tolerated life.” Rotman certainly has presented a sanitised portrayal of gang members.

There has been a lot of praise for Rotman’s work, for example; he won the prestigious Marti Friedlander Photographic Award for his photographs of Mongrel Mob members. However, like many other artists making art about other sub-cultures or cultures, Rotman’s work clings to a central narrative of a ‘fringe group’ while documenting the ‘other’ and focuses on male leadership. For all the hype over this work there is nothing particularly interesting about what he has done. As Dr Paul Moon, who lecturers in History at Auckand’s AUT, said when I interviewed him ‘His emphasis on the lurid “other” no doubt has an appeal for some viewers, but at the same time, the echoes with 19th century propaganda art which aimed at denigrating Maori are deafeningly loud.’

Rotman’s series creates an artistic platform which apparently attempts to remind us of the history and humanity of people who are often perceived as inhuman. These gang members come from a sub-culture which is widely known to use the dealing of drugs, violence, intimidation and gang rape for gang initiation, control and power. Anyone who commits crimes like this are arguably monsters.  In light of the atrocities perpetuated by gangs and gang culture, Rotman’s attempts at portraying a human side to these men can be read instead as romanticising this gang culture.  As Rotman states,

“In a wider historical scope this work explores the idea that a predominantly Maori fraternity can be considered a logical and brutal result of the colonial process. Both as tribal orphans and as vessels of post-colonial trauma. Now many generations deep, the Mongrel Mob is an established identity with a complex and arcane lore, and a legacy that extends from the abhorrent to the redemptive.”

Rotman speaks of “the redemptive” but offers no proof of the redemptive in his work. Each man depicted in his photographs still wears their gang patches; they have not left gang life and there is nothing that tells the viewer these men are reformed. I understand Rotman wants to challenge stereotypes of gang members by showing us a “more human side” but at the very same time he perpetuates the colonial stereotype of “the violent savage”, seriously undermining and contradicting the works stated aim. If Rotman was feeling some residual guilt about living in Aotearoa rent free or wanted to address the sins of colonisation, the last thing he should be doing as Dr Moon suggested, is resurrecting iconography applied in the early 19th century and replicating it.  Dr Moon had this to say when I spoke to him,

“Rotman is undoubtedly an accomplished photographer. His potent mix of lighting, composition and perspective produce a striking visual narrative that is hard to dislodge from the memory. But in some of his portraits, he has nudged the representation of Maori backwards – reverting from the passivity of the painter Goldie [Charles Frederick Goldie] to the earlier implication of Māori as a violent race.”

What is both interesting and disturbing about Jono Rotman’s photographic series is each picture, depending on the series purchased, is selling for between $18,000k and $30,000k. The Photographs of predominantly Māori men which are being sold as high art have been taken by a white privileged man and are most likely going to be bought by white Europeans. After all, the high art market can only be afforded by the privileged and rich. As Peter Sykes, head of the Mangere East Family Service Centre, said “The fact is, lots of families from South Auckland won’t be going to see an exhibition in central Auckland.”

When I talked to the Gow Langsford Marketing director I asked if the artworks had been purchased by predominantly white Europeans to which she declined to answer, saying “I do not think I can tell you that information.”

As the people who purchased these photographs, go about their daily domestic business they can gaze upon—from a safe distance—the ‘violent black person’ and think about how well spent their money has been. Isn’t this perverse cultural voyeurism? Do the buyers of these photographs get some titillation from viewing an artwork that captures predominately tattooed Māori mobsters, which perpetuates damaging stereotypes that are inherit from our colonial period? I guess those rich folks buying these photographs can have a sense of absolution knowing most of their money has gone to a children’s charity though? As Dr. Moon said,

“it [Rotman’s work] reinforces those stereotypes of the ‘other’ in some senses it revives the idea of the barbaric savage, which was really the subject of mid 19 century art… and this in a sense revives that approach and it reinforces that lingering feeling that some people have about Maori; that inheritance we have from our colonial period when somehow they [Maori] were barbaric, needing to be civilised and this cuts across this; the image of gang members which becomes a reversion to this stereotype. It accentuates those very negative colonial stereotypes.”

I am not saying white people should not make work about other cultures that happen to be brown, what I am saying is there needs to be some moral accountability if you do.

