Minor breakouts of major gripes

I’d long ago realised that part of the reason I post cussy rants about things that seem like just small issues, not a huge deal, isn’t there something more important to worry about – is because those “small issues” just tap into much bigger problems.

Today, two such small issues reared their annoying heads.

The continuing saga of Oh Noes The Brown Man Said A Mean Word broke out on Red Alert, with Hon Trevor insert-duck-to-water-metaphor-here Mallard chipping in to the debate:

If a Pakeha used the term brown mofos it would be racist.  That standard should apply both ways.

Which actually hits several big Pisses Me Right The Fuck Off buttons.  But to summarise:  using the argument of “the same standard” is so close to “one law for all” they couldn’t legally marry in all 50 states of the US.  It’s “special rights”, it’s “level playing field”, and it’s bullshit.

There isn’t a fucking level playing field when one group of people has been historically shat on by another from orbit.  There isn’t a tabula rasa of race relations where such lovely “can’t we all just be equals and ignore skin colour and historical disenfranchisement and oh we tried to destroy your language and culture” ideas can be writ large.

There is a basic reason why a person of Maori descent can refer to “white motherfuckers stealing our land” which does not hold true for a person of European descent saying “brown motherfuckers stealing our car”.  That reason is privilege.  Learn you some.

Second small issue:  in the continuing if-they-wrote-this-for-TV-no-one-would-believe-it tale of Doug Schmuck and some possibly-dodgy legislative drafting, one quote nicely put its thumb directly on my White Middle Class Bastards Who Just Love Law And Order Until It Applies To Them button.

The 15-year fight for the Opua boat ramp had taken “a hell of a lot of time” and cost Mr Schmuck close to $200,000. “A few objectors can run the costs up so high that it makes things like the Resource Management Act untenable,” he said.

Ah, yes.  You can always spot a WMCBWJLL&OUIATT, by the way they seem completely oblivious of the fact that the law still counts even when it might stop them from doing something they want to do.

The classic example is provided every time there’s a Police crackdown on speeding, possibly by, oh the horrors, using hidden speed cameras.  Now, you might think “well if people don’t want to get speeding tickets they could try not speeding”, but such thoughts do not pass through the brains of White Middle-Class Bastards. No no no, this is just a revenue gathering exercise.

It’s not like their own speeding could cause accidents or cost people their lives or anything.  We all know that speed only kills when it’s those bloody Asian homestay students whose rich daddies send them thirty grand a month to buy Ferraris and meth with, obviously.  The laws of physics are very specific on this.

The other classic, of course, is the killing of Pihema Cameron – where the Your Sensible Is Not Like Our Earth Sensible Sentencing Trust decided that actually, that whole “tough punishment for violent crims is the way to save society” line didn’t so much count when the stabber was a rich white guy and the victim was [insert stereotype about Maori teenage boys here].

And so we have (oh Gods it makes me giggle every time) Doug Schmuck.  Who has been nearly bankrupted, dear readers, by busybodies and that bane of the WMCB, the Resource Management Act.  All because he built a private fucking boat ramp on a fucking public reserve.

It’s almost like some people expect Good Hardworking [White Male] Businessmen to obey the law or something.  Don’t they understand the law is for the little people?

Down Under Feminists’ Carnival: I learned the truth at 17, that love was a patriarchal construct keeping me down

It’s that time of the month again – carnival time!*

Here it is, people, Volume XVII of the DUFC, containing the very best of Southern Hemisphere feminist discourse for the month of September.

Ten Simple Rules for Surviving Patriarchy

1. Mess Up That Dominant Paradigm Good And Hard

Boganette is leading the charge here with her sheer audacity in letting people know she isn’t going to change her name on marriage.  Gold star for the bonus cognitive dissonance caused by having a male partner willing to take her name!  It’s just not right!

Chally needs to you understand that you cannot actually be that progressive if you refer to things as “lame”.

In A Strange Land destroys Greg Sheridan’s reasoning why women shouldn’t be allowed in frontline combat positions.  I’m just amazed he didn’t raise the extra cost involved of shipping manicurists to warzones.  Then she takes on gender essentialism and what “woman” means.

2. Speak Truth to Power/Bigotry/Douchebags/Patriarchy

Just in case there were any concern that feminists just don’t talk about important issues enough …

Lauredhel reports on a Canadian study about the actual risks of injuries to mother and baby in homebirths vs hospital births.  Jo Tamar provides some analysis of why, despite the facts, doctors still prefer hospital births.

Spilt Milk writes an open letter to Kyle “Trigger Warning” Sandilands, whose work I am eternally grateful has never made it over the Tasman.