Apart from perpetuating damaging stereotypes of indigenous people, Rotman has also effectively immortalised an accused killer; Rotman choose to leave in a photograph of Shane Harrison who is on trial for the murder of Sio Matalasi. The decision to exhibit this image seriously undermines the work itself which attempts to humanise the publically perceived inhuman. Not only this but as Rotman’s show opened last week an ex Mongrel Mob prospect  Mauha Fawcett was found guilty of partaking in a brutal and sustained gang rape of Mellory Manning in December of 2008. Her body was found the next day partially clothed, covered in bruises and mutilated. Fawcett murdered her to gain a gang patch. Clearly, art is not made in a vacuum – even if Rotman seems think it is.

When I attended art school one of my photography tutors once asked me, “if someone takes away the rights and freedom of speech of another person, do they deserve to keep theirs?” my tutor’s words ring true in relation to Rotman’s photographic series. He has used photography as a method of telling/discovering these men’s stories, men who are part of a sub-culture which silences other human beings through violence, intimidation, rape and sometimes murder. I know women, one of which is related to me, who have been gang raped and their stories have never been told; their rapists never bought to justice. As Rotman said,

“Because I keep returning, I think they [Mongrel Mob Members] recognise that I’m not in it for a quick media bite. This is a serious body of work and it is part of their story.”

When I tried to get hold of Jono Rotman through the Gow Langsford Gallery to interview him I was told “Jono prefers to let the work speak for itself,” this is an illuminating statement that perhaps also “speaks for itself”. If you are going to use art as a form of serious social commentary then you need to be prepared to answer for your work. Rotman may not consider himself a political artist but he has created and is publically exhibiting a highly political body of work with heavy social and cultural loading. You can wield art as a weapon for change, or you can blow your own foot off with it. There seems to be a major lack of moral and ethically responsibility and consideration from the artist over his own work.

As a well-known New Zealand photographer who has asked to stay anonymous said to me “bold images but they are almost void of any context.”

 

 

 

 

 

Poor people: they just need to buck up their ideas and change their attitude… oh wait minute

TrickleDown

The New Zealand Herald recently posted the opinion piece, ‘Poor’ should stop playing the blame game by Eva Bradley a highly successful young business woman. In her article she offers a diatribe in relation to poor people blaming the government for, well, their poverty. Hedley goes on to deny the existence of ‘The War on the Poor’ in New Zealand while speaking its rhetoric in her article. She holds some pretty pervasive beliefs when it comes to poverty, mainly based on her own anecdotal experience and not on fact or reality. The only evidence she uses to back up her position was from a study by a Washington ‘think-tank’. She stated

“This month a Washington-based think-tank concluded that of 130 countries, New Zealand was the most socially advanced in the world. We got an A+ for personal rights, freedoms, access to schooling, tolerance for minority groups and good water and sanitation.”

The Index used in the study Bradley cites to measure how socially advanced we are left out “indicators such as the employment rate and income inequality” as the New Zealand Herald indeed reported. So basically, the two things that really contribute to growing poverty in NZ were not a part of the study. In New Zealand we do not imprison activists and people who identify as lesbian or gay are able to marry which certainly makes us more socially advanced than other countries but this does not mean we do not have economic disparities.

The book Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis Edited by Max Rashbrooke points out “in a mere 10 years, the financial economy in 1997 went from being 15 times greater than the real economy to 70 times greater than the real economy by 2007.” What many social activists and people in poverty are “whinging about” is a serious gap between the rich and poor – which is very real.

“The gap between high and low incomes has widened faster in recent decades in NZ than in most other developed nations” and “Across all adults the top 1% owns three times as much wealth as the poorest 50%”.

This widening gap between rich and poor is one of the reasons the Occupy Movement was born, and why millions of people from all ages, religions, economic positions and races came out demanding more economic responsibility. They highlighted the fact that most of the world’s wealth is concentrated in just 1% of the world’s population.

People who joined or supported the Occupy Movement knew that all this money the superrich where clinging to would never “trickle-down” to the masses – something which politicians had promised us for decades would happen. In essence this Trickle-down economics can be summed as the idea that by giving big business and the super-rich massive tax breaks, this would benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. It didn’t. As Economist George Reisman said while discussing trickle-down economics…

“Of course, many people will characterize the line of argument I have just given as the ‘trickle-down’ theory. There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress, achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory”

I am not saying this is third world misery, what I am saying is there is plenty of wealth around that people can see, it’s just not in their own pockets. So when parents encourage “their children to hurl abuse at our leaders” perhaps the abuse is warranted? John Key in one way or another subscribes to trickle-down economics he is just not that open about it. In his first term he gave tax cuts to high income earners and companies. He said it would boost the economy because these people would have incentive to earn more which would create jobs. As the Labour Party reports, “Since 2010 National have been promising there are 170,000 jobs going to be created, but they never come, instead we have an additional 60,000 people on benefits since they took office.”

Low income families and those in poverty know they are being screwed and John knows he is screwing them.

Bradley went on to say, “The difference between my upbringing and consequent position in life compared to those encouraging their children to hurl abuse at our leaders and blame them for their struggle is largely one of attitude.” Clearly she is not big on parents raising their children to fight for equality or encouraging them to become thinking beings who want social change. Summed up, Bradley seems to believe the only factor you need in life to pull yourself out of poverty is to be raised with the same belief system she was, “with hard work and commitment, I could achieve whatever I applied myself to”.

Apparently Bradley justifies her strong stance on ‘those poor people’ because she was in fact “…a child of relative poverty myself, growing up in a single-parent home”, she appears to believe poor people just need to stop their “whinging”. Hedley pulled herself out of “relative poverty” so why can’t other people? The problem with her position is, it is akin to when white people say “I am not racist but…”. Just because you came from a low income family or y’know sometimes you like to rough it and hung out with poor people, does not mean you now magically have some kind of authority when it comes to understanding the poverty trap.

Bradley happily points out she is a “white middle-class professional” – just because you acknowledge your white privilege does not mean you understand it. Or though there are more Pākehā in poverty than Māori, poverty impacts Māori more “acutely”. A conclusion the book Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis reached was that “10 Pakeha households live in poverty, 1 in every 5 Māori and Pacific households live in poverty.” Bradley needs to take a class in the systematic oppression of the indigenous people of Aotearoa. As Martyn Bradbury points out

“Māori had 95% of their land appropriated and alienated between 19th Century and 20th Century. (Compensation for the almost complete loss of an economic base in just over a century? A mere $1.4Billion in Treaty settlements. A steal at twice the price you might say. Not only have Maori been ripped off, but they are also forced to live in poverty with the reality of generation’s worth of being ripped off. Insult to injury, jowl by blistered jowl. “

I admire women like Bradley, who in a world that so vehemently tells women to shrink themselves she has carved out a highly successful career in multiple industries dominated by men. What I do not admire are people who perpetuate damaging myths and ideas in relation to the poverty trap. Who cannot grasp the over-arching systems which have and continue to oppress people who are struggling to rise above the poverty line.

The PI vote and political stunts

John Key Embarks On Pacific Islands Visit - Day 3

The mainstream media got quite excited a couple of weeks ago when a number of Pasifika church leaders were photographed at the Manurewa markets wearing blue, Key-people t-shirts. The clergy pictured in those articles said that they had changed allegiance to National as a means of defending their Christian heritage and taking a stand for their families. Only a week later the Conservative Party announced its two candidates to stand in the Labour stronghold seats of Mangere and Manurewa – both of whom are Pasifika. Some will remember the clever politicking on National’s part in the last election, when popular and well-respected community leaders Vaaiga Tuigamala and Michael Jones were photographed with the PM. There’s been enormous comment on facebook, twitter and around church about these stunts, with the underlying question of whether the faithful PI vote to Labour is beginning to erode.

National’s Pacific strategy is built on creating doubt. The kind of doubt that makes Pasifika voters think that it’s the Party that stands for families, Christian ideals and promotes Pasifika talent. This year, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga was appointed Minister of Pacific Island Affairs and while many have criticised his appointment as down-right electioneering, the political analyst in me says it was a brilliant move. He holds the seat of Maungakiekie by just over 3000 votes and will have to work hard this year with the recent boundary changes in Labour’s favour. But for the many people I’ve spoken to at community and church meetings, the government has scored favourably in their eyes for promoting a son of the Pacific. That said, these people will still vote Labour but his appointment has at least softened their view towards National.

The little stunt of taking pictures with National MP’s and PI clergy at the Manurewa Sunday markets – heartland Labour territory – is yet more clever work to merely create doubt. Let’s be clear. Manurewa, Mangere, Manukau East (and Mana) will stay in Labour hands, but there are two pivotal challenges for Labour in these electorates. Firstly, they have to encourage their voters to vote and secondly, they have to grow the Party vote. In 2005, it was the south Auckland vote that gave Clark the opportunity to put a coalition government together and in 2014, the Left will be dependent on that very vote again to form government this time around. But unlike National, it’s going to take more than a few stunts to win their hearts.