Chally reminds us that there are many different ways to be an activist.

Julie at the Hand Mirror reports on the Roundtable on Violence Against Women’s factsheet, released in response to the sentencing of Clayton Weatherston; and Anna takes on the odious CYFSWatch.

3. Break Down Controlling Narratives

shinynewcoin takes apart the notion of being “high maintenance” and the way it punishes women for doing what they’re supposed to.

Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony draws a fantastic comparison between men’s and women’s “risky” behaviour.

Richie dissects the good old “But I didn’t meeeeeeeeeeeean to!” line.

Lauredhel says yes, “these things” did happen in your day, you just said “boys will be boys”.

4. Don’t Forget The Men

Feminists are often criticised for making it all about the chicks and not caring about the poor oppressed suffering men.  There’s something in that.

We should definitely care about the men who get to have parental-celebration barbeques while women-parents shop, as documented by Fuck Politeness.  And we would be terribly remiss not to care about fathers getting governmental thank-yous for having the balls to financially support their own children, as brilliantly savaged by shinynewcoin.

Boganette has a Public Service Announcement about how it’s not your period that broke up your relationship, it’s the fact your boyfriend was an asshole.

5. Eat, Drink, Wear a Size Blah and Be Merry – or don’t

Chally links to an online feminist bookclub.

Boganette would be most delighted if you could not tell her she’s lost weight, asshole.  PodBlack Cat doesn’t drink, and has not been stripped of her Aussie citizenship for it.

Boganette and News With Nipples both cover the report which shows some women drink before sex due to self-esteem issues with their bodies.  Boganette is full of scorn, NWN wonders what the connection is with the study’s funders, Femfresh (for all your labia-deodorant needs),

6. Be Inspired By Women Who Rock

The Hoydens About Town presents an obituary of Barbara Moore:  Feminist, Lawyer, Writer & Grad Student of the University of Melbourne.  Bloody powerful stuff there.

Godard’s Letterboxes has the mighty Sarah Connor at #3 on their Top 100 Sci Fi and Fantasy Women list.  So far, so kickass, but if there ain’t a Servalan or an Ivanova showing up shortly there shall be a reckoning.

7. Have Kids and Consign Yourself to the Fight Against Gender Stereotyping and Societal Expectation

This is clearly a big issue of our times, and that’s just going by how often it crops up in the Australofemiblogosphere.  Heck, it starts before the bub even arrives!

Two posts on breastfeeding laws in WA: Lauredhel celebrating the likely law change, and girliejones explaining that yeah, she WANTS the freaking symbolism.

Godard’s Letterboxes has boys, not aliens.  blue milk has a boy and a girl – clearly the perfect sample for making wide conclusions about inherent gender differences.

Wildly Parenthetical wonders what’s so great about having a normal childhood.  Made in Melbourne sees people comparing the pole-dancing doll to the breastfeeding doll and is perplexed. Tor notes that the lovely paradox of performing femininity hits you good and young.

Lauredhel struggles with the eternal question, “How can feminist mums avoid being humorless childhood-ruiners?”

8. Celebrate Suffrage Day

September 19 was Women’s Suffrage Day in NZ.  Anne Else used the occasion to savage Chris Trotter’s waxing lyrical about the NZ Labour Party getting its manliness back on – apparently those 9 years in power under a woman leader were the worst thing to happen, or something.

In A Strange Land reprints the Women’s Christian Temperance Union’s reasons why women should get the vote, and Homepaddock features a cartoon from the era – why my househusband isn’t in the kitchen cooking my dinner right now is my question!

9. Refuse to Give a Fuck About Artistic Careers

In A Strange Land looks at the concept of moral luck, and about sums up the Polanski argument for me:

I don’t care how great a filmmaker he is. The fact is that he was convicted of raping a thirteen year old child, and he fled from justice.

An Irritating Truth gives good tips on how to be a socially-acceptable sex offender.

10. Remember, Little-p Politics Matter

The policing of trans people’s gender presentation.  Being a feminist in the open-source world.  The wider issues about “right to die” arguments – like the limited options people may be given.  The dominance of the male voice.  The wording of and assumptions underlying “scientific” surveys.  Whether privileged people’s “choice” trumps basic cultural sensitivity.  And why fear of genital mutilation doesn’t warrant refugee status in Australia.

That’s all she wrote!  Remember to submit your posts for the next edition of the Carnival, being hosted by Jo over at Wallaby.  ETA at Jo’s request:  The theme is Carers’ Week / Caring.  See her comment below for more info!

And if you’re ever at a loss for some good reading material, check out my own DUFC Contributors’ List (soon to be updated with this month’s new additions, I promise!).