Labour’s message has to be clear, inspiring and concise. Just last weekend David Cunliffe addressed more than 3000 people at a conference of the Samoan Assemblies of God church, receiving overwhelming support and endorsement. His message to them was relevant, honest and caring. Some have said that they felt like he had come with the night’s sermon but what’s most important, is that the message he brought connected with them and that’s why he received such a positive response. Unsurprisingly, this event wasn’t covered by the same news agencies who have found political stunt stories by National to be more newsworthy. In Labour’s favour though, their heartland messages are striking the right cords amongst Pasifika voters where it perhaps has the greatest influence: at church.

Labour has the personnel, energy and ideas to mobilise the south Auckland vote. The challenge going forward is to maintain the same level of intensity, inspiration and genuine concern evidenced at the AoG conference going into the September election and beyond.

 

Pharrell: a new brand of feminism?

Screen Shot 2014-04-21 at 7.17.45 am

I think most people heard about how the song Blurred Lines featuring and co-written by Pharrell and performed by Robin Thicke (who has adeptly just been named “Sexist of the Year”) really pissed a lot of people off last year.  The controversy revolved around the lyrical content and the music video. There is something pretty wrong about three fully clothed grown men (T.I makes an appearance) singing violent lyrics like, “I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two” while half naked or completely naked women dance around them. As Elizabeth Plank from Policymic points out, “that is all too common in our media landscape.”

In a nutshell, the video sexually objectifies women. The lyrics are “rapey” and blur the lines of sexual consent as countless social commentators and feminists point out.

Pharrell in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, wanted us to know we just totally misread his song (obviously),

“Blurred lines taught me something… what I learned was not exactly what you would expect; it wasn’t what some of the critics, the feminist women were feeling about it ‘cos I can explain that… most of them got the message that most women are good girls who have bad thoughts, so there is a blurred line… All I was saying [in blurred lines] was “that man” is not your maker, meaning he is not the creator and he is not a part of the evolution… he cannot give birth, he cannot make an egg… You don’t need no papers you are not a possession… and that was the point.”

Thanks for the lesson on what my reproductive organs can do Pharrell! I might have tried to, you know, not have children and follow one of my life’s ambitions of getting my PHD. But now that I know I am in fact The Creator, (that has a nice ring to it? Maybe I should give Mel Gibson a call and offer him the movie rights to my forthcoming pregnancy?) I should probably start squirting out babies as fast as I can. I have always wondered what it might be like to be god, now I might just find out. Anyway, apart from the fact Pharrell clearly does not understand evolution (it takes two to tango) he seems to be really struggling with understanding or even seeing his own misogyny. Misogyny is a deceptive thing, it can be really hard for people to identify misogyny in themselves. There is a fantastic analogy for this by Dr. Caroline Heldman, “it is like being raised in a red room, being pulled out of that red room, and asked to describe the colour red”.

The fact that Pharrell seems to believe he was empowering women in his song Blurred Lines and that millions of people misread him is seriously worrying. It is symptomatic of a culture that perversely sells the idea that a women’s empowerment is achieved by gaining the attention of men. There is nothing empowering about half naked or completely naked women being sexually objectified while a very clothed Robin Thicke uses explicitly non-consensual language such as “I know you want it”. Just in case anyone is confused about what sexual objectification is, it is “the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of individuals with complex desires/plans of their own.”

In his interview with Oprah he talked about how much respect he had for his mum, his wife and the women in his life. Oprah went on to say “Pharrell has recently been using his voice to shine a spotlight on women’s rights.” Pharrell said,

“You realise how sad it is, that there is a perception that is catered to a male dominated world. A man cannot make an egg [I think he meant babies] a man cannot give birth. If women wanted to in this country, if they wanted to, all they would have to do is not go to work and come home… but all I am saying is if women got tired, of the way that we were handling ourselves as a species, all y’all need to do is to hold hands and not make any more babies.”

There you have it everyone! If women want to end war and achieve equality, we just need to hold hands (close our legs) and not have any more babies. BOOM world peace here we come. Why didn’t I think of that?! Obviously women are already “tired”. Which is why women like Eve Ensler created V-Day, a global organisation which aims to end violence against women. And why the Suffragettes went on hunger-strikes and were force fed through tubes and sent to prisons for demanding equal rights and their democratic right to vote – you know, those basic rights white men generally get as a give-in. Women have been tired for a long time, but holding hands and having a fucking sing along is not going to end war or stop gender inequality.

During his interview with Oprah, Pharrell reflected on what he came to realise by co-writing a song like Blurred Lines,

“…what I learned out of that song was, man, I had a much bigger demographic so I instantly knew I wanted to make the album [GIRLS] I always wanted to make, which was devotion to a demographic that had been taking care of me and my family for over twenty years and that was women.”

Pharrell’s new Album GIRLS is a “…a tribute to women” he said and feels it comes from a feminist position, I think Pharrell could learn a thing or two from Beyonce when it comes to making an album from a “feminist position”. I understand Pharrell is trying to remove himself from the negative backlash the song Blurred Lines bought him but he is going about it the wrong way.

GIRLS is clearly about his devotion to women with the album cover depicting him and 3 women in bathrobes… apparently he knows how to devote himself to 3 women at once. But devotion in itself is some interesting language; words like “devotion” point to worshiping women or having them as your muse which creates its own inequality and power imbalance. I think Pharrell would really benefit from reading some literature on feminism before he opens his mouth again and starts talking about how amazing it is women can “make an egg”. Because the only power women have is to either give birth or get naked, apparently?

Just because you say you are a feminist does not make you one.

As my good friend John astutely pointed out while I was discussing this article with him, “declaring oneself to be ‘feminist’ or ‘standing for women’s rights’ is one thing. But a declaration itself is not enough. Anyone who considers themselves in favour of women’s rights has a responsibility to learn theory, and to use it to deconstruct patriarchal structures. Particularly men, who are benefited by a system of privilege that is invisible to them/us.”

John openly admits he used to wave the banners of feminism while objectifying and treating women pretty badly, but he came to the realisation that doing one thing does not absolve you of the other. He went on to say, “For men, this means introspection and self-critique, as well as examining the power-structures that benefit them as a class. The artists behind Blurred Lines can easily say that they are in favour of women’s rights. But their declarations do nothing to erode the patriarchy, while their actions continue to perpetuate rape culture.”

We do not need public figures like Pharrell coming out with their own brands of Feminism which are often really contradictory and shallow. We do not need them lifting the banners of equality for us – we do not need men to validate our voices. What we need are more men like John coming out with their own kind of masculinity – a response to the small “man box” men are expected to fit into. As Tony Porter in his ted talk called “A Call to Men” points out;

“Growing up we were taught: men had to be tough, we had to be strong, had to be courageous, dominating; no pain; no emotion with the exception of anger. And defiantly no fear. That men are in charge, which means women are not… That men are superior; women are inferior. That men are strong; women are weak. That women are of less value; property of men. I’ve learnt to come to know this to be the socialisation of men, better known as “The Man Box”.

10250757_10154050363690230_676826763_n
“Man Box” image was created by university students at York University in Toronto

These socially pervasive beliefs and harmful binaries Tony speaks of rob and teach men to orphan some of the most powerful emotions they have; compassion, empathy and vulnerability. These pervasive social beliefs also work to create and maintain rape culture and violence against women, they lead to men like Pharrell and Thicke truly believing that by writing a song like Blurred Lines they are helping to “liberate” women – and worse still it leads to people agreeing with them!?!

We need less men declaring their allegiance to feminism and more men unpacking patriarchy and challenging toxic modes of masculinity. We desperately need to connect the conversations of toxic masculinity and violence and oppression against women.  As Elizabeth Plank points out, “gender ideals [gender policing] aren’t only damaging for women; they’re universally harmful.”

There are many men who are calling bullshit on patriarchy and misogyny, from Carlos Andres Gomez the spoken word poet who wrote the memoir, Man Up: reimagining manhood. In which he acknowledges his own past misogyny and how he has worked to change his behaviour, to Jeff Perera who works for White Ribbon in America who believes “…a missing and vital key toward inspiring healthy manhood and a new generation of men, is to teach them to walk the earth in a state of mindfulness.” And of course Tony and Sunil who I spoke about previously in this blog.