Next time on Ideologically Impure:  savaging critique of the “posts” that didn’t make it into the Carnival, largely due to being horrible spam.

*Remember, boys, if you don’t actually want to know the details of my menstrual cycle, you are free to (a) not ask and (b) not ascribe my annoyance at you to it.

Rich white man expected to suffer consequences of own actions, end times nigh

Kate Harding basically nails it on the Roman Polanski issue, at Salon.com and then Jezebel.

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.).

I don’t really have anything to add, because it’s just boggling my mind how this is even an issue.  How “he raped a child and fled the country to avoid being punished for it” is somehow not that bad because he’s made some movies and been forced to live in the cultural wasteland that is France for years.

Why chicks dig “jerks”

George Sodini walked into a fitness club and killed three women, injured nine, and then took his own life.

He put this down to women not being attracted to him.

There’s a lot being written about his sense of entitlement (or rather, the exaggerated nature of a sense of entitlement hardly unique to him).  And a lot of people uncritically quoting the line from his blog about calculating exactly how many million “desirable” women there were (Lord knows he wasn’t bitter about the ugly “hoes” who weren’t putting out).  And of course, the Nice Guy (TM) phenomenon is getting a bit of attention; and this article at Salon gave me an eye-opening moment.

Because we’re taught to be polite, submissive, and generous even when men are making us uncomfortable, we automatically reach for the “nice guy, but…” out….

Guys, you are not being rejected because you are too nice. Niceness is a positive characteristic. I doubt any straight woman — even the kind with a stated preference for “bad boys” — has ever said to herself, “Hmm, I’d be really into this guy if he weren’t so compassionate, thoughtful, and respectful. If he’d just dick me around and insult me a little more, I’d want to rip his clothes off.” If you get rejected by every woman you approach, the problem could be a million different things, but I guarantee it’s not that you’re just too kind for your own good.

There’s an ancient, but pointed, joke.

Q.  What’s the difference between a slut and a bitch?
A.  A slut is a woman who sleeps with everyone.  A bitch is a woman who sleeps with everyone except you.

Suddenly, reading the Salon article, the skies parted, angels sang in heavenly chorus, and BOOM! Epiphany.

Listen up, Nice Guys: the idea you cling to, that women only like jerks/assholes/bad boys?

Is totally valid.

When your definition of “jerk” is “guy currently fucking the woman you want to fuck“.

And if you’re the kind of guy who conceptualizes women as a binary of “do/do not want to fuck”, and perceives all other men – especially men currently in relationships with women in the first category – then guess what?

We’re probably saying “you’re a nice guy, but …” because you give off a fucking creepy vibe and we do not want to have a confrontation with your insecurity and belief that you are owed sex by the universe.

And that’s on top of the fact that as women we’ve probably been told from day 1 of our existences to be demure/polite/quiet/dignified/submissive/accepting/passive/accommodating/to not make a fuss/cause a scene/disturb other people/shriek/nag/bitch/be shrill/loud/assertive/independent/strong/autonomous.

Not that that’ll be taken into consideration when we’re sexually harassed by higher-status influential rich white men or anything.

Well SOMEBODY’S being provoking …

And no, I don’t think it’s Clayton Weatherston’s parents – it’s the anonymous NZPA staffers* who haven’t got the fairly loud “provocation defence NOT COOL, people” message resounding across the country recently.

Let’s play a wee game of spot-the-disparity, shall we?

Headline:

Weatherston was ‘provoked – parents’

Intro:

Convicted murderer Clayton Weatherston should spend the rest of his days behind bars, say his victim’s family, but his parents maintain he was provoked into killing his ex-girlfriend.

Actual quote from Weatherston’s parents?

Mr and Mrs Weatherston acknowledged their son was unpopular but believed he was provoked by Miss Elliott.

“The use of provocation as a defence is a legitimate legal thing to do,” Mr Weatherston said.

“I think provocation was the only thing left to defend him with.”

Hmm. Seems like someone’s sure interested in towing that “Sophie Elliot was horrible catty nagger, sometimes men can’t help it because teh wimminz are MEANIES” line, but it doesn’t appear to be Mr and Mrs Weatherston.

(The line between “use of provocation as defence is legitimate” and “use of provocation as excuse to smear murdered woman and her family” being a rather different matter, of course.)

*Totally off-topic – notice how the people who are always whinging that bloggers are “anonymous” don’t seem to have the same objections to literally anonymous press reports?

Emma Hart is my homegirl

And she has a fucking amazing piece up in honour of NZ Women’s Refuge’s Annual Appeal.  Warning: very likely triggering, depiction of domestic abuse.