The more men who write and create “maps to manhood” and deconstruct and redefine what it can be, the more chance people like Pharrell and Thicke have of understanding that by writing then performing a song like Blurred Lines they are not helping women, they are furthering the oppression of them. While at the same time―perpetuating damaging ideals and stereotypes of manhood.

Will the daily body shaming and policing of women’s behaviour ever end? Apparently not.

unnamed-1

The last few months have been particularly bad for the shaming and policing of women’s bodies in the media, both in New Zealand and globally. First we had NZ Newstalk ZB presenter Rachel Smalley referring to women weighing over 70kgs as “heifers” and “a bunch of lardos” on air when she thought her microphone was switched off – awkward. Then we had the embarrassingly homophobic and sexist (pulled, after outcry) Veet which declared failing to remove your leg-hair would turn you into a dude within 24 hours. “Don’t Risk Dudeness” was Veet’s slogan – because all good girls make sure they are waxed and shaved to flawless perfection or suffer the consequences of “dudeness” or worse yet, possible spinsterhood. 

Then we have Tony Burke, the guy who in 2011 started the facebook group creatively called, “Women Who Eat on Tubes” (nice work, moron). The title says it all really; predominantly men taking non-consensual photos of women eating on, yep you guess it, the Tube. Burke, after his site gained attention this year, told BBC Radio 4 Today, he started the group as an “observational study – just like any reportage photography” and that he was from “an artistic community”.

As someone who did half a decade of Art School and majored in photography (which is why I am still busting tables) I believe I hold some weight when I say that Women Who Eat on Tubes is not “reportage photography”. In actuality what these photographs amount to is gender policing, and not only do they harass women but the photos publicly shame them for performing normal bodily functions… like you know, eating. We also shit and pee and puke which I know is horribly unladylike and not very sexy, but a gal’s gotta do what a gal’s gotta do.

unnamed
In fact not so long ago the French comedian Remi Gaillard undertook a similar endeavour as Burke, but he kicked it up notch. Gaillard, non-consensually videoed himself performing “pretend” sexual acts on unknowing women who were going about their normal daily business, or as he liked to call it “air sex”. Because rape is just so fucking funny – I mean it is only simulated “pretend rape”, right? What is the big deal? I felt like punching my computer screen as I wrote that. Gaillard’s “comedic act” managed to glorify and minimise rape all in one great swooping cinematic action.

unnamed
Will there be no end to the creative ways people find to humiliate, police and shame women? Apparently not.
Katrina Turner, a model and the organiser for the New Zealand’s Miss. Bikini Pageant and former 2012 winner of the pageant herself, recently told her finalists that they needed to “tone up” and loose weight. I had the opportunity to speak with Turner regarding her comments, and during our conversation I asked her, “Do you think by asking contestants to tone up and loose weight, you feed into a culture which objectifies women and only values them for how they look?” Turner responded with

“The whole goal of Miss. Bikini NZ celebrates the beauty of women; we love all shapes and sizes, however [and it was a big “however”] our winner goes to an international competition. We are a franchise. She is competing against 70 plus other countries, and the girls overseas have a certain standard of the way they need to look. So if you are entering a competition that is swimsuit based… of course there are going to be standards. And having a great body is one of them.”

I guess Turner has a point, really? She made it clear that “all contestants knew what they were getting themselves into” and that they are aware this was a competition based on how you look. However Turner did state “the original message I sent to them [the contestants], I wish I had communicated it to them in a different way with slightly different terminology, because I am not a dietician or trainer”. 
Effectively 17 teenagers and women have been asked to shed “some pounds” in less than a month. And although Turner has hired a trainer called Mike to help the girl’s lose weight “healthily”, it would be hard to shake those pounds in such a short space of time without resorting to some unhealthy eating tactics.

Katrina Turner is [unconsciously] feeding into an over-arching cultural construct which tells women the only currency you have is your body. People, publically and privately make comments like Turners (Rachel Smelley is a good example of someone saying something privately, but it went public) everyday, believing their words are benign when in fact they are perpetuating the constant commentary, policing and shaming of women’s bodies.
I think Katrina Turner made an interesting point when she said to me “contestants knew what they were getting themselves into”. As women we should know intrinsically what we are getting ourselves into from the get go, and I am not just talking about pageants. After all, there is no escaping the daily rape jokes (Remi Gaillard seems to have these down to a fine art) which minimise and trivialise epidemic levels of violence against women, or being told to shed some pounds to fit some ideal which is impossibly hard to obtain. Certainly being told that you are too fat, is not just a “pageant thing”. Everyday women pass billboards that show impossibly thin girls, who are usually white, dictating the ideal body shape and size and ethnicity – and probably selling some shit you do not need to buy.

The more time spent on changing our bodies, the less time we have to change the world. Capitalist patriarchy is built around distracting [us] from the real problems; closing the pay gap between men and women (which has increased 2 per cent in the past decade to 26 per cent), fighting to end violence against women and children, making sure every child has access to free education.

We cannot even eat in public without some creepy dude with an IPhone taking a snapshot, so it can be uploaded online and complete strangers can say how “grotesque women look when they eat” and tell us that “we [women] should not eat in public”. What should we do instead, stay tethered to the kitchen?

The reality is that most of the behaviour I have pointed out here is “socially enforced” as Laurie Penny points out, “Gender policing is all about the little things. It’s the daily, intimate terrorism of beauty and dress and behaviour…. Cultural disgust for the female body is deeply political. It is tied into reproductive and social control”. Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister, appointed himself Women’s Affairs Minister, when he was elected in 2013. A man who is pro-life and once described abortion as the “easy way out”, is fanatically religious, and had his two daughter’s parade around in white dresses during his acceptance speech.

Between being called “lardos”, having some dude who thinks he is being funny, simulating “pretend sex” with women while filming it without permission, and people in government telling us if we can or cannot have babies, a pervasive picture is being painted of how little women are valued in our society and the lengths which are taken to control women’s behaviour. In the words of Beyonce,

“Just another stage to pageant the pain away. This time I’m gonna take the crown without falling down, down, down. Pretty hurts. Shine a light one whatever is worse. Perfection is the disease of a nation. Pretty hurts, pretty hurts, pretty hurts.”

A case study of racism by Police at Auckland Airport

cartman_cop

A couple of days ago I returned from Samoa after attending a family matter and some contract work. Spending a few days in the warmth of our homeland was welcome relief from the cold weather starting to make its presence felt in NZ at present. Dressed in the customary shorts, t-shirt and jandals, we stopped briefly at Duty-free to pick up some supplies. Whilst there I had an unfortunate disagreement with the counter person who wasted my time trying to upsell products to me, after I presented her with the goods I wanted to pay for and get going. Holding my baby who was clearly tired from the flight, I thought was evidence enough that I wasn’t interested in chocolates, perfume or any more alcohol. But she persisted and I made it clear that I just wanted to pay for my stuff and go. Eventually I got an apology from them for wasting our time.

About 10 minutes later as we preceded to customs to give our passports and collect our bags, a couple of uniformed police officers made themselves known to us, requesting that we step out of the line to answer some questions. Holding our carry-on luggage and exhausted child we step out of the line to answer their queries. Unsure as to why they’re looking so aggressive towards us, we thought to go along with the conversation in the hope that it would be quick, professional and respectful. I had just returned from Samoa, where all the conversations I’d had were the latter – professional and respectful. I was quickly reminded that we were in NZ and the Police have a pretty different view of how conversations are conducted.

The officer opened the conversation by defending the store person and outlining their job description to upsell products. Somewhat bemused that he had taken the role of either her manager or union delegate I tried to understand why he had stopped us in the first place. I also wanted to know if this was going to be a conversation that adults had – where one person speaks and the other listens, then vice versa. He continued over the top of me before demanding my passport and other bits of information like name, address and occupation. Refusing to surrender my passport until such time as he allowed me to speak, he moved his hands towards his handcuffs while this time, in an even firmer and louder voice, told me that we were in a customs-controlled area and I was to surrender my passport immediately. Again, I queried him on why we had been stopped with no answer other than a clear command to surrender my passport.  Of some concern to us as well, was that the other officer stood body-up next to my wife with what seemed to be an attempt to intimidate her.

This discussion went on for some time. In the end I was more than happy to give him my passport and personal details but wanted him to understand that when you ask a person a question, the accepted practice was to allow them to answer. I tried to outline how confused I felt that when he spoke he expected me to listen and stop speaking, but when I spoke he had the right to interrupt, and then ask something else. It was obvious to me that we needed to agree to some rules around how we would conduct this conversation because we both had very different expectations. I was also keen to understand why he was so quick to offer a defence of the shop person after she and her manager had apologised to us for the way in which they dealt with us. None the clearer, after about 20 minutes he saw fit to end the conversation by saying he’d held us up long enough and we should proceed through customs. Even more intriguing was he even offered me advice on how I could fix my attitude.