Imagine you’re a woman. This will be easier for some of you than others, obviously. Enjoy the easy, it’s about to get harder.

It of course takes a mere page of comments before idiocy emerges, but you can’t win them all.

It is the Women’s Refuge Annual Appeal week, and I thoroughly encourage y’all to donate, because they do hugely important, heartbreaking work that needs to be done.

Sobering fact of the day in case anyone’s feeling callous or indifferent about abuse: their website has a “Hide My Visit” button.  Because there are women out there whose partners will search their browser history and attack them physically if they find evidence – like a visit to a Refuge website – that their victims might be looking for a way out.

Good news:  Clayton Weatherston was found guilty of murder.  To hell with you, bullshit “provocation” defence.  Anjum has some thoughts on the verdict.

Funny of the day:  Gordon Campbell eviscerates the appointment of Don Brash to the Government’s shiny new productivity forum. Wage gap with Australia? HOW COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED?

Another, horrible, reason

Via No Right Turn, a man has been sentenced to 12 months in prison for beating his daughter over the head with a lump of concrete.  This was apparently in the aid of good parental correction when she refused to go to his church, or something.

And this is why I will vote yes, and this is why I will forever be fucking pissed off at people who complain that “there’s a difference between a light smack and child abuse” and “I never hit my kids, I just smacked them“.

I mean, first of all because they’re wrong, but that’s a whole ‘nother flamewar.

Because here’s the thing, pro-smackers.

Sure, you see the magical line between smacking and hitting.

You’re the kind of parents who don’t abuse their kids but just sometimes give them taps on the bottom as part of loving discipline.

So it seems totally kosher to you that parents should be legally allowed to defend their actions as being reasonable force.

But when you stand up and say “parents know what’s best for their children, and sometimes physical discipline is the only recourse”? And when you say “the nanny state shouldn’t interfere with the parent-child relationship” and when you say “look, this guy is a good parent, he was just at the end of his tether“?

This guy?

Thinks you support what he did.

So it’s about the right to hit good parents?

Lyndon Hood’s spreadsheet guide to voting in the forthcoming [insert ideological slant] referendum is amazing, and offers a great reason not to write rude things on your ballot – it’s not the little orange person’s fault the question’s stupid, is it?

The question is stupid and its writers should feel stupid

Great list of suggestions for alternative questions in our upcoming “child discipline” referendum over at The Dim Post.  I’m a particular fan of:

Should a smack as part of good parental driving out of devils be considered a criminal offense in New Zealand?

And the commenter who extensively cited Lewis Carroll gets ALL the e-cookies.

So far the leaders of our two major political parties have variously indicated that they agree the question is stupid (but seem to have determinedly avoided pointing out that this is due to our CIR procedures being rubbish in this regard) and probably won’t vote.

Well, I’m going to vote.  Because the people who put forward questions like this are not overly swayed by facts.  If only 80,000 people actually fill in their ballots correctly and 75% are no-votes, which of those numbers are we going to hear about?  The pathetic turnout or the “75% of people think section 59 should be put back into effect!” spin?

Voting yes, for me, isn’t just about supporting a law that is working or making a stand against all violence in New Zealand families.  And it’s not just a way of saying “fuck off” to Bob McCoskrie and his ilk (though that’s a bonus).  It’s a way of showing them hey, you do NOT speak for the majority of New Zealanders, you do NOT speak for “normal” or “mainstream” or “middle” New Zealand, your ideas are BAD and you should FEEL bad.

Offensive pronoun choice: not just for the media

At Questioning Transphobia (hattip: Feministe), we find it isn’t just inept journalists who like to un-gender transfolk to fit their own versions of events, in the story of a Seattle transwoman attacked by a group of teens (oh, only after she solicited them for sex, trufax, all transwomen are hookers obvs).*

And while you may be thinking, “Oh, it’s yet another case of the media using “he” instead of “she” and “was born a male” and “birth name was xyz”", you’d be wrong.

This time it’s the police report.

The victim, in her 30s, told police “that as soon as the suspects got to him [sic], they started hitting and kicking him [sic] …” according to a police report.

…

“He [sic] also stated that he [sic] sometimes wears a skirt and he [sic] stated that he [sic] believes he [sic] was attacked because of this,” according to the heavily redacted report.

There are no convenient, condescending, harassment-minimizing narratives being imposed here at all.

*Which raises a somewhat obvious question, under what other circumstances would it be appropriate to violently gang up on someone who comes on to you?  Because I’ve been hit on by any number of people I’ve found offensive and repulsive, and I sure didn’t get to punish them with a beating.