Outside the obvious, there were a couple of things that stood out for me during this encounter. Firstly, the officer seemed quite agitated by my questioning of him as to why we had been arbitrarily stopped and pulled out of the line. I got the impression that for him, conversations were had where he asks all the questions and I was to answer only what he wanted to hear. He had no intention of hearing me out and essentially tried to bully me into doing what he wanted and nothing more. Secondly, after he asked me what my occupation was his tone, body language and approach changed. Almost instantly he asked me in a now somewhat courteous tone to offer my version of events. I took from this change of attitude that a perception he held of me had shifted and he was now prepared to engage with me as an equal, as an adult. My expectation of the Police is that when they speak to anyone, they haven’t already “profiled” them in their minds.

I wonder if things would’ve been different if I was wearing a suit, or had a regular haircut and not a shaved head, or if I was palagi. Further, I wonder how different things could’ve been if I wasn’t as proficient in English; didn’t understand my legal rights and didn’t see myself as an equal to him. These are the challenges faced by numerous young people, Maori and Pasifika communities as many of us feel bullied and disempowered by the Police in our interactions with them. My wife and I are both educationalists and whilst angered and insulted by the experience, we were glad that our daughter witnessed her parents engage in this unpleasant and biased dialogue with the cops. We want to model to her how to stand up for her rights: for what’s fair, just and reasonable in a manner that’s respectful and sure.

This treatment of us was appallingly disgraceful and we have lodged a formal complaint with the Police.

 

 

Film Review: Divergent 3stars

divergent_poster_hq

 

The film Divergent, based on the wildly successful trilogy by Veronica Roth (who started penning the series before she even turned 20),  is set 100 years into the future in post war dystopian Chicago, the world is now divided into five faction Amity (peaceful), Erudite (intelligent), Dauntless (courage), Candor (honest) and Abnegation (selfless), who also govern the city. There is also the Fractionless, those who never completed their full initiations into a fraction, who live in abject poverty and on the edges of the city.

 

At 16 years all citizens must take a test to help determine which fraction they belong. Tris, (Shailene Woodley) our main protagonist, undergoes her test but her results are inclusive (a rarity). Tris is “Divergent”, meaning she doesn’t fit into any one category. In a post-apocalyptic society whose leaders revere order in the pursuit of peace, those who cannot be controlled through categorisation become a threat to the established order of things. Tris is destined to rail against the system, and many will draw parallels to the fearless Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) from The Hunger Games.

 

Tris, during the choosing ceremony which all 16 year olds must partake picks Dauntless, and enters a world of dare-devil risk taking, knife throwing and physical and mental endurance… oh and of course teen romance. Four (Theo James ), one of the  fraction leaders who also trains new initiates is the stereotypical brooding hot guy, who of course gains the attention of Tris.

Divergent follows a pretty generic formula and it is a shame the director Neil Burger (Limitless) made the decision to leave out some of the darker parts of the book. Some of the Dauntless initiation tests including new initiates being pitted against each other in violent battles including male-on-female fights leave them broken, bruised and bloodied. The most we see in the film is a black eye and a bloodied nose.

Some of the supporting characters such as Al, who in the book is a sensitive and complex person, are reduced to two dimensional characters leaving you struggling to feel any sense of sadness when characters are hurt or killed off.  However, Burger manages to ensure the looming gestapo-like overthrow of Abnegation so other fractions can seize power, is palpable throughout. There is still enough dare-devil action and guns blazing to keep you engaged and interested. Burger also avoids “doe-eyed” moments between Four and Tris, instead they work together to conceal Tris’s true nature of Divergent (Four, figured out there was something different about her early on), and there is more kick-ass than make-out from these two.

Divergent does not exactly showcase any amazing cinematography and the production design is drab and dull, but ultimately, as a major fan of the Divergent trilogy and teen fiction in general, it is gratifying to see that Tris’s character has been preserved.  Tris is still the badass, ass-kicking heroine she is in the book, who does not need some sparkly misogynist with a nice car to save her, from her “clumsy” self (Twilight has much to answer for). Tris is defiant and thoughtful but has selfish tendencies, and I found this refreshing in a world which teaches women to be so fucking selfless, all the time. Lord knows we need to see more teenage female characters like this in mainstream Hollywood.

 3 stars